1991-2019 Bqa Labor Law Revised

From Nth Time BAR CHALLENGER TO ATTORNEY
LABOR LAW for Bar Law for Dummies Training Program

ARRANGED AND SEQUENCED BAR QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS FROM 1991 TO 2019

MAIN TOOL NO. 1 (2ND OF 8 BAR SUBJECTS)
ARRANGED AND SEQUENCED

Page | 1
BASED ON THE MOST FREQUENTY ASKED TOPICS
1991 - 2019 BAR EXAMINATIONS
LABOR LAW
The questions for the 2019 Labor bar examinations are all recycled popular
topics of the past exams. WALANG BINAGO. PINAKA-MADALING SUBJECT NG
LAW AY ANG LABOR LAW.
After reading all the bar questions, I suggest you get any book on Labor.
Huwag na masyadong mahal na book. Kahit yung mga paper covered book. Scan
only the topics asked in the bar. Do not overload with information. Concentrate on
bar questions and read current events. I think if may new questions to come up
manggagaling ito sa security of tenure like yung contractualization.
Ok. Labor is very easy. Sanayin lang ninyo ang mga mata ninyo sa kakabasa
ng bar questions and answers and I am 100% sure na you would pass Labor Law.
Limited lang topics asked – TERMINATION, ILLEGAL DISMISSAL, STRIKE, DOLE
SECRETARY’S ASSUMPTION POWER, JURISDICTION, UNION SECURITY
CLAUSE, ULP AND ELECTION OF CBU. 90% ng BQA laging nasa mga topics na
yan. Very easy to locate them kasi topical yung approach natin.
I can’t imagine how many 2019 bar students spent as much as P100,000 sa
mga school materials, big books and centers. Ang kailangan lang naman is to
familiarize with bqas and a simple book to quick scan to pass the 2019bar. Kaya,
save your money, enjoy while studying smart for your bar exam.
THIS BAR REVIEW MATERIAL is composed of 285 pages. The sources used are UPLC, PALS, books
with BQAs and other materials that can be found in the internet. I just have the patience to ARRANGE them
based on the most asked topics from 1987 to 2019, and SEQUENCE them by year. Some answers were
paraphrased to suit the ALAC format and some were found to be so informative in lecture type answer and
better left out as they are. We are giving credits to the authors of those materials.
KINLDY REFER BAR QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS TO YOUR COLLEAGUES PARA GOOD VIVES.
BAR QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS 1991-2019

LABOR LAW
FIRST EDITION
SEPTEMBER 26, 2020
MANILA, PHILIPPINES
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
The ARRANGER is a humble partner to succeed in your quest for a law degree and to clinch the evasive “Attorney”
title to your name. He believes that no one has the monopoly of knowledge so you may email him for any correction,
modification and suggestion at barlawfordummies@gmail.com. Other law subjects will soon be available for 2020
Bar Exams. For orders visit FB Page: Law Reviewers, Books and Bookstand for Sale/OR TEXT 09325293595

TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES….3
II. RECRUITMENT AND PLACEMENT…9 Page | 2

III. LABOR STANDARDS…17
IV. POST-EMPLOYMENT…51
V. LABOR RELATIONS…146
VI. MANAGEMENT PREROGATIVE…206
VII. SOCIAL LEGISLATION…211
VIII. JURISDICTION AND RMEDIES…224
2019 BAR QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS…267
WHAT IS BAR LAW FOR DUMMIES…277

FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES
CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS ON LABOR
(2009) No. II. a. Enumerate at least four (4) policies enshrined in Section 3, Article XIII of the Constitution that are not covered
by Article 3 of the Labor Code on declaration of basic policy. (2%) Page | 3
Four (4) policies enshrined in Section 3, Article XIII of the 1987 Constitution which are not covered by Article 3 of the Labor
Code on declaration of basic policy are:
1. All workers shall have the right to peaceful concerted activities including the right to strike in accordance with the law
2. They shall be entitled to a living wage
3. They shall participate in policy and decision making processes affecting their rights and benefits as may be provided by
law.
4. The state shall promote the principle of shared responsibility between workers and employers.
(2008) No. I. b. Explain the extent of the workers right to participate in policy and decision- making process as provided under
Article XIII, Section 3 of the Philippine Constitution. Does it include membership in the Board of Directors of a corporation? (3%)
Under Art. XIII, Sec. 3 of the Constitution, the workers shall participate in policy and decision- making affecting their rights,
duties, welfare and benefits, through labor- management councils (See, Art. 211[g] and 255 of the Labor Code). The worker’s rights do
not include membership in the Board of Directors of a Corporation (See Meralco v. Meralco Employees, G.R. No. 127598, January 27,
1999).
(2007) No. I. a. What is the principle of codetermination? (5%)
The principle of codetermination is one which grants to the workers the right to participate in policy and decision making
processes affecting their rights and benefits. (Art. 255, Labor Code)
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
By the principle of codetermination, the workers have a right to participate in the decision making process of employers on
matters affecting their rights and benefits, through collective bargaining agreements, grievance machineries, voluntary modes of settling
disputes and conciliation proceedings mediated by government.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
Codetermination is a term identified with workers’ participation in the determination of business policy. Under the German
model, the most common form of codetermination, employees of some firms are allocated control rights by law, in the form of board
seats. It is based on the conviction that democratic legitimacy cannot be confined to government but must apply to all sectors of society.
Besides corporate control rights, the German system deals with dual channels of representation of employees by unions (at the industry-
wide, and microeconomic level) and works councils (at the firm level).
(2009) No. XII. In her State of the Nation Address, the President stressed the need to provide an investor-friendly business
environment so that the country can compete in the global economy that now suffers from a crisis bordering on recession. Responding
to the call, Congress passed two innovative legislative measures, namely: (1) a law abolishing the security of tenure clause in the Labor
Code; and (2) a law allowing contractualization in all areas needed in the employer’s business operations. However, to soften the
impact of these new measures, the law requires that all employers shall obtain mandatory unemployment insurance coverage for all their
employees.

The constitutionality of the two (2) laws is challenged in court. As judge, how will you rule?
The first innovative measure, on abolition of the security of tenure clause in the Labor Code, is security of tenure clause in the
Labor Code, is unconstitutional as it goes against the entitlement of workers to security of tenure under Section 3, Article XIII of the 1987
Constitution.
Page | 4
The second innovation measure, on a law allowing contractualization in all areas needed in the employer’s business
operations, is legal. Article 106 of the Labor Code already allows the Secretary of labor and Employment not to make appropriate
distinction between labor- only and job contracting. This means that the Secretary may decide, through implementing regulation,
arrangement where the person supplying workers to an employer does not have substantial capital or investment in the form of tools,
equipment, machineries, work premises, among others, and the workers recruited and place by such person are performing activities
which are directly related to the principal business of the employer.
Hence, it would be legal for Congress to do any with the prohibition on labor-only contracting and allow contractualization in
all areas needed in the employer’s business operations. Assuming, of course, that contractual workers are guaranteed their security of
tenure.
(1998) What are the salient features of the protection to labor provision of the Constitution?
The salient features of the Protection to Labor provision of the Constitution (Article XIII. Section 3) are as follows:
1. Extent of Protection - Full protection to labor;

2. Coverage of Protection - Local and overseas, organized and unorganized;
3. Employment Policy - Full employment and equality of employment opportunities for all;
4. Guarantees Unionism and Method of Determination Conditions of Employment - Right of all workers to self-organization,
collective bargaining and negotiations.
5. Concerted Activities - Right to engage in peaceful concerted activities, including the right to strike in accordance with law.
6. Working Conditions - Right to security of tenure, humane conditions of work and a living wage.
7. Decision Making Processes - Right to participate in policy and decision making processes affecting their rights and benefits
8. Share in Fruits of production - Recognition of right of labor to its just share in fruits of production.
ANOTHER SUGGESTED ANSWER:

The Constitution (In Article XIII, Section 3) provides that the State shall afford protection to labor, local and overseas, organized
and unorganized. The State shall afford protection to labor by promoting full employment and equality of employment opportunities for
all. Workers are entitled to security of tenure, humane conditions of work and a living wage. The State shall guarantee the right of all
workers to self-organization, collective bargaining and negotiations, and peaceful concerted activities, including the right to strike, in
accordance with law.
Workers shall also participate in policy and decision making processes affecting their rights and benefits as may be provided
by law. The State shall promote the principle of shared responsibility between workers and employers and the preferential use of voluntary
modes in settling labor disputes, including conciliation, and shall enforce mutual compliance therewith to foster industrial peace. The
State shall regulate the relations between workers and employers, recognizing the right of labor to its just share in the fruits of production
and the right of enterprises to reasonable returns on investments, and to expansion and growth.
LEGISLATION AND INTERPRETATION OF LABOR LAWS
(2017) Procopio was dismissed from employment for stealing his co-employee Raul’s watch. Procopio filed a complaint for
illegal dismissal. The Labor Arbiter ruled in Procopio’s favor on the ground that Raul’s testimony was doubtful, and, therefore, the doubt
should be resolved in favor of Procopio. On appeal, the NLRC reversed the ruling because Article 4 of the Labor Code – which states

that all doubts in the interpretation and implementation of the provisions of the Labor Code, including the implementing rules and
regulations, shall be resolved in favor of labor – applied only when the doubt involved the “implementation and interpretation” of the Labor
Code; hence, the doubt, which involved the application of the rules on evidence, not the Labor Code, could not necessarily be resolved
in favor of Procopio. Was the reversal correct? Explain your answer. (3%)
In Peñaflor v. Outdoor Clothing Manufacturing, G.R. No. 177114, January 21, 2010, the Supreme Court explained the
Page | 5
application of Article 4 of the Labor Code regarding doubts on respondent’s evidence on the voluntariness of petitioner’s resignation.
Thus, the High Court said:
Another basic principle is that expressed in Article 4 of the Labor Code – that all doubts in the interpretation and implementation
of the Labor Code should be interpreted in favor of the workingman. This principle has been extended by jurisprudence to cover doubts
in the evidence presented by the employer and the employee. (Fujitsu Computer Products Corporation of the Philippines v. Court of
Appeals, 494 Phil. 697 [2005]) As shown above, Peñaflor has, at very least, shown serious doubts about the merits of the company’s
case, particularly in the appreciation of the clinching evidence on which the NLRC and CA decisions were based. In such contest of
evidence, the cited Article 4 compels us to rule in Peñaflor’s favor. Thus, we find that Peñaflor was constructively dismissed given the
hostile and discriminatory working environment he found himself in, particularly evidenced by the escalating acts of unfairness against
him that culminated in the appointment of another HRD manager without any prior notice to him. Where no less than the company’s chief
corporate officer was against him, Peñaflor had no alternative but to resign from his employment. (Unicorm Safety Glass, Inc. v. Basarte,
486 Phil. 493 [2004])
(2009) No. II. b. Clarito, an employee of Juan, was dismissed for allegedly stealing Juan’s wristwatch. In the illegal dismissal
case instituted by Clarito, the Labor Arbiter, citing Article 4 of the Labor Code, ruled in favor of Clarito upon finding Juan’s testimony
doubtful. On appeal, the NLRC reversed the Labor Arbiter holding that Article 4 applies only when the doubt involves "implementation
and interpretation" of the Labor Code provisions. The NLRC explained that the doubt may not necessarily be resolved in favor of labor
since this case involves the application of the Rules on Evidence, not the Labor Code. Is the NLRC correct? Reasons. (3%)
The NLRC is not correct. It is well settled doctrine that if doubts exist between the evidence presented by the employer and
the employee, the scale of justice must be tilted in favor of the latter. It is a time honored rule that in controversies between labor and the
employee, doubts necessarily arising from the evidence, or in the implementation of the agreement and writing should be resolved in
favor of the labor.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
No, the NLRC is not correct. Article 221 of the Labor Code read: ―In any proceeding before the Commission….the rules
of evidence prevailing in Courts of law….shall not be controlling and it is the spirit and intention of this Code that the Commission
and its members and the Labor Arbiters shall use every and reasonable means to ascertain the facts in each case speedily and objectively
without regard to technicalities of law and procedure, all in the interest of due process.‖ The question of doubt is not important in this
case.
(1998) Article 4 of the Labor Code provides that in case of doubt in the implementation and interpretation of the provisions of
the Code and its Implementing Rules and Regulations, the doubt shall be resolved in favor of labor. Article 1702 of the Civil Code also
provides that in case of doubt, all labor legislation and all labor contracts shall be construed in favor of the safety and decent living for
the laborer.
Mica-Mara company assails the validity of these statutes on the ground that they violate its constitutional right to equal
protection of the laws. Is the contention of Mica Mara Company tenable? Discuss fully.
No, the Constitution provides that the state shall afford full protection to labor. Furthermore, the State affirms labor as a primary
economic force. It shall protect the rights of workers and promote their welfare.

ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
No, because a law which promotes a constitutional mandate does not violate the equal protection clause. The constitutional
mandate is for the State to afford full protection to labor such that, when conflicting interests of labor and capital are to be weighed on
the scales of justice, the heavier influence of the latter should be counter-balanced by the sympathy the law should accord the
underprivileged.
The contention of Mica-Mara Company is not tenable. The constitutional right to equal protection of the laws is not violated by
Page | 6
reasonable classification. Thus, it is constitutionally possible to treat workers differently from employers.
The social justice principle embodied in the Constitution could be the basis for treating workers more favorably than employers,
in the implementation and interpretation of the provisions of the Labor Code and of its implementing rules and regulations.
(2006) What is the concept of liberal approach in interpreting the Labor Code and its Implementing Rules and Regulations in
favor of labor? (2.5%)
The workers' welfare should be the paramount consideration in interpreting the Labor Code and its Implementing Rules and
Regulations. This is rooted in the Constitutional mandate to afford full protection to labor. Article 4 of the Labor Code provides that "all
doubts in the implementation and interpretation of the provisions of the Labor Code including its implementing rules and regulations shall
be resolved in favor of labor" (PLOT v. NLRC, G.R No. 111933, July 23,1997). It underscores the policy of social justice to accommodate
the interests of the working class on the humane justification that those who have less in life shall have more in law (PAL v. Santos, G.R.
No. 77875, February 4, 1993).
(2006) What is the purpose of labor legislation? (2.5%)
Labor legislation is an exercise of police power. The purpose of labor legislation is to regulate the relations between employers
and employees respecting the terms and conditions of employment, either by providing for certain standards or for a legal framework
within which better terms and conditions of work could be negotiated through collective bargaining. It is intended to correct the injustices
inherent in employer-employee relationship.
(1997) Differentiate labor standards law from labor relations law. Are the two mutually exclusive?
LABOR STANDARDS law is that labor law which prescribes terms and conditions of employment like Book in Book IV, Title
I and Book VI of the Labor Code. These Books of the Labor Code deal with working conditions, wages, working conditions for women,
minors, house helpers and home-workers, medical and dental services, occupational health and safety, termination and retirement. On
the other hand, LABOR RELATIONS law is that labor law which regulates the relations between employers and workers like Book V of
the Labor Code which deals with labor organizations, collective bargaining, unfair labor practices and strikes and lockouts.
Labor standards laws and labor relations laws are not mutually exclusive; they are complement to each other. Thus, the law
on strikes and lockouts which is an example of labor relations law includes some provisions on the security of tenure of workers who go
on strike or who are locked out. These provisions are examples of labor standards law.
(2003) How do the provisions of the law on labor relations interrelate, if at all, with the provisions pertaining to labor standards?
LABOR RELATIONS law focuses its provisions on the collective aspects of employer-employee relationship. Its legal
provisions deal with employees organizing unions and how through these unions, employees are able to have collective bargaining with
their employer. On the other hand, LABOR STANDARDS law focuses on the terms and conditions of employment of employees as
individual employees or those legal provisions dealing with wages, hours of work and other terms and conditions of employment.

There may be instances when the provisions of labor relations law may interrelate with provisions of labor standards law.
Thus, a CBA which is dealt with in labor relations law may have provisions that improves upon the minimum terms and conditions of
employment prescribed in labor standards law, like a CBA providing for a higher minimum wage, or for the computation of a higher
overtime pay or the payment of holiday pay not only for regular holidays but also for certain special holidays.
(1995) What are the three (3) general classifications of labor statutes? Describe and give an example of each classification.
Page | 7
The three (3) general classifications of labor statutes are:
LABOR RELATIONS Laws are those labor statutes that deal with the relations of labor and management, like the laws on
unions, collective bargaining, unfair labor practices, strikes, lockouts and picketing.
LABOR STANDARDS are those labor statutes that prescribe standards relating to terms and conditions of employment for
compliance by employers, like the laws on hours of work, weekly rest periods, holiday pay, wages, and laws dealing with women, minors,
house-helpers, and industrial home-workers.
SOCIAL SECURITY Laws are those labor statutes that provide protection not only to a worker but also to members of his
family in case of loss of income or when there is need for medical care brought about by contingencies like sickness, disability, death,
and old age. Examples of social security laws are the Social Security Law, Revised Government Service Insurance Act, the Articles of
the Labor Code on Employees Compensation, the State Insurance Fund, and the National Health Insurance Act.
(1994) Is there any distinction between labor legislation and social legislation? Explain.
LABOR LEGISLATION is sometimes distinguished from social legislation by the former referring to labor statutes, like Labor
Relations Law and Labor Standards, and the latter to Social Security Laws. Labor legislation focuses on the rights of the worker in the
workplace. SOCIAL LEGISLATION is a broad term and may include not only laws that give social security protection, but also those that
help the worker secure housing and basic necessities. The Comprehensive Agrarian Reform law could also be considered a social
legislation.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
Yes. Labor Legislation is limited in scope, and deals basically with the rights and duties of employees and employers. Social
Legislation is more encompassing and includes such subjects as agrarian relations, housing and human settlement, protection of women
and children, etc. All labor laws are social legislation, but not all social legislation is labor law.
RIGHTS OF EMPLOYER AND EMPLOYEE
(2006) What property right is conferred upon an employee once there is an employer-employee relationship? Discuss briefly.
His employment is not merely a contractual relationship. One's employment is a property right within the mantle of
constitutional protection (Callanta v. Carnation Phil., No. L-70615, October 28, 1986). Hence, the employee enjoys security of tenure and
he cannot be dismissed except for cause and only after due process. The worker is thus protected and insulated against any arbitrary
deprivation of his job (Philips Semi Conductors [Phils.] v. Fadriquela, G.R. No. 141717, April 14, 2004).
(1996) What are the rights of an employer and an employee?
The Constitution in Art. XIII, Section 3 provides for the following rights of employers and employees:
A. Employers Right to a reasonable return on investments, and to expansion and growth.

