I.

Subject
Labor Law

Question
A Senior Recruitment Officer was caught on video in the lobby of the Company destroying
company property and shouting profane words towards a Senior Citizen Employee for being a
pesky worker. An incident report with notice of hearing was sent to the Senior Recruitment
Officer regarding the incident and after three days a hearing was held for the Company to hear
the side of the Officer. After the hearing the Senior Recruitment Officer was placed under paid
preventive suspension for thirty days pending the decision of the Company. Eventually she was
given a notice of termination. She sued the Company for illegal dismissal alleging that the
hearing was tainted with irregularities like she was not given enough time to consult with a
lawyer. Does she have a cause of action for illegal dismissal?

Comment or Suggested Answer

No. Illegal dismissal presupposes the compliance with the substantive aspect of due
process. This means that there was absence of any just cause for termination. In the
problem, the acts of the employee constitute serious misconduct which is a just cause
for termination. Also, the company complied with two-notice rule. In termination
proceedings of employees, procedural due process consists of the twin requirements of
notice and hearing. The requirement of a hearing is complied with as long as there was
an opportunity to be heard, and not necessarily that an actual hearing was conducted.
The presence or assistance of a lawyer is not required. Thus, the company clearly
complied with both the substantive and procedural aspect of due process. Therefore
the Senior Recruitment Officer has no cause of action for dismissal.
 II.
Subject
Labor Law

Question
The dictum of Yrasuegi vs Philippine Airlines lays down the rule on the bona fide occupational
qualification (BFOQ) which provides that an employment in particular jobs may not be limited to
persons of a particular sex, religion, or national origin unless the employer can show that sex,
religion, or national origin is an actual qualification for performing the job. However, the BFOQ
herein does not mention the qualification of age which may be a legitimate concern for an
employer on a case-by-case basis. How do we reconcile this in the context of management
prerogative vis-a-vis Republic Act No. 10911 (Eliminating Age Discrimination in Employment)?

Comment or Suggested Answer

Discrimination of employees based on age is allowed under Republic Act No. 10911.
Section 6 thereof provides:

It shall not be unlawful for an employer to set age limitations in employment if:

1. Age is a bona fide occupational qualification reasonably necessary in the

normal operation of a particular business or where the differentiation is based
on reasonable factors other than age;
2. The intent is to observe the terms of a bona fide seniority system that is not
intended to evade the purpose of this Act;
3. he intent is to observe the terms of a bona fide employee retirement or a
voluntary early retirement plan consistent with the purpose of this
Act: Provided, That such retirement or voluntary retirement plan is in
accordance with the Labor Code, as amended, and other related laws; or
4. The action is duly certified by the Secretary of Labor and Employment in
accordance with the purpose of this Act;

Thus, the management prerogative must be exercised within the exceptions provided by the
law.
 III.
Subject
Labor Law

Question
What does it mean when you say, "EE-ER is a question of law because it cannot be made the
subject of agreement"?

Comment or Suggested Answer

The existence of the EE-ER relationship is established law. Since it already provided by
law, the parties cannot stipulate among themselves whether it exists or not. This is
consistent with the principle of autonomy of contracts which allows the parties to
establish such stipulations, clauses, terms and conditions as they may deem
appropriate provided only that they are not contrary to law, morals, good customs,
public order or public policy.