LABOR LAW MOCK BAR EXAM

1
The denial of the claim was not correct.

Under the 24 Hour doctrine, the police officers are considered to be in the performance of
their duty in 24 hours a day regardless if they are on off-duty except if they have filed for a
vacation leave. They shall also be considered to be in the performance of their duty if they
acted in connection of their function which is the administration of peace and order.

Here, Odu, the policeman was on leave but there are many kinds of leave. It was not
specified that what he filed was a vacation leave. So Odu should be considered in the
performance of his duty 24 hours a day albeit he was not on duty. What he have done, the
pacification of his neigbors fighting, which caused his death is in connection of his function
as a policeman who is in-charged of the administration of peace and order in the
community.

Hence, Ani the surviving spouse is entitled to claim death benefits in the GSIS.

2
The contention of Jeffrey is not correct.

As to his argument of acquiring the status of regular employee, this is not correct.

The Supreme Court held that when the employer and the employee entered into a contract
whereby the employee will render service for a limited period of time without the employee
becoming a regular employee, the contract is valid. The type of employment is called fixed-
term employment. It is valid as long as the employee entered into a contract voluntarily
where his consent is not vitiated by force, intimidation, duress, undue influence and the
employer and the employee is in equal footing in bargaining the terms and conditions of
employment. In the contract, the date of the start of the employment must be indicated as
well as the date of the termination of the employment.

Here, Jeffrey is an employee under a fixed term employment and not a regular employee.
Jeffrey was hired to render service for a limited period of time for 5 years in the school.
Jeffrey entered in the contract voluntarily without the vitiation of his consent. The date of
the start of his employment was indicated in the contract as well as the date of the
termination of his employment.

As to his argument, that he can only be removed for a just cause, this is not correct.

The Supreme Court held that an employee under a fixed term employment can be removed
at the arrival of the date of the termination of his employment aside from just causes and
authorized causes provided in the labor laws.

Here, the date of the termination of Jeffrey’s employment arrived already. Jeffrey’s
employment can be terminated legally based on that date of termination indicated in the
contract aside from the just causes and authorized causes provided in the labor laws.

Hence, Jeffrey is an employee under a fixed term employment and he can be removed at
the arrival of the date for the termination of his employment.
 3
No, the executive director was not correct.

Under the Four Fold Test, there is an employer-employee relationship if first, there was
selection and engagement of the employee by the employer. Second, there is payment of
wages by the employer. Third, the employer has the power to dismiss the employee and
fourth, there is control test or the employer exercises control as to the means and manner
of accomplishing the job. Whereas, a worker is an independent contractor if he
accomplishes the job according to his own methods without the employer controlling the
means and manner of accomplishing the job.

Here, there was selection and engagement of employee by the employer. Packro, Bardag
and Buog were hired by the Rehabilitation Center. The Rehabilitation Center exercises
control as to the means and manner of accomplishing the job which is by giving them
instructions on how to manage the rehabilitation of the patients. This proves the existence
of Control Test. The workers were not given the freedom in accomplishing their jobs
according to their own methods.

Hence, there is an employer-employee relationship between the rehabilitation center and

Packro, Bardag and Buog.

4
Yes, Amex corporation is liable.

Under the Labor Code, the principal shall be solidarily liable together with the job contractor
if the wages of the employees of the job contractor as to the service rendered to the
principal were not paid. The law creates an employer-employee relationship between the
principal and the employees of the job contractor for the sake of the wages of the former.
The principal shall be liable to the wages of the employees.

Here, the wages of the employees of the job contractor were not paid in connection with
service they have rendered to the Amex corporation. Amex corporation, the principal shall
be solidarily liable for the payment of wages of the employees. The law creates an
employer-employee relationship between Amex corporation and the employees of the job
contractor for the sake of paying the wages.

Hence, Amex corporation shall pay the wages of the employees of the job contractor.

5
Yes , the dismissal was not correct.

The Supreme Court held that from the decision of the voluntary arbitrators, the party shall
file a petition for review to the Court of Appeals via Rule 43 of the Rules of Court. Rule 65,
petition for certiorari under the Rules of Court is not the proper remedy.

Here, the management of the PDP Corp should have filed petition for review via Rule 43 in
the Rules of Court in the Court of Appeals and not petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of
the Rules of Court.

Hence, the proper remedy is petition for review via Rule 43 of the Rules of Court.
 6
It is the Bank of the Philippine Archipelago who has the right to the P40 million.

The Supreme Court held that the property of the employer is owned by him and subject to
his decision. The employees of the employer do not have a hold in the property of the
employer. The employer may be held liable to his employees but his property cannot be
answerable or substitute him for his liabilities.