B. Employees right to a just share in the fruits of production; self-organization, collective bargaining and negotiations and
peaceful concerted activities, including the right to strike in accordance with law; security of tenure, humane conditions of work, and a
living wage; and participate in policy and decision-making processes affecting their rights and benefits as may be provided by law,
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
In an employer-employee relationship, it is the right of the employer to use the services of an employee who is under his Page | 8
(employer's) orders as regards the employment. On the other hand, it is the right of the employee to receive compensation for the services
he renders for the employer.
INJUNCTION IN LABOR CASES
(2000) Professor Juan dela Cruz, an author of the textbook Commentaries on the Labor Code of the Philippines, citing an
American case, wrote: It is said that the prohibition against the issuance of a writ of injunction in labor cases creates substantive and not
purely procedural law." Is there any statutory basis for the statement/comment under Philippine law? (5%)
Yes. The statutory basis is Article 254 of the Labor Code. It prohibits issuance of injunction, as a matter of policy, to resolve
disputes except as otherwise provided in Articles 218 and 264 of the Labor Code. [Caltex Filipino Managers and Supervisors Association
v. CZR, 44 SCRA 350 (1972)]
SOCIAL JUSTICE AS GUIDING PRINCIPLES IN LABOR
(2003) May social justice as a guiding principle in labor law be so used by the courts in sympathy with the working man if it
collides with the equal protection clause of the Constitution? Explain. 5%
Yes. The State is bound under the Constitution to afford full protection to Labor; and when conflicting interests collide and
they are to be weighed on the scales of social justice, the law should accord more sympathy and compassion to the less privileged
workingman. (Fuentes v. NLRC. 266 SCRA 24 f 19971) However, it should be borne in mind that social justice ceases to be an effective
instrument for the "equalization of the social and economic forces" by the State when it is used to shield wrongdoing. (Corazon Jamer v.
NLRC. 278 SCRA 632)
ANOTHER ANSWER:
No, social justice as a guiding principle in law may not be used by the courts if it collides with the equal protection clause of
the Constitution. Social justice is not a magic wand applicable in all circumstances. Not all labor cases will be automatically decided in
favor of the worker. Management has also rights which are entitled to recognition and protection; justice must be dispensed according to
facts and law; and social justice is not designed to destroy or oppress the employer.
ANOTHER ANSWER:
Social justice as a guiding principle in Labor Law can be implemented side by side with the equal protection clause of the
Constitution. In implementation of the principle of social justice, the Constitution commands that the State shall afford protection to labor.
Thus, Labor Law may be pro-labor in the sense that labor is given certain benefits not given to management. But this is not necessarily
violative of the equal protection clause of the Constitution because said clause allows reasonable classification.

RECRUITMENT AND PLACEMENT
ALIEN EMPLOYMENT
(2017) Phil, a resident alien, sought employment in the Philippines. The employer, noticing that Phil was a foreigner,
demanded that eh first secures an employment permit from the DOLE. Is the employer correct? Explain your answer. (2.5%)
Page | 9
The employer is not correct. According to Section 2, Department Order No. 97-09 Series of 2009, issued on August 26, 2009
[Revised Rules for the Issuance of Employment Permits to Foreign Nationals] one of the foreign nationals that are exempt from securing
an employment permit is a permanent resident foreign nationals, probationary or temporary visa holders. Moreover, the Labor Code
speaks of non-resident aliens that are required to obtain an alien employment permit.
(2007) AB, a non-resident American, seeks entry to the country to work as Vice-President of a local telecommunications
company. You are with the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE). What permit, if any, can the DOLE issue so that AB can
assume as Vice-President in the telecommunications company? Discuss fully. (5%)
The Labor Code provides that any alien seeking admission to the Philippine for employment purposes and any domestic or
foreign employer who desires to engage an alien for employment in the Philippines shall obtain an employment permit from the
Department of Labor. The employment permit may be issued to a non-resident alien or to the applicant employer after a determination
of the non-availability of a person in the Philippines who is competent, able and willing at the time of application to perform the services
for which the alien is desired.
Thus, AB (or Telecommunication company) should be issued the above-mentioned alien employment permit so that AB can
assume as Vice President of the Telecommunication Company.
(1995) Phil-Norksgard Company, Inc., a domestic corporation engaged in the optics business, imported from Sweden highly
sophisticated and sensitive instruments for its laboratory. To install the instruments and operate them, the company intends to employ
Borja Anders, a Swedish technician sojourning as a tourist in the Philippines. As lawyer of the company, what measures will you take to
ensure the legitimate employment of Borja Anders and at the same time protect Philippine labor. Discuss fully.
To ensure the legitimate employment of Borja Anders, a non-resident alien, I will apply at the Department of Labor and
Employment for the issuance of an employment permit claiming that there is no one in the Philippines who can do the work that Anders
is being asked to do.
At the same time, to protect Philippine labor, I will see to it that Anders will have an understudy who will learn, by working with
Anders, how to install and operate the highly sophisticated and sensitive instruments from Sweden.
ILLEGAL RECRUITMENT
(2017) As a rule, direct hiring of migrant workers is not allowed. What are the exceptions? Explain your answer.
The exceptions are:
1. Direct hiring by members of the diplomatic organizations, international organizations, heads of the state and government
officials with the drank of at least deputy minister, and such other employers as maybe allowed by the Secretary of Labor. The reasons
for the ban on direct hiring are:

A. A worker hired directly by a foreign employer without government intervention may not be assured of the best possible
terms and conditions of employment.
B. A foreign employer must also be protected. Without the intervention of the government, the foreign employer might also be
entering into a contract with a Filipino who is not qualified for the job.
C. The mandatory requirement for remittance to the Philippines of a portion of the worker’s foreign exchange earnings can
easily be evaded by the worker.
Page | 10
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER
Direct Hires are workers directly hired by employers for overseas employment as authorized by the Secretary of Labor and
Employment and processed by the POEA, including:
1. Those hired by international organizations

2. Those hired members of the diplomatic corps.
3. Name hires or workers who are able to secure overseas employment opportunity with an employer without the assistance
or participation of any agency. [Labor Code, POEA Rules] (Section 1(i), Rule II, Omnibus Rules and Regulations Implementing The
Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995 as amended by Republic Act No. 10022). The direct hires are exceptions to the ban
on direct-hiring under Article 18 of the Labor Code.
(2015) Rocket Corporation is a domestic corporation registered with the SEC, with 30% of its authorized capital stock owned
by foreigners and 70% of its authorized capital stock owned by Filipinos. Is Rocket Corporation allowed to engage in the recruitment and
placement of workers, locally and overseas? Briefly state the basis for your answer. (2%)
No. Foreign ownership of a corporation engaged in recruitment, whether local or overseas is limited to 25% (Art. 27, PD 442,
as amended).
When does the recruitment of workers become an act of economic sabotage? (2%)
The recruitment of workers becomes economic sabotage when:

1. Committed by a syndicate, i.e., by three or more persons acting in conspiracy with one another; and
2. Committed in large scale i.e., against three or more persons, whether dealt with individually or as a group (Art. 38, PD 442,
as amended).
(2010) As a general rule, direct hiring of Overseas Filipino Workers (OFWs) is not allowed.
True, Art. 18 of the Labor Code provides that no employer may hire a Filipino worker for overseas employment except through
the Boards and entities authorized by the Department of Labor and Employment. (DOLE) except direct hiring by members of the
diplomatic corps, international organizations and such other employers as may be allowed by the DOLE.
(2010) On December 12, 2008, A signed a contract to be part of the crew of ABC Cruises, Inc. through its Philippine manning
agency XYZ. Under the standard employment contract of the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA), his employment
was to commence upon his actual departure from the port in the point of hire, Manila, from where he would take a flight to the USA to
join the cruise ship “MS Carnegie.” However, more than three months after A secured his exit clearance from the POEA for his supposed
departure on January 15, 2009, XYZ still had not deployed him for no valid reason. Is A entitled to relief? Explain. (3%)
Yes, even if no departure took place, the contract of employment has already been perfected which creates certain rights and
obligations, the breach of which may give rise to a cause of action against the erring party.

A can file a complaint for Recruitment Violation for XYZ‘s failure to deploy him within the prescribed period without any valid
reason, a ground for the imposition of administrative sanctions against XYZ under Section 2, Rule I, Part V of the 2003 POEA Rules of
Employment of Seafarers. At the same time, A can file for illegal recruitment under Section 6(L) of Rep. Act No 8042 (cf: Section 11 Rule
I, Part V of the 2003 POEA Rules on Employment of Seafarers).
A may file a complaint for breach of contract, and claim damages therefor before the NLRC, despite absence of employer-
employee relationship. Section 10 of Rep. Act No 8042 conferred jurisdiction on the Labor Arbiter not only claims arising out of E-ER, but
Page | 11
also by virtue of any law or contract involving Filipino workers for overseas deployment including claims for actual, moral, exemplary and
other forms of damages. (Santiago v. CF Sharp Crew Management, 527 SCRA 165 [2007]).
(This is important as an exception to the rule on the jurisdiction of the Labor Arbiter. This is also a ranking purposes questions)
(2010) A was approached for possible overseas deployment to Dubai by X, an interviewer of job applicants for Alpha
Personnel Services, Inc., an overseas recruitment agency. X required A to submit certain documents (passport, NBI clearance, medical
certificate) and to pay P 25,000 as processing fee. Upon payment of the said amount to the agency cashier, A was advised to wait for
his visa. After five months, A visited the office of Alpha Personnel Services, Inc. during which X told him that he could no longer be
deployed for employment abroad. A was informed by the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA) that while Alpha
Personnel Services, Inc. was a licensed agency, X 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. May X
be held criminally liable for illegal recruitment? Explain.
(This is “for ranking purposes question”)
No, X performed his work with the knowledge that he works for a licensed recruitment agency. He is in no position to know
that the officers of said recruitment agency failed to register him as its personnel (People v. Chowdury, 325 SCRA 572 [2000]). The fault
not being attributable to him, he may be considered to have apparent authority to represent Alpha in recruitment for overseas employment.
May the officers having control, management or direction of Alpha Personnel Services, Inc. be held criminally liable for illegal
recruitment? Explain.
Yes, Alpha, being a licensed recruitment agency, still has obligation to A for processing his papers for overseas employment.
Under Section 6(m) of Rep. Act. No. 8042, failure to reimburse expenses incurred by the worker in connection with his documentation
and processing for purposes of deployment, in cases where the deployment does not actually take place without the worker‘s fault,
amounts to illegal recruitment.
(2007) Discuss the types of illegal recruitment under the Labor Code. (5%)
Under the Labor Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 8042 otherwise known as the Overseas Filipinos and Migrant Workers
Act of 1998, there are two types of illegal recruitment , particularly simple illegal recruitment and illegal recruitment which is considered
as an offense involving economic sabotage. Illegal recruitment as an offense involving economic sabotage is committed under the
following qualifying circumstances, to wit:
When illegal recruitment is committed by a syndicate, that is when it is carried out by a group of three (3) or more persons
conspiring and/or confederating with one another; or when illegal recruitment is committed in large scale that is when it is committed
against three (3) or more persons whether individually or as a group.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
Under the Labor Code, illegal recruitment refers to any recruitment activity undertaken by non-licensees or non-holders of
authority. It includes the acts of canvassing, enlisting, contracting, transporting, utilizing, hiring, procuring, referrals, contract services and
advertising (Art. 13(b), Arts. 34 & 38, Labor Code).

The following prohibited acts are also considered acts of illegal recruitment when undertaken by non-licensees or non-holders
of authority:
1. Charging or accepting directly or indirectly, any amount greater than that specified in the schedule of allowable fees
prescribed by the Secretary of Labor, or to make a worker pay any amount greater than that actually received by him as a loan or
advance;
Page | 12
2. Furnishing or publishing any false notice or information or document in relation to recruitment or employment;
3. Giving any false notice, testimony, information or document or commit any act of misrepresentation for the purpose of
securing a license or authority under this Code;
4. Inducing or attempting to induce a worker already employed to quit his employment in order to offer him to another unless
the transfer is designed to liberate the worker from oppressive terms and conditions of employment;
5. Influencing or to attempting to influence any person or entity not to employ any worker who has not applied for employment
through his agency;
6. Engaging in the recruitment or placement of workers in jobs harmful to public health or morality or to the dignity of the
Republic of the Philippines;
7. Obstructing or attempting to obstruct inspection by the Secretary of Labor or by his duly authorized representative;
8. Failing to file reports on the status of employment, placement vacancies, remittance of foreign exchange earnings,
separation from jobs, departures and such other matters or information as may be required by the secretary of labor;
Becoming an officer or member of the Board of any corporation engaged in travel agency or to be engaged direct or indirectly in the
management of a travel agency; and
9. Withholding or denying travel documents from applicant workers before departure for monetary or financial considerations
other that those authorized under this code and implementing rules and regulations. (RA 8042, Migrant Workers & Oversees Filipino Act
of 1995)
(2007) In initiating actions against alleged illegal recruiters, may the Secretary of Labor and Employment issue search and
arrest warrants? (5%)
(This is for ranking purposes questions)
No, under the 1987 Constitution, only judges may issue warrants of arrest or search warrant.
(2007) Cite five grounds for disciplinary action by the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA) against
overseas workers.
Under the Section 1(A) and (B), Rule III, Part VII of the 2002 POEA Rules and Regulations Governing the Recruitment and
Employment of the Land-based Overseas Workers, the following are the grounds for disciplinary action against overseas workers:
Pre-employment Offenses
1. Using, providing, or submitting false information or documents for purposes of job application or employment;
2. Unjustified refusal to depart for the worksite after all employment and travel documents have been duly approved by the
appropriate government agencies.
Offenses during Employment

1. Commission of a felony or a crime punishable by Philippine Laws or by the laws of the host country;
2. Unjustified breach of employment contract;
3. Embezzlement of company funds or monies and/or properties of a fellow worker entrusted for delivery to kin or relatives in
the Philippines; and
4. Violation/s sacred practice of the host country.

Further, under Section 1(A) and (B), Rule II, Part VI of the 2003 Rules and Regulations Governing the Recruitment and
Employment of Seafarers, the following are the grounds for disciplinary action against seafarers:
Pre-employment Offenses
1. Submission/furnishing or using false information or documents or any form of misappropriation for the purpose of job
application or employment;
2. Unjust refusal to join ship after all employment and documents have been duly approved by the appropriate government
Page | 13
agencies.
Offenses During Employment

1. Smuggling or violation of any custom rules and regulations of the Philippines and foreign port;
2. Desertion;
3. Absence without leave;
4. Sleeping on post while on duty;
5. Insubordination;
6. Drunkenness;
7. Creating trouble outside the vessel’s premises;
8. Gambling;
9. Violation of company policies and regulations;
10. Incompetency and inefficiency;
11. Inciting mutiny, malicious destruction of ship’s property or any activity which will hamper
the efficient operation of the vessel;
12. Concerted action to breach approved contracts;
13. Any activity which tends to destroy harmonious relationship of the company;
14. Grave abuse of authority;
15. Other gross misbehaviors prejudicial to good order and discipline;
16. Negligence causing damage, loss, spoilage or deterioration of vessel‘s stocks and
property;
17. Connivance with or cuddling of stowaway;
18. Willfully making false statements, reports, certification or spurious seafarer‘s documents
for personal gain with or with intent to misled or defraud the company;
19. Any other case as to cast aspersion on the good name of the company and vessel;
20. Violation of safety and environmental rules/regulations; and
21. Failure to observe the drug and alcohol policy of that company.
(2004) Concerned Filipino contract workers in the Middle East reported to the Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA) that XYZ,
a private recruitment and placement agency, is covertly transporting extremists to terrorist training camps abroad. Intelligence agencies
of the government allegedly confirmed the report.
Upon being alerted by the DFA, the Department of Labor and Employment issued orders cancelling the licenses of XYZ, and
imposing an immediate travel ban on its recruits for the Middle East. XYZ appealed to the Office of the President to reverse and set aside
the DOLE orders, citing damages from loss of employment of its recruits, and violations of due process including lack of notice and
hearing by DOLE. The DOLE in its answer claimed the existence of an emergency in the Middle East which required prompt measures
to protect the life and limb of OFWs from a clear and present danger posed by the ongoing war against terrorism.
Should the DOLE orders be upheld or set aside? (5%)
The DOLE order cancelling the licenses of XYZ is void because a report that an agency is covertly transporting extremists is not a valid
ground for cancellation of a Certificate of Registration (Art. 239, Labor Code) and there is failure of due process as no hearing was conducted prior to the
cancellation (Art. 238, Labor Code).

The DOLE order imposing the travel ban is valid because it is a valid exercise of police power to protect the national interest (Sec. 3, Art. XIII,
Constitution on full protection to labor safety of workers) and on the rule making authority of the Secretary of Labor (Art. 5, Labor Code; Phil. Assn. of
Service Exporters v. Drilon, 163 SCRA 386 11988]).\
ANOTHER ANSWER:
The DOLE orders should be set aside. It is true that the Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act, particularly its Section 5, could be the Page | 14
basis of the power of DOLE to effect a ban on the deployment of OFWs by XYZ. If the ban, however, is for the purpose of preventing XYZ from transporting
extremists to terrorist training camps abroad, this is a police and national security problem better dealt with by the police or the Office of the National
Security Adviser.
More importantly, the cancellation of the license of XYZ requires notice and hearing. Absent such notice and hearing, the order of cancellation
of the Secretary of Labor and Employment is null and void because of the denial of due process.
UPLC answer is wrong. Article 239 and 238 are about cancellation of registration of labor organizations. Kaya this question is
for ranking purposes. Mahirap na tanong kahit UP nagkamali pa hahahaha. This is my answer.
The DOLE order should be upheld. Under Article 35 of the Labor Code, the Minister of Labor shall have the power to suspend
or cancel ay license or authority to recruit employees for overseas employment for violation of rules and regulations issued by the Ministry
of Labor, the Overseas Employment Development Board, or for violation of the provisions of this and other applicable laws, General
Orders and Letter of Instructions.
Here, XYZ Recruitment agency is transporting terrorists overseas as confirmed by intelligence report of the Department of
Foreign Affairs. That is one of the prohibited acts under Article 34 (f), to engage in the recruitment or placement of workers in jobs harmful
to public health, or morality, or to dignity of the Philippines. Hence, the DOLE order is valid.
The issue on due process can be set-aside due to the exigency of the circumstances to protect the life of the OFWs from a
clear and present danger posed by the ongoing war against terrorism.
(2005) (1) During the open forum following your lecture to a group of managers and HRD personnel, you were asked the
following questions:
(a) What qualifying circumstances will convert "illegal recruitment" to "economic sabotage," thus subjecting its perpetrator or
perpetrators to a penalty of life imprisonment and a fine of at least P500,000.00? Please explain your answer briefly. (3%)
Under Article 38(b) of the Labor Code, as amended by P.D. No. 2018, it provides that illegal recruitment shall be considered
an offense involving economic sabotage if any of the following qualifying circumstances exists:
(1) When illegal recruitment is committed by a SYNDICATE, requiring three or more persons who conspire or confederate
with one another in carrying out any unlawful or illegal transaction, enterprise or scheme;
(2) When illegal recruitment is committed in a LARGE SCALE, as when it is committed against three or more persons
individually or as a group. (People v. Navarra, G.R. No. 119361, February 19, 2001; See also Sec. 6 of R.A. No. 8042)
(2002) When is illegal recruitment considered a crime of economic sabotage? Explain briefly.
According to Art. 38 of the Labor Code, illegal recruitment is considered a crime of economic sabotage when committed by a
syndicate or in large scale. Illegal recruitment is deemed committed by a syndicate if carried out by a group of three (3) or more persons
conspiring and/or confederating with one another in carrying out any unlawful or illegal transaction, enterprise or scheme which is an act
of illegal recruitment. Illegal recruitment is deemed committed in large scale if committed against three (3) or more persons individually
or as a group.

