1.

1. Manning agencies are prohibited from charging placement fees from seafarers. In this case, because
Blas Subas Manning Agency charged a placement fee from Kapitan Tutan, their license may be revoked
for charging such fees from Kapitan Tutan. Kapitan Tutan can file a case for illegal exaction of placement
fees and for the cancellation of Blas Subas Manning Agency for charging such amount.

2. Kapitan Tutan may be entitled to the full reimbursement of the placement fee charged to him.
This is because said amount is illegally collected from him where manning agencies are
prohibited from charging such placement fee to him.
3. 3. The sons and daughters are not entitled to overtime pay, night shift differential, premium pay
and holiday pay because members of the family of the employer who are dependent on him for
support are not covered by the labor standards as expressly provided for by law. The law states
that government employees, managerial employees, other officers or member of the
managerial staff, workers paid by results, and members of the family of the employer are
excluded from the coverage of the law on labor standards.
4. 4. It is not proper for Kapitan Tutan to hire his 14 year old daughter as cashier learner because
for a learner to be validly employed, it is required that there are no experienced workers
available, the employment of learners is necessary to prevent curtailment of employment
opportunities, and the employment does not create unfair competition. In this case, despite the
abundance of jobless waiters because of the pandemic, Kapitan Tutan did not hire workers
outside. Therefore, it is not proper for Kapitan Tutan to hire his daughter as cashier learner.
5. 5. The Labor Arbiter is not correct in ordering the reinstatement of Alma Taray to her
employment at Armando Rugas Employment Agency because while Armando Rugas has the
discretion of dismissing their employees for misconduct, it does not fall under the just causes
provided for by law. Dismissal for just cause means that the employee has committed a
wrongful act or omission such as serious misconduct. Here, the act of shouting does not
necessarily fall under serious misconduct.

6. 6. The Labor Arbiter is correct that Kapitan Tutan and Armando Rugas Employment Agency are
solidarily liable for Alma Taray's backwages, overtime pay, premium pay for holidays and rest
days and holiday pay because it is a valid subcontracting because Armando Rugas has the
control over the manner and method of performing the work. Thus, Alma Taray remains as an
employee of Armando Rugas. Only when Armando Rugas cannot pay the backwages, overtime
pay, premium pay for holidays and restdays of Alma Taray can Kapitan Tutan be held liable for
such. Thus, Kapitan Tutan is liable subsidiarily, not solidarily.

7. 7. Armando Rugas was not justified in disapproving the application for parental leave because
Mister Yoso has assumed the responsibility of head of the family. Under the law, solo parents
are entitled to parental leave. Solo parents include a family member who assumes the position
of head of the family because of the death of parents provided that this lasts for a year. Here,
since it has been a year since their parents died, Mister Yoso can then apply for parental leave.
8. I would dismiss the petition for certification election among the rank-and-file workers of Kapitan
Tutan because they are job contracting, no employer employee relationship exists between the
employees and Kapitan Tutan. Here Armando Rugas provides services and Kapitan Tutan is
considered only as indirect employer. Even if Kapitan Tutan and Armando Rugas are solidarily
liable for unpaid wages, the employees still remain as employees of Armando Rugas. Thus the
petition for certification election should be dismissed.

9. I would grant the petition for certification election by PAUL because under the certification year
bar rule, if after this 1 year period and the sole and exclusive bargaining agreement did not
commence the CBA with the employer, a rival union may file a petition for certification election.
In this case, UNGOS won and was certified as the sole and exclusive bargaining agent of the
workers of Kapitan Tutan on October 1, 2021. However, it was only on November 3, 2022 when
UNGOS submitted its CBA proposal to Kapitan Tutan. One year has already lapsed. Thus applying
the certification year bar rule, I will grant the petition for certification election by PAUL.

10. The petition will not prosper because under the contract bar rule, a petition for certification
election cannot be filed when the CBA between the employer and the duly recognized
bargaining agent has been registered. When it is duly registered, it is only during the 60-day
freedom period before its expiry may a petition for certification election be filed by a rival union.
Thus, in this case, since the CBA was registered on June 1, 2023, PAUL's petition for certification
election should be dismissed.