Here, the building is owned by Acme corporation. Despite the liabilities of Amex corporation
to the Delta Builders, Altis Corporation, wages of the employees, it does not affect the
ownership of the corporation of the building. Amex corporation can enter into contract with
the building. Since the building was already subject of the foreclosure proceedings because
of non-payment of Acme Corporation of its loan arising from its creditor and debtor
relationship, it should be the bank which is entitled to the 40 million. The building is already
outside of the employer-employee relationship.

Hence, the bank is entitled to the 40 million.

7
No, the complaint for illegal dismissal should not be dismissed.

The Supreme Court held that the employee shall be considered to be constructively
dismissed if his floating status exceeded 6 months. The termination of the employment of
the employee is valid if it in anchored on the just causes and authorized causes provided in
the law. If the cause of termination does not belong to just causes and authorized causes,
the employee is illegally dismissed.

Here, Cardo was already in floating status for seven months, exceeding the 6 months
limitation. He is constructively dismissed. The cause of his dismissal from is work is not
anchored on just causes and authorized causes provided by law. Therefore, he is illegally
dismissed from work.

As to the claimed of management prerogative by Probinsyano, the claim is not tenable.

The Supreme Court held that the exercise of management prerogative such as assigning the
employees must be done in good faith, taking consideration the rights of the employees,
must be in accordance of due process and must not contravene the labor laws. The decision
of the management should not be unreasonable, inconvenient and prejudicial to the
employee.

Here, the assigning of guards was not done in good faith since probinsyano rejected the
same evaluation test by the other clinic without justifiable ground. Cardo was already
floating status for 7 months exceeding the 6 months limitation. This constitute
contravention of the labor laws. The floating status of Cardo was prejudicial to him.

8
No, the Labor Arbiter do not have jurisdiction.

Under the Labor Code, in job contracting, it is the job contractor and his employees who
has the employer-employee relationship. The principal shall and the employees of the job
contractor do not have the employer-employee relationship. The principal shall be solidarily
liable only with the job contractor if the latter did not pay the wages of his employees. The
principal shall be considered as the employer of the job contractor’s employees for the
payment only of wages. If there is no employer and employee relationship, the labor arbiter
do not possess jurisdiction.

Here, the PAL Airlines and the security guards of the Unicorn do not have employer and
employee relationship. The former shall be considered only as an indirect employer of the
latter if Unicorn did not pay the wages of the security guards. It was not shown here that
Unicorn did not pay the wages of its security guards as to the service they have rendered to
the PAL Airlines. Therefore, the PAL airlines cannot be considered as an indirect employer of
the security guards. As a consequence, there is no employer-employee relationship
between the PAL Airlines and the security guards.

Hence, the labor arbiter do not possess jurisdiction as there are no employer-employee
relationship between the airline and the security guards.

9
The action of the Secretary is not correct.

Under the Labor Code, the Secretary shall order the stoppage of work or suspend the
operations of the establishment of the establishment’s violation of the labor laws would
cause or tend to cause danger to the health and safety of the employees therein and not on
other grounds.

Here, the violation of the labor law which is non-payment of the employees’ salaries does
not cause or tend to cause danger to the health and safety of the workers in the
establishment.

Hence, the Secretary should not have ordered the stoppage of work or suspension of
operations of Company Bisit.

10
No, the completion of the house is not a valid cause to terminate Cesar’s employment.

Under the labor Code, the duration of the employment of the project employee is fixed to a
specific project or undertaking , the completion or termination of which should be
determine at the time of the engagement of the employee. If the completion or termination
of the specific project or undertaking was not determined at the time of the engagement of
the employee, the employee shall be considered a regular employee which can be removed
only from employment on the basis of just causes and authorized causes provided in the
labor laws.

Here, the completion or termination of the project was not determined at the time of the
engagement of Cesar. Therefore Cesar is not a project employee but a regular employee
who can be removed from his employment on the basis of just causes and authorized
causes provided in the labor laws.

Hence, the employment of Cesar can only be terminated on the basis of just causes and
authorized causes in the labor laws.
 11
The jurisdiction is with the Labor Arbiter.

Under the Labor Code, the labor arbiter is vested of jurisdiction on claim of damages such
as actual, exemplary and moral damages arising from employer and employee relationship.
The regular court is vested with jurisdiction for damages arising from other sources of
obligation.

Here, there is an employer and employee relationship between Pullgoso and Errolito. The
actual damages claimed by Errolito arose from employer and employee relationship. The
claim of damages is not from the other sources of obligation.
Hence, it is the labor arbiter who is vested with jurisdiction.