(2005) Maryrose Ganda's application for the renewal other license to recruit workers for overseas employment was still
pending with the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA). Nevertheless, she recruited Alma and her three sisters, Ana,
Joan, and Mavic, for employment as housemates in Saudi Arabia. Maryrose represented to the sisters that she had a license to recruit
workers for overseas employment. Maryrose also demanded and received P30,000.00 from each of them for her services. However,
Maryrose's application for the renewal of her license was denied, and consequently failed to employ the four sisters in Saudi Arabia.
Page | 15
The sisters charged Maryrose with large scale illegal recruitment. Testifying in her defense, Maryrose declared that she acted
in good faith because she believed that her application for the renewal of her license would be approved. Maryrose adduced in evidence
the Affidavits of Desistance which the four private complainants had executed after the prosecution rested its case. In the said affidavits,
they acknowledge receipt of the refund by Maryrose of the total amount of P120,000.00 and indicated that they were no longer interested
to pursue the case against Maryrose. Resolve the case with reasons. (5%)
Illegal recruitment is defined by law as any recruitment activities undertaken by non-licenses or non-holders of authority.
(People v. Senoron, G.R. No. 119160, January 30,1997) And it is large scale illegal recruitment when the offense is committed against 3
or more persons, individually or as a group. (Article 38[b], Labor Code)
In view of the above, Maryrose is guilty of large scale illegal recruitment. Her defense of good faith and the Affidavit of
Desistance as well as the refund given will not save her because R.A. No. 8042 is a special law, and illegal recruitment is malum
prohibitum. (People v. Saulo, G.R. No. 125903, November 15, 2000)
(1998) A Recruitment and Placement Agency declared voluntary bankruptcy. Among its assets is its license to engage in
business. Is the license of the bankrupt agency an asset which can be sold in public auction by the liquidator? [5%]
No, because of the non-transferability of the license to engage in recruitment and placement. The Labor Code (in Article 29)
provides that no license to engage in recruitment and placement shall be used directly or indirectly by any person other than the one in
whose favor it was issued nor may such license be transferred, conveyed or assigned to any other person or entity.
It may be noted that the grant of a license is a governmental act by the Department of Labor and Employment based on
personal qualifications, and citizenship and capitalization requirements. (Arts. 27-28, Labor Code)
(2002) Is a corporation, seventy percent (70%) of the authorized and voting capital of which is owned and controlled by
Filipino citizens, allowed to engage in the recruitment and placement of workers, locally or overseas? Explain briefly.
No. A corporation, seventy percent (70%) of the authorized and voting capital stock of which is owned and controlled by
Filipino citizens cannot be permitted to participate in the recruitment and placement of workers, locally or overseas, because Art 27 of
the Labor Code requires at least seventy- five percent (75%).
(2006) Wonder Travel and Tours Agency (WTTA) is a well-known travel agency and an authorized sales agent of the
Philippine Air Lines. Since majority of its passengers are overseas workers, WTTA applied for a license for recruitment and placement
activities. It stated in its application that its purpose is not for profit but to help Filipinos find employment abroad. Should the application
be approved? (5%)
The application should be disapproved, as it is prohibited by Article 26 of the Labor Code, to wit: "Article 26. Travel agencies
and sales agencies of airline companies are prohibited from engaging in the business of recruitment and placement of workers for
overseas employment whether for profit or not."
Rule I, Part II POEA Rules and Regulations Governing the Recruitment and Employment of Land-Based Workers (2002)
disqualifies any entity having common director or owner of travel agencies and sales agencies of airlines, including any business entity
from the recruitment and placement of Filipino workers overseas, whether they derive profit or not.

ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
No. Section 6 of RA No. 8042 considers the following act as illegal recruitment: "(j) For an officer or agent of a recruitment
agency to become an officer or member of the Board of any corporation engaged in travel agency or to engage directly or indirectly in
the management of a travel agency." The law considers the operation of travel agencies and recruitment agencies as incompatible
activities.
Page | 16
OVERSEAS EMPLOYMENT: MANDATORY REMITTANCE
(2006) Can an overseas worker refuse to remit his earnings to his dependents and deposit the same in the country where he
works to gain more interests? Explain. (5%)
NO. Art. 22 of the Labor Code provides that it shall be mandatory for all Filipino workers abroad to remit a portion of their
foreign exchange earnings to their families, dependents, and/or beneficiaries in accordance with the rules and regulations prescribed by
the Secretary of Labor and Employment. Executive Order No. 857 prescribes the percentage of foreign exchange remittance from 50%
to 80% of the basic salary, depending on the worker's kind of job.
Hence, an overseas worker cannot refuse to remit his earnings. Otherwise, he shall be suspended or excluded from the list
of eligible workers for overseas employment and in cases of subsequent violations; he shall be repatriated at his own expense or at the
expense of his employer as the case may be.
SOLIDARY LIABILITY
(2009) Mr. A signed a one (1)-year contract with XYZ Recruitment Co. for deployment as welding supervisor for DEF, Inc. located
in Dubai. The employment contract, which the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA) approved, stipulated a salary
of US$600.00 a month.
Mr. A had only been in his job in Dubai for six (6) months when DEF, Inc. announced that it was suffering from severe financial
losses and thus intended to retrench some of its workers, among them Mr. A. DEF, Inc. hinted, however, that employees who would
accept a lower salary could be retained.
Together with some other Filipino workers, Mr. A agreed to a reduced salary of US$400.00 a month and thus, continued with his
employment.
(a) Was the reduction of Mr. A’s salary valid? Explain. (2.5%)
(b) Assuming that the reduction was invalid, may Mr. A hold XYZ recruitment Co. liable for underpayment of wages? Explain.
(2.5%)
(a) No, the reduction is not valid . There is a contractual breach. Applying lex contractu or lex loci celebrationis, Philippine law controls;
hence, the substantial character of the alleged financial losses must have been proven with financial statements duly certified by
an independent external auditor. Mere announcement of losses would not suffice. The threat of retrenchment was just a scheme
to conveniently effect the illegal substitution of the POEA- approved employment contracts.
(b) Yes, Mr. A may hold XYZ Recruitment Co. liable for the payment of his wages under the rule that a recruiter is solidarily liable for
breaches of the terms and conditions of the POEA-approved employment contract (Sec 1 {f), Rule II, Book II, POEA Rules and
Regulations; Datuman v. First Cosmopolitan Manpower and Promotion Services, Inc., G.R. No. 156029, 14 Nov. 2008).

LABOR STANDARDS
CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT
WORKING HOURS
Page | 17
(2010) No. XIV. a. After working from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m. on a Thursday as one of 5,000 employees in a beer factory, A 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 A to fill in for C who missed the second shift.
May A validly refuse the plant manager’s directive? Explain. (2%)
Yes, A may validly refuse to fill in for C. A may not be compelled to perform overtime work considering that the plant manager‘s
directive is not for an emergency overtime work, as contemplated under Article 89 of the Labor Code.
(1998) A Ladies Dormitory run or managed by a charitable non-profit organization claims that it is exempt from the coverage
of the Weekly Rest Period provision of the Labor Code.
Is the claim valid? [5%]
No. The claim is not valid. The provisions on weekly rest periods in the Labor Code cover every employer, whether operating
for profit or not. (See Article 91 of the Labor Code)
(2005) (d) Under what conditions may a "compressed work week" schedule be legally authorized as an exception to the
"eight-hour a day" requirement under the Labor Code? (4%)
The conditions for an allowable "compressed work week" are the following: the workers agree to the temporary change of
work schedule and they do not suffer any loss of overtime pay, fringe benefits or their weekly or monthly take-home pay. (DOLE
Explanatory Bulletin on the Reduction of Workdays on Wages issued on July 23, 1985)
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
"Compressed work week" is resorted to by the employer to prevent serious losses due to causes beyond his control, such as
when there is a substantial slump in the demand for his goods or services or when there is lack of raw materials. (Explanatory Bulletin
on the Reduction of Workdays on Wages Issued by DOLE, July 23,1985)
(2002) As a tireman in a gasoline station, open twenty four (24) hours a day with only five (5) employees, Goma worked from
10:00 P.M. until 7:00 A.M. of the following day. He claims he is entitled to night shift differential. Is he correct? Explain briefly. (3%)
Yes. Under Art 86 of the Labor Code, night shift differential shall be paid to every employee for work performed between 10:00
o'clock in the evening to six o'clock in the morning. Therefore, Goma is entitled to nightshift differential for work performed from 10:00 pm
until 6:00 am of the day following, but not from 6:00 am to 7:00 am of the same day.
ANOTHER ANSWER:
The Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor Code (In Book III, Rule II dealing with night shift differential) provides that its
provisions on night shift differential shall NOT apply to employees of "retail and service establishments regularly employing not more than
five (5) workers". Because of this provision, Goma is not entitled to night shift differential because the gasoline station where he works
has only five employees.

(2003) A case against an employer company was filed charging it with having violated the prohibition against offsetting
undertime for overtime work on another day. The complainants were able to show that, pursuant to the Collective Bargaining Agreement
(CBA), employees of the union had been required to work "overtime" on Saturday but were paid only at regular rates of pay on the thesis
that they were not required to complete, and they did not in fact complete, the eight-hour work period daily from Monday through Friday.
Given the circumstances, the employer contended that the employees were not entitled to overtime compensation, i.e., with premium
rates of pay. Decide the controversy.
Page | 18
The employer is correct. While Art. 88 of the Labor Code clearly provides that undertime work on any other particular day shall
not be offset by overtime work on any other day, this rule is inapplicable in this case pertaining to Saturday work which in reality does not
constitute overtime work as Saturday is still a working day under the law and there is no CBA stipulation against it.
ANOTHER ANSWER:
Art, 88 of the Labor Code provides that undertime work on any particular day shall not be offset by overtime work on any other
day. The CBA being the law between the parties and the Union having shown that the employees rendered overtime work on Saturday,
the contention of the employer is not tenable. The employer cannot use the undertime of Monday through Friday to offset the overtime
on Saturday. Hence, the employees are entitled to overtime compensation, i.e. premium rates of pay on Saturday.
(2004) Gil Bates, a computer analyst and programmer of Hard Drive Company, works eight hours a day for five days a week
at the main office providing customers information technology assistance. On Saturdays, however, the company requires him to keep his
cellular phone open from 8:00 A.M. to 5:00 P.M. so that the Management could contact him in case of heavy work load or emergency
problems needing his expertise.
May said hours on Saturdays be considered compensable working hours “while on call”? If so, should said compensation be
reported to the Social Security System? (5%)
Said hours on Saturdays should be considered as compensable working hours "while on call". In accordance with the Rules
and Regulations Implementing the Labor Code, an employee who is not required to leave word at his home or with company officials as
to where he may be reached is not working while on call. But in the question, Gil Bates was required to keep his cell phone open from
8:00 A.M. to 5:00 P.M. Therefore, Bates should be considered as working while on call, if he cannot use effectively and gainfully for his
own purpose the time from 8:00 A.M. to 5:00 P.M. on Saturdays when he is required to keep his cell- phone open.
The compensation actually received by Bates for working while on call on Saturdays should be reported to the Social Security
System because under the Social Security Law, compensation means "all actual remuneration for employment."

If Gil Bates can effectively utilize the Saturdays in his own interest even "while on call", said hours on Saturdays are not
compensable. However, if during said hours on Saturdays, Bates is actually required to attend to urgent work to the extent of leaving
what he is doing, then the same are compensable working hours to the extent of the actual hours of work rendered by him.
The compensation paid by the company to Bates for said hours worked on Saturdays should be reported to the SSS. This is
so because the basis of computing the SSS contribution includes all actual remuneration, including allowances and cash value of any
compensation paid in any medium other than cash.
(1997) Lito Kulangkulang and Bong Urongsulong are employed as truck drivers of Line Movers, Inc. Usually, Lito is required
by the personnel manager to just stay at the head office after office hours because he could be called to drive the trucks. While at the
head office, Lito merely waits in the manager's reception room. On the other hand, Bong is allowed to go home after office hours but is
required to keep his cellular phone on so that he could be contacted whenever his services as driver becomes necessary.
Would the hours that Lito and Bong are on call be considered compensable working hours?

The hours of Lito and Bong while on call can be considered compensable hours. The applicable rule is: "An employee who is
required to remain on call in the employer's premises or so close thereto that he cannot use the time effectively and gainfully for his own
purpose shall be considered as working while on can. An employee who is not required to leave word at his home or with company
officials where be may be reached is not working while on call." Here, Bong is required to stay at the office after office hours so he could
be called to drive the trucks of the Company. As for Bong, he is required to keep his cellular phone so that he could be contacted
whenever his services as driver as needed. Thus, the waiting time of Lito and Bong should be considered are compensable hours.
Page | 19
Note: It could be argued that in the case of Bong who is not required to stay in the office but is allowed to go home, if he is not
actually asked by cellular phone to report to the office to drive a car, he can use his time effectively and gainfully to his own purpose,
thus, the time that he is at home may mean that there are not compensable hours.
WAGES
MINIMUM PAY
(2012) The weekly work schedule of a driver is as follows: Monday, Wednesday, Friday - drive the family car to bring and
fetch the children to and from school. Tuesday, Thursday, Saturday - drive the family van to fetch merchandise from suppliers and deliver
the same to a boutique in a mall owned by the family.
The same driver claims that for work performed on Tuesday, Thursday and Saturday, he should be paid the minimum daily
wage of a driver of a commercial establishment. Is the claim of the driver valid? (5%)
Yes, as during said days, he already works not as a domestic servant but as a regular employee in his employer‘s boutique
in a mall (Apex Mining Company, Inc. v. NLRC [supra]).
PAYMENT IN LEGAL TENDER
(2015) Benito is the owner of an eponymous clothing brand that is a top seller. He employs a number of male and female
models who wear Benito's clothes in promotional shoots and videos. His deal with the models is that Benito will pay them with 3 sets of
free clothes per week. Is this arrangement allowed? (2%)
No. The models are Benito’s employees. As such, their services require compensation in legal tender (Art. 102, Labor Code).
The three sets of clothes, regardless of value, are in kind; hence, the former’s compensation is not in the form prescribed by law.
(2017) Tarcisio was employed as operations manager and received a monthly salary of P25,000.00 through his payroll
account with DB Bank. He obtained a loan from Roberto to purchase a car. Tarcisio failed to pay Roberto when the loan fell due. Roberto
sued to collect, and moved to garnish Tarcisio’s payroll account. The latter vigorously objected and argued that salaries were exempt
from garnishment. Is Tarcisio correct? Explain your answer. (3%)
Tarciso is not correct. In Gaa v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-44169 December 3, 1985, the Supreme Court ruled that Article
1708 used the word "wages" and not "salary" in relation to "laborer" when it declared what are to be exempted from attachment and
execution. The monthly salary of Tarcisio is therefore subject to garnishment.
(1994) Distinguish "salary" from "wages." Are these subject to attachment and execution?
The term "WAGES" applies to compensation for manual labor, skilled or unskilled, while salary denotes a compensation for a
higher degree of employment. (Gaa vs. Court of Appeals, 140 SCRA 304),

ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
"WAGES" are those paid to any employee as his remuneration or earnings payable by an employer for work done or to be
done, or for services rendered or to be rendered.
On the other hand, "SALARY" is used in the law that provides for a 13th-month pay. In this law, basic salary includes all
remuneration or earnings paid by an employer to his employees for services rendered, but does not include allowances or monetary
benefits which are not considered or integrated as part of the regular or basic salary. (Art. 97(f), Labor Code; Sec, 2(b), P.D. No. 851)
Page | 20
Under Article 1708 of the Civil Code, only "wages" are exempt from attachment or execution. Salaries are not exempt from
attachment or execution. (Gaa vs. Court of Appeals, 140 SCRA 304).
FRINGE BENEFITS
(2014) Lolong Law Firm (LLF), which employs around 50 lawyers and 100 regular staff, suffered losses for the first time in its
history. The management informed its employees that it could no longer afford to provide them free lunch. Consequently, it announced
that a nominal fee would henceforth be charged. Was LLF justified in withdrawing this benefit which it had unilaterally been providing to
its employees? (1%)
(D) “No, because it is a fringe benefit that has already ripened into a demandable right.”
BONUS
(2015) Far East Bank (FEB) is one of the leading banks in the country. Its compensation and bonus packages are top of the
industry. For the last 6 years, FEB had been providing the following bonuses across-the-board to all its employees:
A. 13th month pay;

B. 14th to18th month pay;
C. Christmas basket worth : P6,000;
D. Gift check worth: P4,000; and
E. Productivity-based incentive ranging from a 20% to 40% increase in gross monthly salary for all employees who would
receive an evaluation of "Excellent" for 3 straight quarters in the same year.
Because of its poor performance over-all, FEB decided to cut back on the bonuses this year and limited itself to the following:
A. 13th month pay;

B. 14th month pay;
C. Christmas basket worth 4,000; and
D. Gift check worth P2,000
Katrina, an employee of FEB, who had gotten a rating of "Excellent" for the last 3 quarters was looking forward to the bonuses
plus the productivity incentive bonus. After learning that FEB had modified the bonus scheme, she objected. Is Katrina's objection
justified? Explain. (3%)
Having enjoyed the across-the-board bonuses for six years, Katrina’s right to them has been vested already. Hence, none of
them can be withheld or reduced without violating the Principle of Non-Diminution of Benefits. Benefits can be reduced when the company
is in the red, i.e., its losses are substantial and duly established with financial statements duly certified to by an independent external
auditor. In the problem, the company is in the black only because it has not proven its alleged losses to be substantial losses in
accordance with law. Permitting reduction of pay at the slightest indication of losses is contrary to the policy of the State to afford full
protection to labor and promote full employment ( Linton Commercial Co. v. Hellera, et al., 23 Feb. 2012 ).

As to the withheld productivity-based bonuses, the basis of payment is not the company’s performance but Katrina’s.
Therefore, Katrina is deemed to have earned them because of her excellent performance ratings for three quarters. On this basis,
they cannot be withheld without violating Art. 116 of the Labor Code because they are wage-type.
(2014) Lito was anticipating the bonus he would receive for 2013. Aside from the 13th month pay, the company has been
awarding him and his other co- employees a two to three months bonus for the last 10 years. However, because of poor over-all sales
Page | 21
performance for the year, the company unilaterally decided to pay only a one month bonus in 2013. Is Lito’s employer legally allowed to
reduce the bonus? (4%)
Yes. Bonuses enjoyed even for 10 years may be reduced for economic reasons. Article 100 of the Labor Code will not be
violated because it applies only to benefits enjoyed before or at the time of the effectivity of the Labor Code (Waterfront ruling). As to
whether the Principle of Grants will be violated, the reduction will not also amount to a violation because benefits given to workers are
not raw materials but the product of business success. This policy of balancing employer-employee interests is one of the pillars of
labor relations (Prof. C. Azucena).
(2002) The projected bonus for the employees of Suerte Co. was 50% of their monthly compensation. Unfortunately, due to
the slump in the business, the president reduced the bonus to 5% of their compensation. Can the company unilaterally reduce the amount
of bonus? Explain briefly.
Yes. The granting of a bonus is a management prerogative, something given in addition to what is ordinarily received by or
strictly due the recipient. An employer, like Suerte Co., cannot be forced to distribute bonuses when it can no longer afford to pay. To
hold otherwise would be to penalize the employer for his past generosity. [Producers Bank of the Phil. v NLRC, 355 SCRA 489, (2001)]
ANOTHER ANSWER:
It depends. If there is a legal obligation on the part of Suerte Co. to pay a bonus of its employees equivalent to 50% of their
monthly compensation, because said obligation is included in a collective bargaining agreement, then Suerte Co. cannot reduce the
bonus to 5% of their monthly compensation. But if the payment of the bonus is not a legal obligation but only a voluntary act on the part
of the employer, said employer, unilaterally, can only reduce the bonus from 50% to 5% of the monthly compensation of its employees;
the employer can, in fact, not give any bonus at all.
(2003) XYZ Employees Association filed a complaint against ABC Bank for wrongful diminution of benefits. It alleged that the
bank had been providing for a mid-year bonus equivalents one- month basic pay and a Christmas bonus equivalent to one-month basic
pay since 1971. Upon the effectivity of Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 851 in 1975 which granted the 13th month pay, the bank started
giving its employees a one-month basic pay as mid-year bonus, one-month basic pay as Christmas bonus, and one-month basic pay as
13th month pay. In 1980, the bank was placed under conservatorship and by virtue of a monetary board resolution of the Central Bank,
the bank only gave one month basic pay mandated by P.D. 851, and it no longer gave its employees the traditional mid-year and
Christmas bonuses. Could ABC Bank be compelled, given the circumstances, to continue paying its employees the traditional mid- year
and Christmas bonuses in addition to the 13th month pay?
No. The grant of a bonus is a prerogative, not an obligation, of the employer. (Traders Royal Bank v. NLRC. 189 SCRA 274
(1990). The matter of giving a bonus over and above that which is required by law is entirely dependent on the financial capability of the
employer to give it. (Businessday v. NLRC. 221 SCRA 9 (1993).
Hence, given the circumstances, ABC Bank cannot be compelled to continue paying its employees the traditional mid-year
and Christmas bonuses in addition to the 13th month pay.
(1995) What is a bonus? When is it demandable as a matter of right? Explain.

A bonus is money given in addition to an employee's usual compensation. It may be given as a gratuity, as an act of liberality.
But a bonus is demandable as a matter of right if it is made a legal obligation by law or in a collective bargaining agreement or in a
contract of employment or by its having been given for such a long time such that the receipt of a bonus has ripened into a right.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
A bonus is an amount granted and paid to an employee for his industry and loyalty which contributed to the employer's success Page | 22
and realization of profit. The grant of bonus is a prerogative, not an obligation of the employer: and it is entirely dependent on the
employer's capacity to pay.
Normally discretionary, it becomes part of the regular compensation by reason of long and regular concession or when the
bonus is Included as among the benefits granted in a CBA.
FACTORS IN COMPUTING SEPARATION PAY
(2014) Lizzy Lu is a sales associate for Luna Properties. The latter is looking to retrench Lizzy and five other sales associates
due to financial losses. Aside from a basic monthly salary, Lizzy and her colleagues receive commissions on the sales they make as well
as cost of living and representation allowances. In computing Lizzy’s separation pay, Luna Properties should consider her: (1%)
A. monthly salary only

B. monthly salary plus sales commissions
C. monthly salary plus sales commissions, plus cost of living allowance
D. monthly salary plus sales commissions, plus cost of living allowance and representation allowance
Note: Not (B) because the basis of separation pay under Art. 289 (renumbered), LC, is monthly salary only. Not (C) because
monthly salary means basis salary which excludes commissions and allowances. Not (D) because monthly salary excludes commissions
and allowances.
(1997) Robert Suarez is a salesman for Star Pharmaceuticals, Star Pharmaceuticals has applied with the Department of Labor
and Employment for clearance to terminate (by way of retrenchment) the services of Suarez due to financial losses. Robert Suarez, aside
from his monthly salary, receives commissions on the sales he makes. He also receives allowances. The existing CBA between Star
Pharmaceuticals and the union, of which Robert Suarez is a member, states that any employee separated from employment for causes
not due to the fault of the employee shall receive from the company a retirement gratuity in an amount equivalent to one month's salary
per year of service.
Robert Suarez contends that in computing his separation pay, his sales commission and his allowances should be included
in the monthly salary. Do you agree?
I agree, with some conditions. In computing separation pay, the monthly salary should include commissions because
commissions received by a salesman is part of his salary.
But for allowances to be included as part of salary, they should be for services rendered or to be rendered, like a cost of living
allowance. But transportation and representation allowances are not considered as part of salary because they are to meet expenses for
transportation and representation. Thus, cost of living allowances, but not transportation or representation allowances, shall be included
as part of salary in the computation of separation pay.
Note: Re: allowances as part of salary, in Santos vs. NLRC 154 SCRA 166, the Supreme Court said: "in the computation of
backwages and separation pay, account must be taken not only of basic salary but also her transportation and emergency living
allowances."

SALARY DIFFERENTIALS
(2014) 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. (4%)
Yes. The POEA, although a government agency, is a statutory employer by operation of Article 106 of the Labor Code, as
Page | 23
implemented by D.O. 18-A. As such, it can be held solidarily liable for salary differentials resulting from its job contractor’s underpayment
of salaries due its workers (Meralco Industrial Eng’g ruling, 14 March 2008).
Comment: Relative to the trilateral relationship between a principal (P), contractor and worker (W), we hardly read that P may
be any person – private or public. The Bar question tells us that P may be the POEA, SSS, GSIS or ADB. Article 106, LC, makes no
distinction; hence, any person can be a statutory employer. Indeed, only principals of service providers in IT-assisted outsourcing, PCAB-
registered contractors, and canteen concessionaires are beyond the reach of D.O. 18-A.
(2004) A. Clean Manpower Inc. (CMI) had provided janitorial services to the National Economic Development Authority
(NEDA) since April 1988. Its service contract was renewed every three months. However, in the bidding held on July 1992, CMI was
disqualified and excluded. In 1993, six janitors of CMI formerly assigned at NEDA filed a complaint for underpayment of wages. Both CMI
and NEDA were impleaded as respondents for failure to comply with NCR Wage Orders Nos. 01 and 02, which took effect on November
1, 1990 and January 2, 1992, respectively.
Should NEDA, a government agency subject to budgetary constraints, be held liable solidarily with CMI for the payment of
salary differentials due the complainants? Cite the legal basis of your answer. (5%)
NEDA shall be held solidarily liable with CMI for the payment of salary differentials due to the complainants, because NEDA
is the indirect employer of said complainants. The Labor Code provides that xxx (A) person, partnership, association or corporation which,
not being an employer, contracts with an independent contractor for the performance of any work, task, job or project" xxx "shall be jointly
and severally liable with his contractor or subcontractor to such employees (of the contractor or subcontractor) to the extent of work
performed under the contract xxx." (Arts. 106 and 107, Labor Code)
OVERTIME PAY
(2017) Percival was a mechanic of Pacific Airlines. He enjoyed a meal break of one hour. However, during meal breaks, he
was required to be on stand-by for emergency work. During emergencies, he was made to forego his meals or to hurry up eating. He
demanded payment of overtime for work done during his meal periods. Is Percival correct? Explain your answer. (3%)
Percival is correct. While as a rule the eight-hour period does not include the meal break however, in the case of Percival he
was required to forego his meals or to hurry up eating. The meal period should therefore be considered compensable hours of work and
a work beyond eight hours. Percival is therefore entitled to overtime time.
NOTE: The foregoing answer can be found in page 371 of the book entitled Principles and Cases Labor Standards and Social
Legislation, First Edition 2015, by Atty. Voltaire T. Duano.
(2015) LKG Garments Inc. makes baby clothes for export. As part of its measures to meet its orders, LKG requires its
employees to work beyond eight (8) hours everyday, from Monday to Saturday. It pays its employees an additional 35% of their regular
hourly wage for work rendered in excess of eight (8) hours per day. Because of additional orders, LKG now requires two (2) shifts of
workers with both shifts working beyond eight (8) hours but only up to a maximum of four (4) hours. Carding is an employee who used
to render up to six (6) hours of overtime work before the change in schedule. He complains that the change adversely affected him
because now he can only earn up to a maximum of four (4) hours' worth of overtime pay. Does Carding have a cause of action against
the company?

No. Absent a right recognized by law or contract, Carding has no cause of action against the company. There is no law,
contract or practice that guarantees to Carding the right to render overtime work of not less than six hours daily. The company can source
workers from its own manpower to man a second shift in order to meet its business target. This is a management prerogative that was
exercised in good faith by the company. As to the reduction of Carding’s overtime, it is not an unlawful diminution of benefits because
the lost 2-hour overtime compensation is not an accrued right.
Page | 24
(2002) Socorro is a clerk-typist in the Hospicio de San Jose, a charitable institution dependent for its existence on contributions
and donations from well-wishers. She renders work eleven (11) hours a day but has not been given overtime pay since her place of work
is a charitable institution. Is Socorro entitled to overtime pay? Explain briefly.
Yes. Socorro is entitled to overtime compensation. She does not fall under any of the exceptions to the coverage of Art. 82,
under the provisions of Hours of Work. The Labor Code is equally applicable to non-profit institutions. A covered employee who works
beyond eight (8) hours is entitled to overtime compensation.
(1997) Danilo Flores applied for the position of driver in the motor-pool of Gold Company, a multinational corporation. Danilo
was informed that he would frequently be working overtime as he would have to drive for the company's executives even beyond the
ordinary eight-hour work day. He was provided with a contract of employment wherein he would be paid a monthly rate equivalent to 35
times his daily wage, regular sick and vacation leaves, 5 day-leave with pay every month and time off with pay when the company's
executives using the cars do not need Danilo's service for more than eight hours a day, in lieu of overtime.
Are the above provisions of the contract of employment in conformity with, or violative of, the law?
Except for the provision that Danilo shall have time off with pay when the company's executives using the cars do not need
Danilo's service for more than eight hours a day, in lieu of overtime, the provisions of the contract of employment of Danilo are not
violative of any labor law because they instead improve upon the present provisions of pertinent labor laws.
Thus, the monthly rate equivalent to 35 times the daily wage may be sufficient to include overtime pay. There is no labor law
requiring the payment of sick and vacation leaves except the provision for a five-day service incentive leave in the Labor Code.
The 5-day-leave with pay every month has no counterpart in Labor Law and is very generous.
As for the provision in Danilo's contract of employment that he shall receive time off with pay in lieu of overtime, this violates
the provision of the Labor Code which states that undertime work on any particular day shall not be offset by overtime work on any other
day. Permission given to the employer to go on leave on some other day of the week shall not exempt the employer from paying the
additional compensation required by the Labor Code.
(2009) No. XI. d. A waiver of the right to claim overtime pay is contrary to law. (5%)
True, as a general rule, overtime compensation cannot be waived, whether expressly or impliedly; and stipulation to the
contrary is against the law (Pampanga Sugar Dev. Co., Inc. v. CIR, 114 SRCA 725 [1982]). An exception would be the adoption of a
compressed work week on voluntary basis, subject to the guidelines of Department Order No. 02, Series of 2004.
(2010) No. XIV. After working from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m. on a Thursday as one of 5,000 employees in a beer factory, A 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 A to fill in for C who missed the second shift.
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.? Explain?

No. Undertime is not set-off by overtime. (Article 88, Labor Code)
(2006) Can an employer and an employee enter into an agreement reducing or increasing the minimum percentage provided
for night differential pay, overtime pay, and premium pay?
Article 100 of the Labor Code prohibits the elimination and the diminution of benefits being enjoyed by employees at the time Page | 25
the law was passed. The employer and employee cannot enter into an agreement to reduce the minimum percentage provided by law
for night differential pay, overtime pay and premium pay as that would be against public policy. On the other hand, an agreement
increasing the percentage of benefits would be valid for being beneficial to the employee. However, Art. 227 of the Labor Code authorizes
diminution or reduction of benefits in case of an impelling, reasonable justification arising out of an emergency, exigency or business
losses.
(1996) Jose applied with Mercure Drug Company for the position of Sales Clerk. Mercure Drug Company maintains a chain
of drug stores that are open every day till late at night. Jose was informed that he had to work on Sundays and holidays at night as part
of the regular course of employment. He was presented with a contract of employment setting forth his compensation on an annual basis
with an express waiver of extra compensation for work on Sundays and holidays, which Jose signed. Is such a waiver binding on Jose?
Explain.
As long as the annual compensation is an amount that is not less than what Jose should receive for all the days that he works,
plus the extra compensation that he should receive for work on his weekly rest days and on special and regular holidays and for night
differential pay for late night work, considering the laws and wage orders providing for minimum wages, and the pertinent provisions of
the Labor Code, then the waiver that Jose signed is binding on him for he is not really waiving any right under Labor Law. It is not contrary
to law, morals, good customs, public order or public policy for an employer and employee to enter into a contract where the employees'
compensation that is agreed upon already includes all the amounts he is to receive for overtime work and for work on weekly rest days
and holidays and for night differential pay for late night work.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
The waiver of benefits provided for by law is void. Art. 6 of the New Civil Code provides:
"Rights may be waived, unless the waiver is contrary to law, public order, public policy, morals or good customs."
(1994) Concepcion Textile Co. included the overtime pay, night-shift differential pay, and the like in the computation of its
employees' 13th-month pay. Subsequently, with the promulgation of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of San Miguel
Corporation vs. Inciong (103 SCRA 139) holding that these other monetary claims should not be included in the computation of the 13th-
month pay, Concepcion Textile Co. sought to recover under the principle of solutio indebiti its overpayment of its employees' 13th-month
pay, by debiting against future 13th-month payments whatever excess amounts it had previously made.
Is the Company's action tenable?
1) The Company's action is not tenable. The principle of salutio indebiti which is a civil law concept is not applicable in labor
law. Thus, solutio indebiti is not applicable to the instant case, (Davao Fruits Corporations vs. National Labor Relations Commission, et
at. 225 SCRA 562)
ALTERNATIVE ANSWERS:
The Company's action would be tenable if payment was done by mistake, In which case recovery can be done under the
principle of solutio indebiti. But if there was no mistake, the Company's action would be untenable because it would violate Article 100 of
the Labor Code which prohibits elimination or diminution of benefits.

No. The Company's action is not tenable. The grant by Concepcion Textile Co. of a better formula, more favorable to the
employee, constituted a valid offer by the company as the offerer and the employees as the offeree. There having been a meeting of the
minds of the parties, the rights and obligations arising therefrom were valid. Thus, any amount received by virtue thereof could not be
recovered, much less taken away unilaterally. The principle does not apply to the case at bar.
With respect to the payment of the 13th-month pay after the San Miguel Corporation, ruling, what arrangement, if any, must
Page | 26
the Company make in order to exclude from the 13th-month pay all earnings and remunerations other than the basic pay.
2} After the 1981 San Miguel ruling, the High Court decided the case of Philippine Duplicators Inc. vs. NLRC, on 11 November
1993, Accordingly, management may undertake to exclude sick leave, vacation leave, maternity leave, premium pay for regular holiday,
night differential pay and cost of living allowance. Sales commissions, however, should be included based on the settled rule as earlier
enunciated in Songco vs. NLRC, 183 SCRA 610.
FOOD AND LODGING
(2018) Nelda worked as a chambermaid in Hotel Neverland with a basic wage of PhP560.00 for an eight-hour workday. On
Good Friday, she worked for one (1) hour from 10:00 PM to 11:00 PM. Her employer paid her only PhP480.00 for each 8-hour workday,
and PhP70.00 for the work done on Good Friday. She sued for underpayment of wages and non-payment of holiday pay and night shift
differential pay for working on a Good Friday. Hotel Neverland denied the alleged underpayment, arguing that based on long-standing
unwritten tradition, food and lodging costs were partially shouldered by the employer and partially paid for by the employee through salary
deduction. According to the employer, such valid deduction caused the payment of Nelda's wage to be below the prescribed minimum.
The hotel also claimed that she was not entitled to holiday pay and night shift differential pay because hotel workers have to work on
holidays and may be assigned to work at night.
(a) Does the hotel have valid legal grounds to deduct food and lodging costs from Nelda's basic salary? (2.5%)
In Mabeza v. NLRC, the Supreme Court established three requirements before the value of “facilities” such as food and
lodging may be deducted from an employee’s wages: first, proof must be shown that such facilities are customarily furnished by the
trade; second, the provision for deductible facilities must be voluntarily accepted in writing by the employee; and finally, facilities must
be charged at fair and reasonable value. In the case at hand, the second and third requisites o voluntary acceptance of deductible
facilities in writing, at fair and reasonable value, was not established.
OTHER ANSWER
No. In Atok-Big Wedge Mutual Benefit Association v. Atok Big Wedge Mining Company, the Supreme Court distinguished
facilities from supplement. Supplement constitutes extra remuneration given to laborers above their wage. Facilities are items of
expense necessary for the laborer’s and his family’s existence and subsistence. Board and lodging are treated as supplement if the
company benefits from the employee’s not going home anymore or not leaving his work station to eat. Since Nelda is a chambermaid,
her board and lodging should not be treated as supplement.
(2013) Gamma Company pays its regular employees P350.00 a day, and houses them in a dormitory inside its factory
compound in Manila. Gamma Company also provides them with three full meals a day.
In the course of a routine inspection, a Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) Inspector noted that the workers' pay
is below the prescribed minimum wage of P426.00 plus P30.00 allowance, and thus, required Gamma Company to pay wage differentials.
Gamma Company denies any liability, explaining 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? (8%)
No, the following requisites were not complied with:
1. Proof that such facilities are customarily furnished by the trade

2. The provision of deductible facilities is voluntarily accepted by the employee
3. The facilities are charged at the fair and reasonable value.
Page | 27
Mere availment is not sufficient to allow deduction from the employees‘ wages. (Mayon Hotel & restaurant v. Adarna, 458
SCRA 609 [2005]).
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
No, rule 78, Section 4 provides that there must be a written authorization.
(2010) A worked as a roomboy in La Mallorca Hotel. He sued for underpayment of wages before the NLRC, alleging that he
was paid below the minimum wage. The employer denied any underpayment, arguing that based on long standing, unwritten policy, the
Hotel provided food and lodging to its housekeeping employees, the costs of which were partly shouldered by it and the balance was
charged to the employees. The employees’ corresponding share in the costs was thus deducted from their wages. The employer
concluded that such valid deduction naturally resulted in the payment of wages below the prescribed minimum. If you were the Labor
Arbiter, how would you rule? Explain. (3%)
I will rule in favor of A. Even if food and lodging were provided and considered as facilities by the employer, the employer
could not deduct such facilities from its workers‘wages without compliance with law (Mayon Hotel & Restaurant v. Adana, 458 SCRA 609
[2005]). In Mabeza v. NLRC (271 SCRA 670 [1997]), the Supreme Court held that the employer simply cannot deduct the value form the
employee‘s wages without satisfying the following:
(a) proof that such facilities are customarily furnished by the trade;
(b) the provision of deductible facilities is voluntarily accepted in writing by the employee; and
(c) the facilities are charged at fair and reasonable value.
HOLIDAY PAY
(2018) Nelda worked as a chambermaid in Hotel Neverland with a basic wage of PhP560.00 for an eight-hour workday. On
Good Friday, she worked for one (1) hour from 10:00 PM to 11:00 PM. Her employer paid her only PhP480.00 for each 8-hour
workday, and PhP70.00 for the work done on Good Friday. She sued for underpayment of wages and non-payment of holiday pay and
night shift differential pay for working on a Good Friday. Hotel Neverland denied the alleged underpayment, arguing that based on long-
standing unwritten tradition, food and lodging costs were partially shouldered by the employer and partially paid for by the employee
through salary deduction. According to the employer, such valid deduction caused the payment of Nelda's wage to be below the
prescribed minimum. The hotel also claimed that she was not entitled to holiday pay and night shift differential pay because hotel
workers have to work on holidays and may be assigned to work at night.
(a) Does the hotel have valid legal grounds to deduct food and lodging costs from Nelda's basic salary? (2.5%)
In Mabeza v. NLRC, the Supreme Court established three requirements before the value of “facilities” such as food and
lodging may be deducted from an employee’s wages: first, proof must be shown that such facilities are customarily furnished by the
trade; second, the provision for deductible facilities must be voluntarily accepted in writing by the employee; and finally, facilities must
be charged at fair and reasonable value. In the case at hand, the second and third requisites o voluntary acceptance of deductible
facilities in writing, at fair and reasonable value, was not established.
OTHER ANSWER