12 (a)
Yes the closure is allowed by law.

The Supreme Court held that the employer has the right to close his business regardless if
due to business losses or not. As long as the closure of the business is in good faith and not
tainted of bad faith such as circumventing the labor laws, the closure of the business is valid
and allowed.

Here, it was not shown that the closure of the business was tainted of bad faith such as
circumventing the labor laws or avoiding the labor laws. The closure of the business was due
to losses and financial reverses. They are purely legitimate business reason.

As counsel for the corporation, I will advise to notify the DOLE of the closure of the business
1 month before the intended date of closure.

(b)
Yes, the employees are entitled to separation pay.

Under the Labor code, if the closure of the business is not due to serious losses, the
employer is required to give separation pay to his employees which is 1 month of salary of ½
month pay for every year of service whichever is higher.

Here, it was not indicated that the cause of the closure of business was due to serious
losses. The corporation is enjoined by law to pay its employees separation pay which is one
month salary or ½ month pay for every year of service whichever is higher.

Hence, the corporation should give separation pay to its employees.

13 (a)
Yes the employer is correct provided it is not already covered by the Service Incentive Leave
of the Kasambahay.

Under the Kasambahay Law, the employee who has rendered at least one year of service to
its employer shall be entitled to a the benefit of Service Incentive leave which is 5 days with
pay for every year. The employee may not report to work for 5 days but still receives his
wages for those 5 days.
Here, Nena has rendered service to her employer for 18 months which is more than 1 year
already. Therefore, Nena can visit and take care of her mother for 5 days but still receiving
the wage for those days.

(b)
The distinction between a househelper and a homeworker are the following:

As to the nature of work,

For the househelper, the employee in the household chores in the home of his employer
and taking care of the comfort of the family of the employer.

For the homeworker, the employee may or may not engage in the household chores in the
home of the employer and do not have the responsibility to take care of the comfort of the
family of the employer

As to the materials necessary in the work,

For the househelper, the materials that are necessary in the performance of the work are
furnished by the employer.
For the homeworker, the materials necessary in the performance of the work are either
furnish by the employee itself or furnish by the employer.

As to the place of work,

For the househelper, the employee renders her work in the house of the employer.

For the homeworker, the employee does not report to the place of work provided by the
employer but the employee bring the work in his home and performed the work thereof.

As to the law governing them,

For the househelper, the employee is governed by the Kasambahay Law.

For the homeworker, the employee is governed by the Labor Code.

14
Yes, Manny committed act of sexual harassment.

The Supreme Court held that it is not necessary that the offender actually committed sexual
harassment against the employee victim. It suffices that the acts of the offender can be
interpreted, constituted an understanding that the acts implies that the objective of the
offender is to commit sexual harassment. It is not necessary that the employee victims
accepts the sexual favor to constitute sexual harassment. It is only required that the
offender committed acts of sexual harassment or acts that constitute understanding that in
the end the objective of the offender is to commit sexual harassment.

Here, the acts of many implies an understanding that in the end , the objective of Manny is
to be able to commit sexual harassment against Rosa. It is not necessary that actual
commission of sexual harassment is occurred. It is not also necessary that Rosa accepts the
favors from many.
Hence, the acts of many implies sexual harassment.

15
Yes, the dismissal of Arkady was proper.

The Supreme Court held that the employer has the right to prohibit his employees from
marrying the workers of the rival interest to protect his business interest for pure legitimate
business reason. The company has the right to protect its business interest, its trade secrets,
secret formulas, confidential information, marketing strategies among others . If the
employee will marry the worker of the rival company, there is a probability that the
company interest will be impaired and the employee will be in conflict of interest.

Here, the prohibition of the company to its employees to marry the workers of its
competing drug companies is valid. Wellfit has the right to protect its business interest,
trade secrets, secret formulas, confidential information, marketing strategies among others
from its rival drug companies.

Hence, the company has the right to protect his business interest purely for legitimate
business reason.

16
My advice to the widow of Bruno is that she is entitled to receive death benefits.

Under the SSS Law, for the beneficiary to be entitled to a death benefits of pension, the
deceased member must have contributed at least 36 monthly contributions prior to the
semester of the death of the member. If the contribution of the member is less than 36
months, the beneficiary is entitled to received a lump sump.

Here, Bruno’s contribution covering August 2014 to November 2015 are only 16 months
which is less than 36 months. The widow of Bruno is entitled to receive a lump sum from the
SSS but not monthly pensions.

Hence, the widow of Bruno is entitled to receive lump sum from the SSS.