No. In Atok-Big Wedge Mutual Benefit Association v. Atok Big Wedge Mining Company, the Supreme Court distinguished
facilities from supplement. Supplement constitutes extra remuneration given to laborers above their wage. Facilities are items of
expense necessary for the laborer’s and his family’s existence and subsistence. Board and lodging are treated as supplement if the
company benefits from the employee’s not going home anymore or not leaving his work station to eat. Since Nelda is a chambermaid,
her board and lodging should not be treated as supplement.
Page | 28
(b) Applying labor standards law, how much should Nelda be paid for work done on Good Friday? Show the computation in your test
booklet and encircle your final answer. (2.5%)
As an employee paid PhP70 an hour, Nelda was entitled to an additional 100% of her hourly wage for working on a Good
Friday, plus 10% for night differential pay. Nelda should be paid a total of PhP154.00 for working that day.
(2002) On orders of his superior, Efren, a high-speed sewing machine technician, worked on May 1, Labor Day. If he worked
eight (6) hours on that day, how much should he receive if his daily rate is P400.00? (2%)
Efren should receive P800.00. Art 92 of the Labor Code provides that the employer may require an employee to work on any
regular holiday but such employee shall be paid a compensation equivalent to twice his regular rate.
(2002) This year, National Heroes Day (August 25) falls on a Sunday. Sunday is the rest day of Bonifacio whose daily rate is
P500.00. If Bonifacio is required by his employer to work on that day for eight (8) hours, how much should he be paid for his work?
Explain. (3%)
If he works for ten (10) hours on that day, how much should he receive for his work? Explain. (2%)
For working on his scheduled rest day, according to Art 93(a), Bonifacio should be paid P500.00 (his daily rate) plus P150.00
(30% of his daily rate) = P650.00. This amount of P650.00 should be multiplied by 2 = P1 ,300.00. This is the amount that Bonifacio as
employee working on his scheduled rest day which is also a regular holiday, should receive. Art. 94(c) of the Labor Code provides that
an employee shall be paid a compensation equivalent to twice his regular rate for work on any regular holiday. The "regular rate" of
Bonifacio on May 1, 2002 is with an additional thirty percent because the day is also his scheduled rest day.
P1,300.00 which is the amount that Bonifacio is to receive for working on May 1, 2002 should be divided by 8 to determine
his hourly rate of P162.50. This hourly rate should be multiplied by 2 (the number of hours he worked overtime). Thus, the amount that
Bonifacio is entitled to receive for his overtime work on May 1, 2002 is P325.00.
(2005) During the open forum following your lecture before members of various unions affiliated with a labor federation, you
were asked the following questions (State your answers and your reasons therefor):
(a) Araw ng Kagitingan and Good Friday are among the 10 paid regular holidays under Article 94 of the Labor Code. How
much will an employee receive when both holidays fall on the same day? (4%)
If unworked, the covered employees are entitled to at least 200% of their basic wage, because to do otherwise would reduce
the number of holidays under EO No. 203. If worked, the covered employees are entitled to compensation equivalent to at least 300% of
their basic wage because they are entitled to the payment not only of the two regular holidays, but also of their regular wage, plus the
premium thereof. (DOLE Explanatory Bulletin on Workers' Entitlement to Holiday Pay on 9 April 1993, Araw ng Kagitingan and Good
Friday)
(2010) A, a worker at ABC Company, was on leave with pay on March 31, 2010. He reported for work on April 1 and 2,
Maundy Thursday and Good Friday, respectively, both regular holidays. Is A entitled to holiday pay for the two successive holidays?
Explain. (3%)

Yes, A is entitled to holiday pay equivalent to two hundred percent (200%) of hi regular daily wage for the two successive
holidays that she worked (Section 6[a], Rule IV, Book III of the Omnibus Rule Implementing the Labor Code).
(2002) Nemia earns P7.00 for every manicure she does in the barber shop of a friend which has nineteen (19) employees. At
times she takes home P175.00 a day and at other times she earns nothing. She now claims holiday pay. Is Nemia entitled to this benefit?
Page | 29
Explain briefly (5%)
No, Nemia is not entitled to holiday pay. Art. 82 of the Labor Code provides that workers who are paid by results are, among
others, not entitled to holiday pay. Nemia is a worker who is paid by results. She earns P7.00 for every manicure she does.

Yes. Nemia is entitled to holiday pay. The Supreme Court has ruled: "As to the other benefits, namely, holiday pay, premium
pay, 13th month pay, and service incentive leave which the labor arbiter failed to rule on but which the petitioners prayed for in their
complaint, we hold that petitioners are so entitled to these benefits. Three (3) factors lead us to conclude that petitioners, although piece
rate workers, were regular employees of private respondents.
FIRST as to the nature of the petitioner's tasks, their job of repacking snack food was necessary or desirable in the usual
business of private respondents, who were engaged in the manufacture and selling of such food products;
SECOND, petitioners worked for private respondents throughout the year, their employment not having been dependent on a
specific project or season; and
THIRD, the length of time that petitioners worked for private respondents. Thus, while petitioner's mode of compensation was
on a "per piece basis" the status and nature of their employment was that of regular employees." [Labor Congress of the Philippines v.
NLRC, 290 SCRA 509 (1998)
NO WORK NO PAY PRINCIPLE

(2008) The rank-and-file union staged a strike in the company premises which caused the disruption of business operations.
The supervisors’ union of the same company filed a money claim for unpaid salaries for the duration of the strike, arguing that the
supervisors' failure to report for work was not attributable to them. The company contended that it was equally faultless, for the strike was
not the direct consequence of any lockout or unfair labor practice. May the company be held liable for the salaries of the supervisor?
Decide (6%)
No, following the ―No work No Pay principle, the supervisors are not entitled to their money claim for unpaid salaries. They
should not be compensated for services skipped during the strike. The age-old rule governing the relation between labor and capital, or
management and employee of a ―fair day‘s wage for a fair day‘s labor‖ remains as the basic factor in determining employees‘ wage
(Aklan Electric Cooperative, Inc. v. NLRC, G.R. No. 121439, January 25, 2000).
(1997) Lita Cruz, a full time professor in San Ildefonso University, is paid on a regular monthly basis. Cruz teaches for a period
of ten months in a schoolyear, excluding the two month's summer break.
During the semestral break, the University did not pay Lita Cruz her emergency Cost of Living allowance (ECOLA) although
she received her regular salary since the semestral break was allegedly not an integral part of the school year and no teaching service
were actually rendered by her. In short, the University invoked the principle of "no work, no pay".
Lita Cruz seeks your advice on whether or not she is entitled to receive her ECOLA during semestral breaks. How would you
respond to the query?

There is no longer any law making it the legal obligation of an employer to grant an Emergency Cost of Living Allowance
(ECOLA). Effective 1981, the mandatory living allowances provided for in earlier Presidential Decrees were integrated into the basic pay
of all covered employees.
Thus, whether the ECOLA will be paid or not during the semestral break now depends on the provisions of the applicable
wage order or contract which may be a CBA, that many grant said ECOLA.
Page | 30
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER;
The "no work, no pay" principle does not apply. The teachers receive their regular salaries during the semestral break. The
law granting emergency cost of living allowances was designed to augment the income of the employees to enable them to cope with
the rising cost of living and inflation. It was enacted pursuant to the State's duty to protect labor and to alleviate the plight of the workers.
To uphold the school's interpretation of the law would run counter to the intent of the law and constitution (University of Pangasinan
Faculty Union v. University of Pangasinan, 127 SCRA 691).
13th MONTH PAY
(2018) Nico is a medical representative engaged in the promotion of pharmaceutical products and medical devices for
Northern Pharmaceuticals, Inc. He regularly visits physicians' clinics to inform them of the chemical composition and benefits of his
employer's products. At the end of every day, he receives a basic wage of PhP700.00 plus a PhP150.00 "productivity allowance." For
purposes of computing Nico's 13th month pay, should the daily "productivity allowance" be included? (2.5%)
No. The second paragraph of Section 5(a) of the Revised Guidelines Implementing the 13th Month Pay Law states that
“employees who are paid a fixed or guaranteed wage plus commission are also entitles to the mandated 13th month pay, based on
their total earnings during the calendar year, i.e. on both their fixed or guaranteed wage and commission.” However, the SC in the
Philippine Duplicators, Inc. v. NLRC, declared the aforesaid provision as null and void with respect to those medical representatives
who do not obtain productivity allowances by virtue of generated sales. Such allowances are in the nature of profit-sharing bonuses or
commissions that should be properly excluded from the ambit of the term “basic-salary” for purposes of computing 13th month pay due
to employees.
OTHER ANSWER
Yes, the productivity allowance should be in the computation of the 13th month pay. The said allowance is a fixed amount
and made part of Nico’s daily compensation, and as such this is demandable and enforceable as matter of right. The “basic salary” of
an employee for purposes of computing the 13th month pay include all remuneration or earnings paid by his employer for services
rendered but does not include allowance and monetary benefits which are not considered or integrated as part of the regular or basic
salary.
ANOTHER ANSWER
Yes. Central Azucarera de Tarlac v. Central Azucarera de Tarlac Labor Union, pronounced that the 13th month pay
mandated by Presedential Decree No. 851 represents an additional income based on wage but not part of the wage. It is equivalent to
one-twelfth (1/12) of the total basic salary earned by an employee within a calendar year.
ANOTHER SUGGESTED ANSWER

The issue in this case is whether or not to include “productivity allowance” in the computation of 13th month pay. If what is
contemplated is productivity allowance in essence, it should be excluded according to the ruling in the Boie-Takeda case, but the
nature of the allowance in this case is not clear—whether it is really productivity allowance, or is just called “productivity allowance” in
name. If there is no showing that the allowance is really a productivity allowance, we must look at Article 4 of the Labor Code, that in
case of obscurity or ambiguity as to interpretation, we favor the laborer. Based on the facts, the productivity allowance should be
included in the computation, as the nomenclature of “productivity allowance” is not binding; moreover, the facts shown that Nico

receives the allowance everyday. There is no condition with regard the “productivity allowance” as to performance. In the old definition
of bonus, which does not include basic wage, it should be conditioned on particular hours worked, or sales made etc.
(2012) Dennis was a taxi driver who was being paid on the "boundary" system basis. He worked tirelessly for Cabrera
Transport Inc. for fourteen (14) years until he was eligible for retirement. He was entitled to retirement benefits. During the entire duration
of his service, Dennis was not given his 13th month pay or his service incentive leave pay.
Page | 31
Is Dennis entitled to 13th month pay and service leave incentive pay? Explain. (5%)
No, a taxi driver paid under the boundary system is not entitled to a 13th and SIL pay. Hence, his retirement pay
should be computed solely on the basis of his salary. Specifically, Sec. 3(e) of the Rules and Regulations implementing P.D. 851 excludes
from the obligation of 13th Month Pay “Employers of those who are paid on xxx boundary” basis. On the other hand, Sec. 1(d),
Rule V, Book III of the Omnibus Rule provides that those employees whose performance is unsupervised by the employer are not entitled
to Service Incentive Leave. A taxi driver paid under the Boundary System is an unsupervised‖ employee.
(2012) Dennis was a taxi driver who was being paid on the "boundary" system basis. He worked tirelessly for Cabrera
Transport Inc. for fourteen (14) years until he was eligible for retirement. He was entitled to retirement benefits. During the entire duration
of his service, Dennis was not given his 13th month pay or his service incentive leave pay.
Since he was not given his 13th month pay and service incentive leave pay, should Dennis be paid upon retirement, in addition
to the salary equivalent to fifteen (15) days for every year of service, the additional 2.5 days representing one-twelfth (1/12) of the 13th
month pay as well as the five (5) days representing the service incentive leave for a total of 22.5 days? Explain. (5%)
No, since he is not entitled to 13th month pay and SIL, his retirement pay should be computed on the basis of his salary (R&E
Transport v. Latag, G.R. No. 155214, February 13, 2004)
(1998) What would be your advice to your client, a manufacturing company, who asks for your legal opinion on whether or not
the 13th Month Pay Law (Presidential Decree No. 851) covers a casual employee who is paid a daily wage?
I will advise the manufacturing company to pay the casual employee 13th Month Pay if such casual employee has worked for
at least one (1) month during a calendar year. The law on the 13th Month Pay provides that employees are entitled to the benefit of said
law regardless of their designation or employment status.
The Supreme Court ruled in Jackson Building- Condominium Corporation v. NLRC, 246 SCRA 329, (1995) interpreting P.D.
No. 851, as follows:
xxx employees are entitled to the thirteenth- month pay benefits regardless of their designation and irrespective of the method
by which their wages are paid.
UNPAID WAGES
(1998) An explosion in a mine site resulted in the death of fifty (50) miners. At the time of the accident, the Mining Company
has not yet paid the wages, overtime, holiday and rest day compensation of the deceased miners. All the deceased miners owed the
Miners Cooperative Union sums of money. The Mining Company was served by a sheriff Writs of Garnishment of Wages of some of the
deceased miners by virtue of final Judgments in several collection suits.
After the accident, the wives, paramours, brothers, sisters and parents of the deceased miners filed their claims for unpaid
wages, overtime, holiday and rest day compensation. The Company has acknowledged its obligations. However, it is in a quandary as
to how to adjudicate the conflicting claims; and whether it can deduct from the monies due the miners their unpaid debts with the credit
union.

How will you advise the mining company on the following issues?
1. Can the Mining Company defer payment of the money claims until an appropriate court has ruled on the conflicting claims?
2. Can the Mining Company deduct from the amount due to each miner an amount equivalent to their debt and remit the same
to the Credit Union?
Page | 32
I will advise the Mining Company to pay to the respective heirs of the deceased miners whatever were the unpaid wages,
overtime, holiday and rest day compensation of said deceased miners without the necessity of intestate proceedings. The claimants, if
they are all of age shall execute an affidavit attesting to their relationship to the deceased and the fact that they are his heirs, to the
exclusion of all other persons. If any of the heirs is a minor, the affidavit shall be executed on his behalf by his natural guardian or next
of kin. The affidavit shall be presented to the employer who shall make payment through the Secretary of Labor or his representative.
The representative of the Secretary of Labor shall act as referee in dividing the amount paid among the heirs. {See Art. 105 (b) of the
Labor Code)
I will advise the Mining Company not to deduct from the amount due to each miner the amount equivalent to his debt to the
Credit Union. The debts of a deceased worker to the Credit Union is not one of the allowable deductions under the Labor Code, or any
rules and regulations of the Department of Labor and Employment. (See Art. 113 of the Labor Code)
ANOTHER ANSWER:
Yes, if pursuant to CBA provision or authorized by worker in writing; otherwise. No.
(1994) Concepcion Textile Co. included the overtime pay, night-shift differential pay, and the like in the computation of its
employees' 13th-month pay. Subsequently, with the promulgation of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of San Miguel
Corporation vs. Inciong (103 SCRA 139) holding that these other monetary claims should not be included in the computation of the 13th-
month pay, Concepcion Textile Co. sought to recover under the principle of solutio indebiti its overpayment of its employees' 13th-month
pay, by debiting against future 13th-month payments whatever excess amounts it had previously made. Is the Company's action tenable?
The Company's action is not tenable. The principle of salutio indebiti which is a civil law concept is not applicable in labor law.
Thus, solutio indebiti is not applicable to the instant case, (Davao Fruits Corporations vs. National Labor Relations Commission, et at.
225 SCRA 562)
ALTERNATIVE ANSWERS:
The Company's action would be tenable if payment was done by mistake. In which case recovery can be done under the
principle of solutio indebiti. But if there was no mistake, the Company's action would be untenable because it would violate Article 100 of
the Labor Code which prohibits elimination or diminution of benefits.
PREFERENCE OF CREDITS
(1995) 1. Under the Labor Code, is the right of first preference a lien on the property of the insolvent debtor in favor of the
workers? Explain.
The right of first preference in favor of workers is not a lien on the property of the insolvent debtor. The preference could be
exercised only in the event of bankruptcy or liquidation of an employer's business.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
A preference does not attach to specific properties. A lien creates charges on a particular property. The right of first preference
as regards unpaid wages recognized by the Labor Code does not constitute a lien on the property of the insolvent debtor in favor of the
workers. It is but a preference of credit in their favor, a preference in application.

The Labor Code does not purport to create a lien in favor of workers or employees for unpaid wages either upon all of the
properties or upon any particular property owned by their employer.
(2003) Premiere Bank, a banking corporation, being the creditor-mortgagee of XYZ & Co., a garment firm, foreclosed the
hypothecated assets of the latter. Despite the foreclosure, XYZ & Co. continued its business operations. A year later, the bank took
Page | 33
possession of the foreclosed property. The garment firm's business operations ceased without a declaration of bankruptcy. Jose Caspar,
an employee of XYZ & Co., was dismissed from employment due to the cessation of business of the firm. He filed a complaint against
XYZ & Co. and the bank. The Labor Arbiter, after hearing, so found the company liable, as claimed by Jose Caspar, for separation pay.
Premiere Bank was additionally found subsidiarily liable upon the thesis that the satisfaction of labor benefits due to the employee is
superior to the right of a mortgagee of property. Was the Labor Arbiter correct in his decision?
No. The preference of credits established in Art. 110 of the Labor Code cannot be invoked in the absence of any insolvency
proceedings, declaration of bankruptcy, or judicial liquidation. (DBP v. Santos. 171 SCRA 138 (1989).
ANOTHER ANSWER:
No. What Art. 110 of the Labor Code establishes is not a lien but a preference of credit in favor of employees. Unlike a lien, a
preference of credit does not create a charge upon any particular property of the debtor. (Development Bank of the Philippines v.
Secretary of Labor. 179 SCRA 630 (1989).
ANOTHER ANSWER:
The Decision of the Labor Arbiter holding Premiere Bank (as foreclosing mortgagee-creditor) subsidiarily liable for a money
obligation of XYZ & Co, (as mortgagor) to Caspar, its employee, has no legal basis.
There is no privity of relationship between the Bank and Caspar. The relationship, upon which the obligation to pay a sum of
money is based, is between XYZ (the mortgagor) and Caspar as its employee arising from the Labor Code provision requiring an employer
to pay separation pay, re: other causes of employment.
At both times - Labor Arbiter Decision to pay separation pay and foreclosure - XYZ & Co. was an existing business entity and
neither bankrupt or in liquidation, although its business operations after the foreclosure ceased.
The decision of the Labor Arbiter for XYZ & Co. to pay a sum of money to Caspar was based on an action in personam, not
in rem. enforceable against any party. (Sundowner Corporation vs. drilon. 180 SCRA 14 (1989)
The reference in the Decision to "labor benefits due to an employee is superior to the right of a mortgagee of property" is
misplaced. The preferential claim rule has no basis and runs contrary to law and jurisprudence.
(1995) Distinguish the mortgage created under the Civil Code from the right of first preference created by the Labor Code as
regards the unpaid wages of workers. Explain.
A MORTGAGE directly subjects the property upon which it is imposed, whoever the possessor may be, to the fulfillment of
the obligation for which it was constituted. It creates a real right which is enforceable against the whole world. It is therefore a lien on an
identified real property.
MORTGAGE CREDIT is a special preferred credit under the Civil Code in the classification of credits. The preference given
by the Labor Code when not attached to any specific property, is an ordinary preferred credit.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:

If the asset of an employer which has become bankrupt or has been liquidated has been mortgaged, the proceeds of the sale
of said mortgaged asset is first subject to the lien of the person to whom the property is mortgaged. Said lien is superior to the first
preference enjoyed by the workers pursuant to the Labor Code.
(1999) Lowland Cement & Factory Company (LCFC) borrowed P500M from the Development Bank of the Philippines and
mortgaged the entire company, inclusive of its land, buildings and equipment, to guarantee the payment of the loan. However, because
Page | 34
of the economic conditions, LCFC incurred heavy losses and eventually failed to pay DBP the required monthly amortizations over a
period of more than one (1) year. In due time, DBP foreclosed the mortgaged assets of LCTC resulting in the closure of the company
and the displacement of all its employees for want of work.
The LCFC Labor Union [Union] filed in behalf of the displaced workers a labor case against DBP as the new owner of the
defunct cement factory for wage differentials, retirement pay and other money claims. The Labor Arbiter decided in the favor of the Union.
DBP appealed to the NLRC.
DBP contended in its appeal that its acquisition of the mortgage assets of LCFC through foreclosure sale did not make it the
owner of the defunct Lowland Cement, and that the doctrine of successor-employer is not applicable in this case, since DBP did not
continue the business operation of LCFC.
The NLRC while finding merit in DBP's contention, nonetheless held DBP liable to the extent of the proceeds of the foreclosure
sale since the Union's claims in behalf of the workers constitute a first preference with respect thereto pursuant to article 110 of the Labor
Code.
Is the NLRC correct in holding DBP liable to the extent of the proceeds of the foreclosure sale? Explain briefly (5%)
No. DBP is not liable. DBP has a lien over the properties of LCFC which were mortgaged to DBP and said lien is superior to
the preference that the workers have under the Labor Code (in Article 110) with respect to their claims as workers against LCFC.
Panel: All claims must be filed in insolvency proceedings, which are outside the jurisdiction of the NLRC (Republic v. Peralta)
WAGE DISTORTION
(2009) No. IX. a. What is wage distortion? Can a labor union invoke wage distortion as a valid ground to go on strike? Explain.
Wage distortion refers to a situation where an increase in the prescribed wage rates results in the elimination or severe
contraction of intentional quantitative differences in wage or salary rates between and among employee groups in an establishment as
to effectively obliterate the distinctions embodied in such wage structure based on skills, length of service and other logical bases of
differentiation (Art. 124, Labor Code).
No. the existence of wage distortion is not a valid ground for staging a strike because Art. 124 of the Labor Code provides for
a specific method or procedure for correcting wage distortion. In Ilaw at Buklod ng Manggagawa vs. NLRC, (198 SCRA586, 594-5 [1991]),
the
Court said.
(2009) No. IX. b. What procedural remedies are open to workers who seek correction of wage distortion? (2%)
The Procedural Remedies of Wage Distortion disputes are provided in Art. 242 of the Labor Code, as follows.
1. Organized establishment – follow the grievance procedure as provided for in the CBA, ending in voluntary arbitration.
2. Unorganized establishment – employer and workers, with the aid of the NCMB shall endeavor to correct the wage distortion,
and if they fail, to submit the issue to the NLRC for compulsory arbitration.

(1997) Define Wage Distortion.
A WAGE DISTORTION is that brought about where an increase in the prescribed wage rates results in the elimination or
severe contraction of intentional quantitative differences in wage or salary rates between and among employee groups in an
establishment as to effectively obliterate the distinctions embodied in such wage rates based on skills, length of service and other logical
bases of differentiation.
Page | 35
May a wage distortion, alleged by the employees but rejected by the employer to be such, be a valid ground for staging a
strike?
No, the existence of wage distortion is not a valid ground for a strike because Art. 124 of the Labor Code provides for a specific
method of procedure for correcting wage distortion. Ilaw at Buklod ng Manggagawa vs. NLRC, 198 SCRA 586, the Court said:-
It goes without saying that these joint or coordinated activities may be forbidden or restricted by law or contract. For the
particular instance of "distortions of the wage structure within an establishment" resulting from the application of any prescribed wage
increase by virtue of a law or wage order. Section 3 of Republic Act No. 6727 prescribes a specific, detailed and comprehensive procedure
for the correction thereof, thereby implicitly excluding strikes or lockouts or other concerted activities as modes of settlement of the issue.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
(b) A wage distortion, alleged by the employees but rejected by the employer can be a valid ground for staging a strike if it
happens that in rejecting the allegation of wage distortion, the employer refuses to consider the issue under the grievance procedure
provided for in the applicable CBA, and later on through Voluntary Arbitration. These acts of the employer could be considered as a
violation of its duty to bargain collectively which is unfair labor practice (ULP). A ULP strike is legal.
(2002) A. How should a wage distortion be resolved (1) in case there is a collective bargaining agreement and (2) in case
there is none? Explain briefly.
According to Art. 124 of the Labor Code, in case there is a collective bargaining agreement, a dispute arising from wage
distortions shall be resolved through the grievance machinery provided in the CBA, and if remains unresolved, through voluntary
arbitration. In case there is no collective bargaining agreement, the employers and workers shall endeavor to correct such distortions.
Any dispute arising therefrom shall be settled through the National Conciliation and Mediation Board and if it remains unresolved after
ten (10) calendar days of conciliations, then the dispute is referred to the appropriate branch of the National Labor Relations Commission.
(2006) When is there a wage distortion?
A WAGE DISTORTION arises when an increase in prescribed wage rates results in the elimination or severe contraction of
intentional quantitative differences in wage or salary rates between and among employee groups in an establishment as to effectively
obliterate the distinctions embodied in such wage structure based on skills, length of service, or other logical bases of differentiation
(Article 124, Labor Code of the Philippines).
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
There is wage distortion when the following four elements concur:
An existing hierarchy of positions with corresponding salary rates; A significant change in the salary rate of a lower pay class
without a concomitant increase in the salary rate of a higher one; The elimination of the distinction between the two levels; and The
existence of the distortion in the same region of the country.
(2006) How should a wage distortion be settled?

In organized establishments, the wage distortion shall be resolved through the GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE under their
collective bargaining agreement, and if it remains unresolved, through VOLUNTARY ARBITRATION. On the other hand, in
establishments where there are no collective bargaining agreements or recognized labor unions, the employers and workers shall
endeavor to correct such distortion. Any dispute arising therefrom shall be settled through the National Conciliation and Mediation Board,
and if it remains unresolved after ten (10) calendar days of conciliation, shall be referred to the appropriate branch of the National Labor
Relations Commission for COMPULSORY ARBITRATION (Article 124, Labor Code of the Philippines).
Page | 36
(2006) Can the issue of wage distortion be raised in a notice of strike? Explain. (10%)
NO. Section 16, Chapter I of Rules Implementing RA 6727 provides that "Any dispute involving wage distortions shall not be
a ground for strike/lockout." Article 124 of the Labor Code, as amended by Republic Act 6727 prescribes a procedure for the correction
of a wage distortion, implicitly excluding strikes or lockouts or other concerted activities as modes of settlement of the issue. The legislative
intent that wage distortion shall be solved by voluntary negotiation or arbitration is made clear in the rules (Ilaiv at Buklod ng Manggagawa
v. NLRC, G.R. No. 91980, June 27, 1991).
LEAVES
(1997) Danilo Flores applied for the position of driver in the motor-pool of Gold Company, a multinational corporation. Danilo
was informed that he would frequently be working overtime as he would have to drive for the company's executives even beyond the
ordinary eight-hour work day. He was provided with a contract of employment wherein he would be paid a monthly rate equivalent to 35
times his daily wage, regular sick and vacation leaves, 5 day-leave with pay every month and time off with pay when the company's
executives using the cars do not need Danilo's service for more than eight hours a day, in lieu of overtime.
Are the above provisions of the contract of employment in conformity with, or violative of, the law?
Except for the provision that Danilo shall have time off with pay when the company's executives using the cars do not need
Danilo's service for more than eight hours a day, in lieu of overtime, the provisions of the contract of employment of Danilo are not
violative of any labor law because they instead improve upon the present provisions of pertinent labor laws.
Thus, the monthly rate equivalent to 35 times the daily wage may be sufficient to include overtime pay. There is no labor law
requiring the payment of sick and vacation leaves except the provision for a five-day service incentive leave in the Labor Code.
The 5-day-leave with pay every month has no counterpart in Labor Law and is very generous.
As for the provision in Danilo's contract of employment that he shall receive time off with pay in lieu of overtime, this violates
the provision of the Labor Code which states that undertime work on any particular day shall not be offset by overtime work on any other
day. Permission given to the employer to go on leave on some other day of the week shall not exempt the employer from paying the
additional compensation required by the Labor Code.
(2012) Dennis was a taxi driver who was being paid on the "boundary" system basis. He worked tirelessly for Cabrera Transport Inc. for
fourteen (14) years until he was eligible for retirement. He was entitled to retirement benefits. During the entire duration of his service,
Dennis was not given his 13th month pay or his service incentive leave pay.
a. Is Dennis entitled to 13th month pay and service leave incentive pay? Explain.
A: No. A taxi driver paid under the “boundary system” is not entitled to a 13th month pay and a SIL pay. Hence, his retirement pay should
be computed solely on the basis of his salary. Specifically, Sec. 3(e) of the Rules and Regulations Implementing P.D. 851 excludes from
the obligation of 13th Month Pay “Employers of those who are paid on xxx boundary” basis. On the other hand, Sec. 1 (d), Rule V. Book

III of the Omnibus Rules provides that those “employees whose performance is unsupervised by the employer” are not entitled to Service
Incentive Leave. A taxi driver paid under the Boundary System is an “unsupervised” employee.
b. Since he was not given his 13th month pay and service incentive leave pay, should Dennis be paid upon retirement, in addition
to the salary equivalent to fifteen (15) days for every year of service, the additional 2.5 days representing one-twelfth (1/12) of the 13th
month pay as well as the five (5) days representing the service incentive leave for a total of 22.5 days? Explain.
Page | 37
A: No. Since he is not entitled to 13th month pay and Service Incentive Leave, his retirement pay should be computed solely on the basis
of his salary. (R&E Transport v. Latag, G.R. No. 155214, February 13, 2004)
(2010) A driver for a bus company, sued his employer for non-payment of commutable service incentive leave credits upon his resignation
after five years of employment. The bus company argued that A was not entitled to service incentive leave since he was considered a
field personnel and was paid on commission basis and that, in any event, his claim had prescribed. If you were the Labor Arbiter, how
would you rule? Explain.
A: I will grant the prayer of A. Payment on commission basis alone does not prove that A is a field personnel. There must be proof that
A is left to perform his work unsupervised by his employer. Otherwise, he is not a field personnel, thus entitled to commutable service
incentive leave (SIL) credits [Auto Bus v. Bautista,458 SCRA 578 [2005]).
His action has not yet prescribed. In Auto Bus v. Bautista (supra.), the Supreme Court recognized that SIL is such a unique labor standard
benefit, because it is commutable. An employee may claim his accrued SIL throughout the years of his service with the company upon
his resignation, retirement, or termination. Therefore, when A resigned after five years, his right of action to claim ALL of his SIL benefits
accrued at the time when the employer refused to pay him his rightful SIL benefits (Art. 291, Labor Code).
(2010) A, single, has been an active member of the Social Security System for the past 20 months. She became pregnant out of wedlock
and on her 7th month of pregnancy, she was informed that she would have to deliver the baby through caesarean section because of
some complications. Can A claim maternity benefits? If yes, how many days can she go on maternity leave? If not, why is she not
entitled?
A: Yes. The SSS Law does not discriminate based on the civil status of a female member employee. As long as said female employee
has paid at least three (3) monthly contributions in the twelve-month period immediately preceding the semester of her childbirth, she
can avail of the maternity benefits under the law.
Since A gave birth through C-section, she is entitled to one hundred percent (100%) of her average salary credit for seventy-eight (78)
days, provided she notifies her employer of her pregnancy and the probable date of her childbirth, among others (Section 14-A, Rep. Act
No. 8282).
The same maternity benefits are ensured by Sec. 22 (b) (2) of the Magna Carta of Women (Rep. Act No. 9710).
(2007) AB, single and living-in with CD (a married man), is pregnant with her fifth child. She applied for maternity leave but her employer
refused the application because she is not married. Who is right? Decide.
A: AB is right. The Social Security Law, which administers the Maternity Benefit Program does not require that the relationship between
the father and the mother of the child be legitimate. The law is compensating the female worker because of her maternal function and
resultant loss of compensation. The law is morality free.
(2005) Mans Weto had been an employee of Nopolt Assurance Company for the last ten (10) years. His wife of six (6) years died last
year. They had four (4) children. He then fell in love with Jovy, his co-employee and they got married.
In October this year, Weto's new wife is expected to give birth to her first child. He has accordingly filed his application for paternity leave,
conformably with the provisions of the Paternity Leave Law which took effect in 1996. The HRD manager of the assurance firm denied
his application, on the ground that Weto had already used up his entitlement under that law. Weto argued that he has a new wife who
will be giving birth for the first time, therefore, his entitlement to paternity leave benefits would begin to run anew. Is Jovy entitled to
maternity leave benefits?

A: Yes, if Jovy, as a female employee, has paid at least three (3) monthly contributions in the twelve-month period immediately preceding
the semester of her childbirth (Sec, 14-A, R.A. 1161, as amended); otherwise; she is not entitled to the benefit.
(2005) Mans Weto had been an employee of Nopolt Assurance Company for the last ten (10) years. His wife of six (6) years died last
year. They had four (4) children. He then fell in love with Jovy, his co-employee and they got married.
Page | 38
In October this year. Weto's new wife is expected to give birth to her first child. He has accordingly filed his application for paternity
leave, conformably with the provisions of the Paternity Leave Law which took effect in 1996. The HRD manager of the assurance firm
denied his application, on the ground that Weto had already used up his entitlement under that law. Weto argued that he has a new wife
who will be giving birth for the first time, therefore, his entitlement to paternity leave benefits would begin to run anew. Whose contention
is correct, Weto or the HRD manager?
A: The contention of Weto is correct. The law provides that every married male is entitled to a paternity leave of seven (7) days for the
first four (4) deliveries of the legitimate spouse with whom he is cohabiting (Section 2, RA6187). Jovy is Weto's legitimate spouse with
whom he is cohabiting. The fact that Jovy is his second wife and that Weto had 4 children with his first wife is beside the point. The
important fact is that this is the first child of Jovy with Weto. The law did not distinguish and we should therefore not distinguish.
The paternity leave was intended to enable the husband to effectively lend support to his wife in her period of recovery and/or in the
nursing of the newly born child (Sec. 3, RA 8187). To deny Weto this benefit would be to defeat the rationale for the law.
(2002) How many times may a male employee go on Paternity Leave? Can he avail himself of this benefit, for example, 50 days after
the first delivery by his wife?
A: A male employee may go on Paternity Leave up to four (4) children (Sec. 2, RA 8187). On the question of whether or not he can avail
himself of this benefit 50 days after the delivery of his wife, the answer is: Yes, he can because the Rules Implementing Paternity Leave
Act says that the availment should not be later than 60 days after the date of delivery.
(2013) Because of the stress in caring for her four (4) growing children, Tammy suffered a miscarriage late in her pregnancy and had to
undergo an operation. In the course of the operation, her obstetrician further discovered a suspicious-looking mass that required the
subsequent removal of her uterus (hysterectomy). After surgery, her physician advised Tammy to be on full bed rest for six (6) weeks.
Meanwhile, the biopsy of the sample tissue taken from the mass in Tammy's uterus showed a beginning malignancy that required an
immediate series of chemotherapy once a week for four (4) weeks. What benefits can Tammy claim under existing social legislation?
A: Assuming she is employed, Tammy is entitled to a special leave benefit of two months with full pay (Gynecological Leave) pursuant
to RA 9710 or the Magna Carta of Women. She can also claim Sickness Leave Benefit in accordance with the SSS Law.
(2010) A, single, has been an active member of the Social Security System for the past 20 months. She became pregnant out of wedlock
and on her 7th month of pregnancy, she was informed that she would have to deliver the baby through caesarean section because of
some complications. Can A claim maternity benefits? If yes, how many days can she go on maternity leave? If not, why is she not
entitled?
A: Yes. The SSS Law does not discriminate based on the civil status of a female memberemployee. As long as said female employee
has paid at least three (3) monthly contributions in the twelve-month period immediately preceding the semester of her childbirth, she
can avail of the maternity benefits under the law.
Since A gave birth through C-section, she is entitled to one hundred percent (100%) of her average salary credit for seventy-eight (78)
days, provided she notifies her employer of her pregnancy and the probable date of her childbirth, among others (See Section 14-A, Rep.
Act No. 8282).
The same maternity benefits are ensured by Sec. 22 (b) (2) of the Magna Carta of Women (Rep. Act No. 9710).

SEXUAL HARASSMENT
(2018) Nena worked as an Executive Assistant for Nesting, CEO of Nordic Corporation. One day, Nesting called Nena into
his office and showed her lewd pictures of women in seductive poses which Nena found offensive. Nena complained before the
General Manager who, in turn, investigated the matter and recommended the dismissal of Nesting to the Board of Directors. Before the
Board of Directors, Nesting argued, that since the Anti-Sexual Harassment Law requires the existence of "sexual favors," he should not Page | 39
be dismissed from the service since he did not ask for any sexual favor from Nena. Is Nesting correct? (2.5%)
Nesting’s argument on lack of sexual favor is incorrect. While his actions require further proof of being a “sexual favor” in
terms of criminal liability under RA 7877, he may still be held liable under the just causes of termination in Article 297 of the Labor
Code. In Villarama v. NLRC and Golden Donuts, the Supreme Court held that a managerial employee is bound by more exacting work
ethics with a high standard of responsibility. Sexual harassment of a subordinate amounts to “moral perversity” which provides a
justifiable ground for dismissal due to lack of trust and confidence.
OTHER ANSWER
Nesting is not correct. Section 3 paragraph (a) in relation to paragraph (b) of RA 7877 states: “In a work-related or
employment environment” it is committed when sexual harassment results in an intimidating hostile or offensive environment for the
employee. In Philippine Aelus Automotive United Corp. v. NLRC, the Supreme Court rules that the gravamen of the offense in sexual
harassment is not violation of the employee’s sexuality but the abuse of power by the employer. In the Rayala case, sexual harassment
was said to be an imposition of misplaced superiority. The fact that no sexual favor was asked by Nesting does not mean he did not
violate R.A. 7877. His act of showing lewd pictures to a subordinate is clearly sexual harassment.
(2009) Atty. Renan, a CPA-lawyer and Managing Partner of an accounting firm, conducted the orientation seminar for newly-hired
employees of the firm, among them, Miss Maganda. After the seminar, Renan requested Maganda to stay, purportedly to discuss some
work assignment. Left alone in the training room, Renan asked Maganda 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, Renan told Maganda 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 Renan commit acts of sexual harassment in a work- related or employment environment? Reasons. (3%)
Atty. Renan is guilty of sexual harassment. This conclusion is predicated upon the following contradiction:
1. Atty. Renan has authority, influence or moral ascendancy over Miss Maganda;
2. While the law calls for a demand, request or requirement of a sexual, it is not necessary that the demand, request or
requirement of a sexual favor be articulated in a categorical oral or written statement. It may be discerned, with equal certitude form acts
of the offender. (Domingo vs. Rayala, 546 SCRA 90 [2008]);
3. The acts of Atty. Renan towards Miss Maganda resound with defeaning clarity the unspoken request for a sexual favor,
regardless of whether it is accepted or not by Miss Maganda.
In sexual harassment, it is not essential that the demand, request or requirement be made as a condition for continued
employment or promotion to a higher position. It is enough that Atty. Renan‘s act result in creating an intimidating, hostile or offensive
environment for Miss Maganda.
(2005) Carissa, a comely bank teller, was due for her performance evaluation which is conducted every six months. A rating
of "outstanding" is rewarded with a merit increase. She was given a "below average" rating in the last two periods. According to the bank's
personnel policy, a third rating of "below average" will result in termination. Mr. Perry Winkle called Carissa into his office a few days
before submitting her performance ratings. He invited her to spend the night with him in his rest house. She politely declined. Undaunted,
Mr. Winkle renewed his invitation, and Carissa again declined. He then warned her to "watch out" because she might regret it later on. A
few days later, Carissa found that her third and last rating was again "below average."

Carissa then filed a complaint for sexual harassment against Mr. Winkle with the Department of Labor and Employment. In
his counter-affidavit, he claimed that he was enamored with Carissa. He denied having demanded, much less received any sexual favors
from her in consideration of giving her an "outstanding" rating. He also alleged that the complaint was premature because Carissa failed
to refer the matter to the Committee on Decorum and Discipline for investigation and resolution before the case against him was filed. In
her reply affidavit, Carissa claimed that there was no need for a prior referral to the Committee on Decorum and Discipline of her
complaint. Page | 40
Resolve the case with reasons. (5%)
I will hold Mr. Perry Winkle guilty of sexual harassment. This resolution is predicated mainly upon the following considerations:
1. Mr. Perry Winkle exercises authority, influence or moral ascendancy over Carissa;
2. Mr. Winkle's insistence in inviting Carissa "to spend the night with him in his rest house" implies a request or demand for a
sexual favor;
3. Mr. Winkle's warning clearly manifests that the refusal of the sexual favor would jeopardize Carissa's continued employment;
and
4. Mr. Winkle's invitation for a sexual favor will result in an intimidating, hostile, or otherwise offensive working environment
for Carissa.
Carissa is correct in stating that there was no need for prior referral to the Committee on Decorum and Discipline of her
complaint because nothing in the law precludes the victim of sexual harassment from instituting a separate and independent action for
damages and other affirmative relief. (Sec. 6, R.A. No. 7877)
(2006) As a condition for her employment, Josephine signed an agreement with her employer that she will not get married,
otherwise, she will be considered resigned or separated from the service.
Josephine got married. She asked Owen, the personnel manager, if the company can reconsider the agreement. He told
Josephine he can do something about it, insinuating some sexual favors. She complained to higher authorities but to no avail. She hires
you as her counsel. What action or actions will you take? Explain. (5%)
I will file a criminal case against Owen for violation of RA. No. 7877, otherwise known as the "Anti- Sexual Harassment Act of
1995." I will also file a separate and independent action for damages against Owen. By reason of the fact that the Company did not take
immediate action thereon, I will include the Company in the civil suit for damages and make it jointly and severally liable with Owen.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
Aside from filing a criminal case against Owen for violation of the Sexual Harassment Law (R.A. 7877) and a separate action
for damages, impleading the company, I will also file an action for constructive dismissal against the Company since the employee was
placed in a job atmosphere imposing oppressive work conditions contrary to public policy and morals.
(2000) A Personnel Manager, while interviewing an attractive female applicant for employment, stared directly at her for
prolonged periods, albeit in a friendly manner. After the interview, the manager accompanied the applicant to the door, shook her hand
and patted her on the shoulder. He also asked the applicant if he could invite her for dinner and dancing at some future time. Did the
Personnel Manager, by the above acts, commit sexual harassment? Reason. (3%)
Yes, because the Personnel Manager, a man, is in a position to grant or not to grant a favor (a job) to the applicant. Under
the circumstances, inviting the applicant for dinner or dancing creates a situation hostile or unfriendly to the applicant's chances for a job
if she turns down the invitation. [Sec. 3(a)(3), R.A. No. 7877, Anti-Sexual Harassment Act].
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:

There is no sexual harassment because there was no solicitation of sexual favor in exchange of employment. Neither was
there any intimidating, hostile or offensive environment for the applicant.
(2000) In the course of an interview, another female applicant inquired from the same Personnel Manager if she had the
physical attributes required for the position she applied for. The Personnel Manager replied: "You will be more attractive if you will
wear micro-mini dresses without the undergarments that ladies normally wear." Did the Personnel Manager, by
Page | 41
the above reply, commit an act of sexual harassment? Reason. (3%)
No, the Personnel Manager's reply to the applicant's question whether she qualifies for the position she is applying for does not constitute
sexual harassment. The Personnel Manager did not ask for or insinuate a request for a sexual favor in return for a favorable action on
her application for a job. But the Manager's statement may be offensive if attire or physical look is not a criterion for the job being applied
for.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
Yes. The remarks would result in an offensive or hostile environment for the employee. Moreover, the remarks did not give
due regard to the applicants' feelings and it is a chauvinistic disdain of her honor, justifying the finding of sexual harassment [Villarama
v. NLRC, 236 SCRA 280 (1994)]
(2004) Pedrito Masculado, a college graduate from the province, tried his luck in the city and landed a job as
utility/maintenance man at the warehouse of a big shopping mall. After working as a casual employee for six months, he signed a contract
for probationary employment for six months. Being well-built and physically attractive, his supervisor, Mr. Hercules Barak, took special
interest to befriend him. When his probationary period was about to expire, he was surprised when one afternoon after working hours,
Mr. Barak followed him to the men’s comfort room. After seeing that no one else was around, Mr. Barak placed his arm over Pedrito’s
shoulder and softly said: “You have great potential to become regular employee and I think I can give you a favorable recommendation.
Can you come over to my condo unit on Saturday evening so we can have a little drink? I’m alone, and I’m sure you want to stay longer
with the company.”
Is Mr. Barak liable for sexual harassment committed in a work-related or employment environment? (5%)
Yes, the elements of sexual harassment are all present. The act of Mr. Barak was committed in a workplace. Mr. Barak, as
supervisor of Pedrito Masculado, has authority, influence and moral ascendancy over Masculado. Given the specific circumstances
mentioned in the question like Mr. Barak following Masculado to the comfort room, etc. Mr. Barak was requesting a sexual favor from
Masculado for a favorable recommendation regarding the latter's employment.
It is not impossible for a male, who is a homosexual, to ask for a sexual favor from another male.

I do not see any sexual favor being solicited. Having a "little drink" in Mr. Barak's Condo Unit, as condition for a "favorable
recommendation is not one of the prohibited acts enumerated in Sec. 3 (a) of R.A. 7877, otherwise known as the Anti-Sexual Harassment
Act of 1995.
(2003) Can an individual, the sole proprietor of a business enterprise, be said to have violated the Anti-Sexual Harassment
Act of 1995 if he clearly discriminates against women in the adoption of policy standards for employment and promotions in the enterprise?
Explain.
When an employer discriminates against women in the adoption of policy standards for employment and promotion in his
enterprise, he is not guilty of sexual harassment. Instead, the employer is guilty of discrimination against women employees which is
declared to be unlawful by the Labor Code.

For an employer to commit sexual harassment, he - as a person of authority, influence or moral ascendancy -should have
demanded, requested or otherwise required a sexual favor from his employee whether the demand, request or requirement for
submission is accepted by the object of said act.
WORKING CONDITIONS FOR SPECIAL GROUPS OF EMPLOYEES

MINORS Page | 42
(2015) Soledad, a widowed school teacher, takes under her wing one of her students, Kiko, 13 years old, who was abandoned
by his parents and has to do odd jobs in order to study. She allows Kiko to live in her house, provides him with clean clothes, food, and
a daily allowance of 200 pesos. In exchange, Kiko does routine housework, consisting of cleaning the house and doing errands for
Soledad. One day, a representative of the DOLE and the DSWD came to Soledad's house and charged her with violating the law that
prohibits work by minors. Soledad objects and offers as a defense that she was not requiring Kiko to work as the chores were not
hazardous. Further, she did not give him chores regularly but only intermittently as the need may arise.
Is Soledad's defense meritorious?
No. Soledad’s defense is not meritorious because the work rendered by Kiko at her house is in the form of physical exertion
requiring compensation. Hence, it is an employment which no person can contract with a minor below 15 years of age (Art. 137, Labor
Code). Her defense that his occasional work did not expose him to hazardous conditions cannot take the place of the defense allowed
by law, viz., the employer is either parent or guardian. She is neither. Therefore, her defense must fail.
Other answer
A: Soledad’s defense is meritorious. Sec. 4(d) of the Kasambahay Law (RA 10361) provides that the term “Domestic Worker” shall not
include children who are under foster family arrangement, and are provided access to education and given an allowance incidental to
education, i.e. “baon”, transportation, school projects and school activities.
Note: I subscribe to this answer. Memorize this law.
(2012) A spinster school teacher took pity on one of her pupils, a robust and precocious 12-year old boy whose poor family
could barely afford the cost of his schooling. She 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, fetching water and all kinds of errands after school hours. She gives him rice and P100.00
before the boy goes home at 7:00 every night. The school principal learned about it and 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. Is her defense tenable? Why? (5%)
The defense is not tenable. Children below fifteen (15) years of age shall not be employed except:
1. when a child works directly under the sole responsibility of his/her family are employed xxx; or
2. where the child‘s employment or participation in public entertainment or information through cinema, theater, radio,
television or other form of media is essential xxx.‖ (Section 12, R.A. No. 7610, as amended by R.A. No. 9231).
(2004) A spinster school teacher took pity on one of her pupils, a robust and precocious 12-year old boy whose poor family
could barely afford the cost of his schooling. She lives alone at her house near the school after her housemaid left. In the afternoon, she
lets the boy do various chores as cleaning, fetching water and all kinds of errands after school hours. She gives him rice and P30.00
before the boy goes home at 7:00 every night. The school principal learned about it and 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, and she invoked the exception provided in the Department Order of DOLE for the engagement of persons in domestic and
household service.
Is her defense tenable? Reason. (5%)

No, her defense is not tenable. Under Article 139 of the Labor Code on "minimum employable age", no child below 15 years
of age shall be employed except when he works directly under the sole responsibility of his parents or guardian, the provisions of the
alleged Department Order of DOLE to the contrary notwithstanding. A mere Department Order cannot prevail over the express prohibitory
provisions of the Labor Code.
[Note: Sec. 3, RA 9231 allows a child below 15 years of age to work for not more than 20 hours a week; provided, that the
Page | 43
work shall not be more than four (4) hours at any given day; provided, further, that he does not work between 8 o'clock in the evening
and 6 o'clock in the morning of the following day; and provided, finally, that the work is not hazardous or deleterious to his health or
morals. THIS IS A RECENT LAW APPROVED ONLY ON JULY 28, 2003, which is beyond the cut-off period of the Bar Exams]
(2009) Employment of children below fifteen (15) years of age in any public or private establishment is absolutely prohibited.
False, children below fifteen (15) years of age (can be employed) ―when he/she works directly under the sole responsibility
of his/her parents or guardian, and his employment does not in any way interfere with his schooling.
(2007) No. II. a. Discuss the statutory restrictions on the employment of minors? (5%)
Article 140 of the Labor Code provides that employers shall not discriminate against any person in respect to terms and
conditions of employment on account of his age. The employer is duty-bound to submit a report to DOLE of all children under his employ,
with a separate report on children found to be handicapped after a conduct of medical examination. Moreover, an employer in any
commercial, industrial, or agricultural establishment or enterprise is required to keep a register of all children under his employ, indicating
therein their respective dates of birth; and a separate file on written consent of their respective parents/guardians, another file for their
educational and medical certificates, and a separate file for especial work permits issued by Secretary of DOLE.
For children employed as domestic, the head of the family shall give the domestic an opportunity to complete at least
elementary education. (Arts. 110, 108, and 109, PD 603 of the Revised Penal Code)
Art. 272 provides that no person shall retain a minor in service against his will, in payment of a debt incurred by an ascendant,
guardian or person entrusted with the custody of the sais minor.
Art. 278 enumerate various acts of exploitations of minors prohibited under the law, to wit:
1. Any person who shall cause any boy or girl under 16 years of age to perform any dangerous feat of balancing physical
strength or contortion.
2. Any person who, being an acrobat, gymnast, rope-walker, diver, wild animal tamer or circus manager or engaged in a
similar calling, shall employ in exhibitions of these kinds of children under 16 years of age who are not his children or descendants.
3. Any person engaged in any calling enumerated in the next paragraph who shall employ any descendant of his under 12
years of age in such dangerous exhibitions.
4. Any ascendant, guardian, teacher or person entrusted in any capacity with the care of a child under 16 years of age, who
shall deliver such child graciously to any person following any of the callings enumerated in par. 2 hereof, or to any habitual vagrant or
beggar.
PD 603: Child and Youth Welfare Code. Art. 107 of Child and Welfare Code provides that children below 16 years of age may
only be employed to perform light work which is nit harmful to their safety, health or normal development, and which is not prejudicial to
their studies.
RA9231, amending RA 6710. RA 6710 included a provision allowing a minor below 16 years of age to participate in public
entertainment or information through cinema, theater, radio or television, provided the contract is included by the child‘s parents or legal
guardian, with the express agreement of the child, and approval of DOLE. The employer is required to: (a) ensure the protection, health,

safety, morals and normal development of the child; (b) institute measures to prevent the child‘s exploitation and discrimination taking
into account the system and level of renumeration, and the duration and arrangement of working time; and (c) formulate and implement
a continuing program for training and skills acquisition of the child.
The Department of Education is chaired to promulgate a course design under its non-formal program aimed at promoting
intellectual, moral and vocational efficiency to working children who have not undergone or finished elementary or secondary education.
Page | 44
(2006) Determine whether the following minors should be prohibited from being hired and from performing their respective
duties indicated hereunder: (5%)
A 17-year old boy working as miner at the Walwadi Mining Corporation.
It is absolutely Prohibited for any person below 18 years of age to be employed in hazardous work, harmful to health and
safety (Sec. 3, Rule 12, Book 3, ties Implementing the Labor Code), including construction work, logging, firefighting, mining, quarrying,
stevedoring, dock work, deep sea fishing and mechanized fishing (Sec. 8[2], Rule 1, Book 4, Rules Implementing the Labor Code).
An 11-year old boy who is an accomplished singer and performer in different parts of the country.
Under RA. 7610, Section 12, as amended by RA. No. 9231 states that:
Employment of children — children below 15 years of age shall not be employed (Art. 139, Labor Code) except when the
following conditions are met:
When the child's participation in public entertainment is essential; There is a written contract approved by the DOLE and
signed by the child's parents or legal guardians, with the express consent of the child; and the employer who employs the child must
secure a work permit from the DOLE.
A 15-year old girl working as a library assistant in a girls' high school.
She may work as a library assistant provided:
The employment does not endanger her life, safety, morals and normal development; She is given the opportunity for primary
or secondary education; and The employment does not exceed 8 hours a day and 40 hours a week (Sees. 12 & 14, RA. 7610, as
amended by RA. 9231).
A 16-year old girl working as model promoting alcoholic beverages.
Section 14, Article 8, RA. 7610, as amended by Section 5, RA. 9231 states that a child shall be prohibited to act as a model
in any advertisement directly or indirectly promoting alcoholic beverages, intoxicating drinks, tobacco and its byproducts, gambling or
any form of violence or pornography.
A 17-year old boy working as a dealer in a casino.
Section 14, Article 8, RA. 7610, as amended by Section 5, RA. 9231 prohibits the boy from working as a dealer in a casino as
this promotes gambling. Moreover, DOLE Dept. Order No. 04, series of 1999, expressly prohibits employment of "teenagers" in gambling
halls.
(2002) You were asked by a paint manufacturing company regarding the possible employment as a mixer of a person, aged
seventeen (17), who shall be directly under the care of the section supervisor. What advice would you give? Explain briefly. (2%)

B. I will advise the paint manufacturing company that ft cannot hire a person who is aged seventeen (17). Art 139 (c) of the
Labor Code provides that a person below eighteen (18) years of age shall not be allowed to work in an undertaking which is hazardous
or deleterious in nature as determined by the Secretary of Labor. Paint manufacturing has been classified by the Secretary of Labor as
a hazardous work.
Page | 45
HOUSEHELPER
(2018) Your favorite relative, Tita Nilda, approaches you and seeks your advice on her treatment of her kasambahay,
Noray. Tita Nilda shows you a document called a "Contract of Engagement" for your review. Under the Contract of Engagement, Noray
shall be entitled to a rest day every week, provided that she may be requested to work on a rest day if Tita Nilda should need her
services that day. Tita Nilda also claims that this Contract of Engagement should embody all terms and conditions of Noray's work as
the engagement of a kasambahay is a private matter and should not be regulated by the State.
a) Is Tita Nilda correct in saying that this is a private matter and should not be regulated by the State? (2.5%)
Tita Nilda is incorrect. The relationship between Tita Nilda and Noray is an employer-employee arrangement that is
regulated by the police power of the State. Through the Batas Kasambahay, the State recognizes this employment relationship and
establishes minimum labor standards for domestic workers, toward decent employment and income, enhanced coverage of social
protection and respect for human rights, and strengthened social dialogue. Also, since domestic workers are generally working women
in vulnerable working conditions, the State regulates domestic worker employment to prevent abuse and exploitation and uphold the
gender right of domestic workers.
b) Is the stipulation that she may be requested to work on a rest day legal? (2.5%)
Yes. Such a stipulation is legal as it states that Noray may only be “requested” to work on a rest day, thereby recognizing
that the consent of Noray is needed in order to waive her right to a weekly rest day. Section 21 of the Kasambahay Law allows both the
employer and domestic worker to agree on certain arrangements to offset, waive, or accumulate rest days, subject to payment of
appropriate wages and benefits.
c) Are stay-in family drivers included under the Kasambahay Law? (2.5%)
No. Family drivers are not included under the Kasambahay Law. A “Kasambahay” refers to any person engaged in domestic
work within an employment relationship such as, but not limited to, the following: general househelp, nursemaid or “yaya”, cook,
gardener, or laundry person, but shall exclude any person who performs domestic work only occasionally or sporadically and not on an
occupational basis.
OTHER ANSWER
The Republic Act No. 10361 does not exclude family drivers from the coverage of the Kasambahay law. It is only in the
Implementing Rules that the family drivers were excluded. Note that the Labor Code explicitly includes “family drivers and other
persons in the personal service of another in the coverage of the Labor Code, and hence, it is believed that the family drivers should
fall within the ambit of the Kasambahay Law, the exclusion of driver in the Implementing Rules is without basis.
Domestic helper or househelper or domestic servant shall refer to any person, whether male or female, who renders
services in and about the employer’s home and which services are usually necessary or desirable for the maintenance and enjoyment
thereof, and ministers exclusively to the personal comfort and enjoyment of the employers’ family. Such definition covers family drivers,
domestic servants, laundry women, yayas, gardeners, houseboys and other similar househelps.
Take note: Family drivers are kasambahays.

(2014) Linda was employed by Sectarian University (SU) to cook for the members of a religious order who teach and live
inside the campus. While performing her assigned task, Linda accidentally burned herself. Because of the extent of her injuries, she went
on medical leave. Meanwhile, SU engaged a replacement cook. Linda filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, but her employer SU
contended that Linda was not a regular employee but a domestic househelp. Decide.
Linda is a regular employee. SU’s contention that Linda is a domestic helper is without basis because the latter did not minister
Page | 46
to the personal comfort of the members of any household. Although a cook, hence listed, she cannot be classified as a Kasambahay
because she rendered services for resident religious teachers in a university which was not a household.
(2012) No. V. a. Baldo was dismissed from employment for having beenabsent without leave (AWOL) for eight (8) months. It
turned outthat the reason for his absence was his incarceration after he was mistaken as his neighbor’s killer. Eventually acquitted and
released from jail, Baldo returned to his employer and demanded reinstatement and full backwages. Is Baldo entitled to reinstatement
and backwages? Explain your answer. (3%)
Yes, Baldo is entitled to reinstatement. Although he shall not be entitled to backwages during the period of his detention, but
only from the time the company refuse to reinstate him. (Magtoto v. NLRC, 140 SCRA 58 [1985]).
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
No, Baldo is not entitled to reinstatement and backwages. The dismissal was for cause, i.e., AWOL. Baldo failed to timely
inform the employer of the cause of his failure to report for work; hence, prolonged absence is a valid ground to terminate employment.
(2009) No. VI. a. Albert, a 40-year old employer, asked his domestic helper, Inday, to give him a private massage. When Inday
refused, Albert showed her Article 141 of the Labor Code, which says that one of the duties of a domestic helper is to minister to the
employer’s personal comfort and convenience.
Is Inday’s refusal tenable? Explain. (3%)
Yes, Inday‘s refusal to give her employer a ―private massage‖ employer is in accordance with law because the nature of
the work of a domestic worker must be in connection with household chores. Massaging is not a domestic work.
(2007) May a househelp be assigned to non-household work? (5%)
A househelper may be assigned to non-household work but a househelper assigned to work in a commercial, industrial or
agricultural enterprise should have a wage or salary rate not lower than provided for agricultural or non-agricultural workers as prescribed
by law.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
No, pursuant to Article 141 of the Labor Code, a househelper is defined as a person who renders domestic or household
services exclusively to a household employer. Domestic or household service is defined as service in the employer‘s home, which is
usually necessary or desirable for the maintenance and enjoyment thereof, and includes ministering to the personal comfort and
convenience of the members of the employer‘s household, including services of family drivers (Rule XIII, Section 1(b), Book 3 of the
Labor Code)
A househelper cannot be assigned non- household work because to do so would place that person outside the ambit of the
special Labor Code provisions on househelpers. In such a situation, terms and conditions of employment would differ.
(2007) Inday was employed by mining company X to perform laundry service at its staffhouse. While attending to her assigned
task, she slipped and hit her back on a stone. Unable to continue with her work, she was permitted to go on leave for medication, but

thereafter she was not allowed to return to work. She filed a complaint for illegal dismissal but her employer X contended that Inday was
not a regular employee but a mere househelp. Decide. (5%)
Inday is a regular employee. Under Rule XIII, Section 1(b), Book 3 of the Labor Code, as amended, the terms househelper or
domestic servant are defined as follows:
The term househelper as used herein is synonymous to the term domestic servant‖ and shall refer to any person, whether
Page | 47
male or female, who renders services in and about the employer‘s home and which services are usually necessary and desirable for the
maintenance and enjoyment thereof, and ministers exclusively to the personal comfort and enjoyment of the employer‘s family.
The foregoing definition clearly contemplates such househelper or domestic servant who is employed in the employer‘s home
to minister exclusively to the personal comfort and enjoyment of the employer‘s family. The definition cannot be interpreted to include
househelp or laundrywomen working in staffhouses of a company, like Inday who attends the needs of the company‘s guest and
other persons availing of the said facilities. The criteria is the personal comfort and enjoyment of the family of the employer in the home
of said employer. While it may be true that the nature of the work of a house helper, domestic servant or laundrywoman in a home or in
a company staffhouse may be similar in nature, the difference in their circumstances is that in the former instance they are actually
serving the family while in the latter case, whether it is a corporation or a single proprietorship engaged in business or industry or any
other agricultural or similar pursuit, service is being rendered in the staffhouses or within the premises of the business of the employer.
In such instance, they are employees of the company or employed in the business concerned entitled to the privileges of a regular
employee. The mere fact that the househelper or domestic servant is working within the premises of the business of the employer and in
relation to or in connection with its officers and employees, warrants the conclusion that such househelper or domestic servant is and
should be considered as a regular employee of the employer and not considered as a mere family househelper or domestic servant as
contemplated in Rule XIII, Section 1(b), Book 3 of the Labor Code, as amended (Apex Mining Company, Inc. v. NLRC, 196 SCRA 251
[1991]).
(1998) The weekly work schedule of a driver is as follows: Monday, Wednesday, Friday - Drive the family car to bring and
fetch the children to and from school. Tuesday, Thursday. Saturday - Drive the family van to fetch merchandise from suppliers and deliver
the same to a boutique in a mall owned by the family. Is the driver a househelper? [3%]
The same driver claims that for work performed on Tuesday, Thursday and Saturday, he should be paid the minimum daily
wage of a driver of a commercial establishment. Is the claim of the driver valid? [2%]
The driver is a househelper. A person is a househelper or is engaged in domestic or household service if he/she renders
services in the employer's home which are usually necessary or desirable for the maintenance and enjoyment thereof and includes
ministering to the personal comfort and convenience of the members of the employer's household including the services of family drivers.
A family driver who drives the family van to fetch merchandise from suppliers and delivers the same to a boutique in a mall
owned by the family for whom he works should be paid the minimum daily wage of a driver in a commercial establishment.
The Labor Code (in Article 143) provides that no househelper shall be assigned to work in a commercial, industrial or
agricultural enterprise at a wage or salary rate lower than that provided by law for agricultural or non-agricultural workers.
HOMEWORKER VS DOMESTIC HELPER
(2017) Are there differences between a househelper and a homeworker? Explain your answer?
Domestic worker or “Kasambahay” refers to any person engaged in domestic work within an employment relationship such
as, but not limited to, the following: general househelp, nursemaid or “yaya”, cook, gardener, or laundry person while (b) “Industrial
Homeworker” means a worker who is engaged in industrial homework.

(2009) Albert, a 40-year old employer, asked his domestic helper, Inday, to give him a private massage. When Inday refused,
Albert showed her Article 141 of the Labor Code, which says that one of the duties of a domestic helper is to minister to the employer’s
personal comfort and convenience.
Distinguish briefly, but clearly, a "househelper" from a "homeworker." (2%)
Art. 141. – Domestic Helper – one who performs services in the employers house which is usually necessary or desirable for
Page | 48
the maintenance and enjoyment thereof and includes ministering to the personal comfort and convenience of the members of the
employer‘s household, including the services of a family driver.
Art. 153. – Homeworker – is an industrial worker who works in his/her home processing raw materials into finished products
for an employer. It is a decentralized form of production with very limited supervision or regulation of methods of work.
LEARNERSHIP AND APPRENTICESHIP
(2017) Distinguish a learner from an apprentice. (4%)
1. As to the agreement In Apprenticeship, the agreement entered by the parties is known as Apprenticeship Agreement.
(Articles 58 [d], Labor Code); In learnership, the agreement entered by the parties is known as Learnership Agreement (Article 75, Labor
Code);
2. As to the period of agreement In Apprenticeship, the agreement shall not be less than four (4) months and not more than
six months; (Articles 58 [c] in relation to Article 61 and 3.10, TESDA Circular No. 16, Series of 2004); In learnership, the agreement period
shall not be more than three (3) months; (Article 75 (c), Labor Code, 3.10, TESDA Circular No. 16, Series of 2004);
3. As to obligations to hire In apprenticeship, the enterprise is not obliged to hire the apprentice after the apprenticeship period;
(Articles 61, Labor Code, 3.10, TESDA Circular No. 16, Series of 2004); In learnership, the enterprise is obliged to hire the learner after
the learnership period (Article 75 (d), Labor Code, 3.10, TESDA Circular No. 16, Series of 2004);
4. As to pre-termination of the agreement In apprenticeship, upon pre-termination of the agreement there is no regular
employment by operation of law; (Articles 57-72, Labor Code); In learnership, a learner allowed or suffered to work during the first two
(2) months shall be deemed regular employees if training is terminated by the employer before the end of the stipulated period through
no fault of the learners (Article 75 (d), Labor Code);
5. As to the person hired, in apprenticeship, the persons hired as trainees is known as apprentice; (Articles 58 [a], Labor Code,
2, TESDA Circular No. 16, Series of 2004); In learnership, the persons hired as trainees is known as learner (Articles 73, Labor Code, 2,
TESDA Circular No. 16, Series of 2004);
6. As to the supplement on theoretical instructions, in apprenticeship, the training on the job is with compulsory related
theoretical instructions; (Article 58 [a], Labor Code, Section 4 [j], R.A. 7796, and 2, TESDA Circular No. 16, Series of 2004); In learnership,
the practical training on the job may or may not be supplemented by related theoretical instructions; (2, TESDA Circular No. 16, Series
of 2004);
7. As to the reasons for hiring, in apprenticeship, the law did not provide any reasons where an apprentice may be hired
(Articles 59-72, Labor Code); In learnership, the law provides the following reasons for hiring (1) when no experienced workers are
available; (2) the employment of learners is necessary to prevent curtailment of employment opportunities; and (3) the employment does
not create unfair competition in terms of labor costs or impair or lower working standards (Article 74, Labor Code);
8. As to qualifications, in apprenticeship, the qualifications are (a) At least fifteen (15) years of age; (b) Possess vocational
aptitude and capacity for appropriate tests; and (c) Possess the ability to comprehend and follow oral and written instructions and no

justifications or reasons given by law for hiring; (Articles 59, Labor Code); In learnership, the law did not provide such qualifications.
However, reasons or justifications for hiring are provided by law (Articles 74, Labor Code);
9. As to what occupations hired, In apprenticeship, the occupations involves “highly technical industries” which means trade,
business, enterprise, industry, or other activity, which is engaged in the application of advanced technology and apprenticeable
occupations must be approved by TESDA; (Articles 60, Labor Code and 3.3, TESDA Circular No. 16, Series of 2004). In learnership, the
occupations involves are semi-skilled and other industrial occupations which are non- apprenticeable and learnable occupations must be Page | 49
approved by TESDA (Articles 73, Labor Code and 3.3, TESDA Circular No. 16, Series of 2004).
(2016) Differentiate learnership from apprenticeship with respect to the period of training, type of work, salary and
qualifications. (5%)
Learnership and apprenticeship are similar because they both mean training periods for jobs requiring skills that can be
acquired through actual work experience. And because both a learner and an apprentice are not as fully productive as regular workers,
the learner and the apprentice may be paid wages twenty-five percent lower than the applicable legal minimum wage.
They differ in the focus and terms of training. An apprentice trains in a highly skilled job or in any job found only in highly
technical industries. Because it is a highly skilled job, the training period exceeds three months. For a learner, the training period is
shorter because the job is more easily learned than that of apprenticeship. The job, in other words, is "non- apprenticeable" because it is
practical skills which can be learned in three (not six) months. A learner is not an apprentice but an apprentice is, conceptually, also a
learner.
Accordingly, because the job is more easily learnable in learnership than in apprenticeship, the employer is committed to hire
the learner- trainee as an employee after the training period. No such commitment exists in apprenticeship. Finally, employment of
apprentices, as stated in Article 60, is legally allowed only in highly technical industries and only in apprenticeable occupations approved
by the DOLE. Learnership is allowed even for non- technical jobs.
PERSONS WITH DISABILITY
(2012) For humanitarian reasons, a bank hired several handicapped workers to count and sort out currencies. The
handicapped workers knew that the contract was only for a period of six-months and the same period was provided in their employment
contracts. After six months, the bank terminated their employment on the ground that their contract has expired. This prompted the
workers to file with the Labor Arbiter a complaint for illegal dismissal. Will their action prosper? Why or why not? (5%)
No, an employment contract with a fixed term terminates by its own terms at the end of such period. The same is valid if the
contract was entered into by the parties on equal footing and the period specified was not designed to circumvent the security of tenure
of the employees. (Brent School v. Zamora, 181 SCRA 702).
(1998) A lady worker was born with a physical deformity, specifically, hard of hearing, speech impaired, and color blind.
However, these deficiencies do not impair her working ability. Can the employer classify the lady worker as a handicapped worker so
that her daily wage will only be seventy-five percent (75%) ofthe applicable daily minimum wage? [5%]
No, the employer cannot classify the lady worker as a handicapped worker because according to the facts in the question,
her deficiencies do not impair her working ability. If her earning capacity is therefore not also impaired, then she cannot be considered a
handicapped worker. Because of the above fact, the employer shall not pay her less than the applicable daily minimum wage. (See Article
78 of the Labor Code)

Yes, the employer can classify the lady worker as a handicapped worker because her earning capacity may be impaired by
her physical deficiencies As such handicapped worker, the employer may enter into an employment agreement with her whereby the
rate to be paid to her may be less than the applicable legal minimum wage but not less than 75% of such wage.
(2000) Ana Cruz has a low IQ. She has to be told at least three times before she understands her daily work assignment.
However, her work output is at least equal to the output of the least efficient worker in her work section. Is Ms, Cruz a handicapped
Page | 50
worker? Explain. (5%)
No, low IQ or low efficiency does not make the worker "handicapped" in the contemplation of law. Handicap means such
physical or mental infirmity that impairs capacity to work. The deficiency may also be due to age or injury. (Art 78. Labor Code).
(2006) For humanitarian reasons, a bank hired several handicapped workers to count and sort out currencies. Their
employment contract was for six (6) months. The bank terminated their employment on the ground that their contract has expired
prompting them to file with the Labor Arbiter a complaint for illegal dismissal. Will their action prosper? (5%)
Their action will not prosper because they are covered by the fixed term employment contract which automatically lapsed at
the end of the 6- month period (Brent School v. Zamora, G.R. No. 48494, February 5, 1990; Art. 280, Labor Code). A contract of
employment for a definite period terminates on its own term at the end of its period. It does not necessarily follow that the parties are
forbidden from agreeing on a fixed period of time for the performance of activities usually necessary and desirable in the usual business
of the employer (Pangilinan v. Gen. Milling, G.R. No. 149329, July 12, 2004).
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
Yes. Undeniably, handicapped workers are never on equal terms with the bank as employer. In Philippine National Oil
Company-Energy Development Corporation v. NLRC, G.R. No. 97747, March 31, 1993, the Supreme Court set down two criteria under
which fixed contracts of employment do not circumvent security of tenure, to wit:
The fixed period of employment was knowingly and voluntarily agreed upon by the parties, without any force, duress or
improper pressure being brought to bear upon the employee and about any other circumstances vitiating his consent; or It satisfactorily
appears that the employer and the employee dealt with each other on more or less equal terms with no moral dominance whatever being
exercised by the former on the latter.Even granting that the handicapped workers and the bank agreed to term employment, it could not
be said that they "dealt with each other on more or less equal terms with no moral dominance whatever being exercised by the former
over the latter."

POST EMPLOYMENT
Page | 51

1991-2019 Bqa Labor Law Revised

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

1991-2019 Bqa Labor Law Revised

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

From Nth Time BAR CHALLENGER TO ATTORNEY

LABOR LAW for Bar Law for Dummies Training Program

ARRANGED AND SEQUENCED

BAR QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS 1991-2019

II. RECRUITMENT AND PLACEMENT…9 Page | 2

VI. MANAGEMENT PREROGATIVE…206

VII. SOCIAL LEGISLATION…211

VIII. JURISDICTION AND RMEDIES…224

2019 BAR QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS…267

WHAT IS BAR LAW FOR DUMMIES…277

(2007) No. I. a. What is the principle of codetermination? (5%)

1. Extent of Protection - Full protection to labor;

ANOTHER SUGGESTED ANSWER:

LEGISLATION AND INTERPRETATION OF LABOR LAWS

(2006) What is the purpose of labor legislation? (2.5%)

RIGHTS OF EMPLOYER AND EMPLOYEE

(1996) What are the rights of an employer and an employee?

INJUNCTION IN LABOR CASES

SOCIAL JUSTICE AS GUIDING PRINCIPLES IN LABOR

The exceptions are:

1. Those hired by international organizations

The recruitment of workers becomes economic sabotage when:

(This is “for ranking purposes question”)

(This is for ranking purposes questions)

Offenses during Employment

Offenses During Employment

Should the DOLE orders be upheld or set aside? (5%)

May A validly refuse the plant manager’s directive? Explain. (2%)

Is the claim valid? [5%]

ANOTHER SUGGESTED ANSWER:

PAYMENT IN LEGAL TENDER

A. 13th month pay;

A. 13th month pay;

(1995) What is a bonus? When is it demandable as a matter of right? Explain.

FACTORS IN COMPUTING SEPARATION PAY

A. monthly salary only

Is the Company's action tenable?

FOOD AND LODGING

No, the following requisites were not complied with:

1. Proof that such facilities are customarily furnished by the trade

ANOTHER SUGGESTED ANSWER:

NO WORK NO PAY PRINCIPLE

13th MONTH PAY

ANOTHER SUGGESTED ANSWER

(1997) Define Wage Distortion.

(2006) When is there a wage distortion?

(2006) How should a wage distortion be settled?

Resolve the case with reasons. (5%)

ANOTHER SUGGESTED ANSWER:

WORKING CONDITIONS FOR SPECIAL GROUPS OF EMPLOYEES

Is Soledad's defense meritorious?

Is her defense tenable? Reason. (5%)

A 17-year old boy working as miner at the Walwadi Mining Corporation.

A 15-year old girl working as a library assistant in a girls' high school.

She may work as a library assistant provided:

A 16-year old girl working as model promoting alcoholic beverages.

A 17-year old boy working as a dealer in a casino.

Take note: Family drivers are kasambahays.

Is Inday’s refusal tenable? Explain. (3%)

(2007) May a househelp be assigned to non-household work? (5%)

HOMEWORKER VS DOMESTIC HELPER

Distinguish briefly, but clearly, a "househelper" from a "homeworker." (2%)

LEARNERSHIP AND APPRENTICESHIP

(2017) Distinguish a learner from an apprentice. (4%)