Labrev Bar Q - A (2018) (RLB)

SUGGESTED ANSWERS IN THE 2018 BAR EXAMINATIONS IN LABOR LAW | By Atty.
Duano
SUGGESTED ANSWERS
IN THE 2018 BAR EXAMINATIONS
IN LABOR LAW
BY
ATTY. VOLTAIRE DUANO, LLM

Author of Principles and Cases - Labor Standards and Social Legislation and Principles and Cases in Labor
Relations
DISCLAIMER: Only as a guide. No special claim.
I
Narciso filed a complaint against Norte University for the payment of retirement benefits after
having been a part-time professional lecturer in the same school since 1974. Narciso taught
for two semesters and a summer term for the school year 1975, took a leave of absence from
1975 to 1977, and resumed teaching until 2003. Since then, his contract has been renewed at
the start of every semester and summer, until November 2005 when he was told that he could
no longer teach because he was already 75 years old. Norte University also denied Narciso’s
claim for retirement benefits stating that only full-time permanent faculty, who have served
for at least five years immediately preceding the termination of their employment, can avail
themselves of post-employment benefits. As part-time faculty member, Narciso did not
acquire permanent employment status under the Manual of Regulations for Private Schools,
in relation to the Labor Code, regardless of his length service.
(a) Is Narciso entitled to retirement benefits? (2.5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes, Narciso is entitled to retirement benefits. A part-time lecturer, with a fixed-term employment,
who did not attain permanent status, is entitled to retirement pay. This was ruled by the Supreme
Court in De La Salle Araneta University v. Bernardo, G. R. No. 190809, February 13, 2017 as
follows: Republic Act No. 7641 states that "any employee may be retired upon reaching the
retirement age x x x;" and "[i]n case of retirement, the employee shall be entitled to receive such
retirement benefits as he may have earned under existing laws and any collective bargaining
agreement and other agreements." The Implementing Rules provide that Republic Act No. 7641
applies to "all employees in the private sector, regardless of their position, designation or status and
irrespective of the method by which their wages are paid, except to those specifically exempted x x
x." And Secretary Quisumbing' s Labor Advisory further clarifies that the employees covered by
Republic Act No. 7641 shall "include part-time employees, employees of service and other job
contractors and domestic helpers or persons in the personal service of another."
NOTE: The foregoing answer can be found in pages 921-924 of the book entitled Principles and
Compiled and arranged by RLB

SUGGESTED ANSWERS IN THE 2018 BAR EXAMINATIONS IN LABOR LAW | By Atty. Duano
Cases Labor Relations, Second Edition 2018, by Atty. Voltaire T. Duano. This was the first time that
this question was asked in the bar examinations.
(b) If he is entitled to retirement benefits, how should retirement pay be computed in the
absence of any contract between him and Norte University providing for such benefits?
(2.5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The retirement will be 22.5 days salary, exclusive of leave conversion benefits. According to Capitol
Wireless, Inc. v. Honorable Secretary Ma. Nieves R. Confessor, G.R. No. 117174, November
13,1996: For purposes of computing compulsory sand optional retirement benefits and to align the
current retirement plan with the minimum standards of Art. 287 of the Labor Code, as amended by
R.A. 7641, and Sec. 5 (5.2) of its implementing rules, “1/2 month salary” means 22.5 days salary,
exclusive of leave conversion benefits.
xxx xxx xxx
Unless the parties provide for broader inclusions, the term ‘one-half (1/2) month salary’ shall mean
fifteen (15) days plus one-twelfth (1/12) of the 13th month pay and the cash equivalent of not more
than five (5) days of service incentive leaves x x x x (italics supplied).
Cases Labor Relations, Second Edition 2018, by Atty. Voltaire T. Duano. Questions involving the
same subject matter were given during the 2011 and 2001 Bar Examinations.
II
Nayon Federation issued a charter certificate creating a rank-and-file Neuman Employees
Union. On the same day, New Neuman Employees filed a petition for certification election
with the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) Regional Office, attaching the
appropriate charter certificate.
a) The employer, Neuman Corporation, filed a motion to dismiss the petition for lack of legal
personality on the part of the petitioner union. Should the motion be granted? (2.5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The motion should be denied. For purposes of filing a petition for certification election, New Neuman
Employees has legal personality from the time it was issued with a charter certificate. This clear
under the Labor Code, which provides, The chapter shall acquire legal personality only for purposes
of filing a petition for certification election from the date it was issued a charter certificate. (Article
241 [234-A], As inserted by Section 2, Republic Act No. 9481 which lapsed into law on May 25, 2007
and became effective on June 14, 2007)

NOTE: The foregoing answer can be found in page 218 of the book entitled Principles and Cases
Labor Relations, Second Edition 2018, by Atty. Voltaire T. Duano. This was the first time that this
question was asked in the bar examiantions.
b) The employer likewise filed a petition for cancellation of union registration against New
Neuman Employees Union, alleging that Nayon Federation already had a chartered local
rank-and-file union, Neuman Employees Union, pertaining to the same bargaining unit within
the establishment. Should the petition for cancellation prosper? (2.5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Under Article 247 of the Labor Code, the following are the relevant grounds for cancellation of union
registration:
(a) Misrepresentation, false statement or fraud in connection with the adoption or ratification of the
constitution and by-laws or amendments thereto, the minutes of ratification, and the list of members
who took part in the ratification;
(b) Misrepresentation, false statements or fraud in connection with the election of officers, minutes of
the election of officers, and the list of voters;
(c) Voluntary dissolution by the members.
Unless the employer can prove that any of the foregoing grounds are present the petition for
cancellation will not prosper.
Labor Relations, Second Edition 2018, by Atty. Voltaire T. Duano. This was the first time that this
question was asked in the bar examiantions.
III
Due to his employer’s dire financial situation, Nicanor was prevailed upon by his employer to
voluntarily resign. In exchange, he demanded payment of salary differentials, 13th month
pay, and financial assistance, as promised by his employer. Management promised to pay
him as soon as it is able to pay off all retrenched rank-and-file employees. Five years later,
and before management was able to pay Nicanor the amount promised to him, Nicanor died
of a heart attack. His widow, Norie, filed a money claim against the company before the
National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), including interest on the amount of the unpaid
claim. She also claimed additional damages arguing that the supposed resignation letter was
obtained from her spouse through undue pressure and influence. The employer filed a
motion to dismiss on the ground that (A) the NLRC did not have jurisdiction over money
claims, and (B) the action has prescribed.
(a) Does the NLRC have jurisdiction to award money claims including interest on the amount
unpaid? (2.5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:

Jurisdiction will depend on the amount being claimed by Nicanor’s surviving spouse. If the amount
exceeds Five Thousand Pesos (PhP5,000.00) as provided in Article 224 (a [6]) of the Labor Code
then jurisdiction belongs to the Arbitration Branch of the NLRC. However, if the amount did not
exceed Five Thousand Pesos (PhP5,000.00) and then jurisdiction belongs to the Regional Director
under Article 129 of the Labor Code involving recovery of wages, simple money claims and other
benefits. Either of the said quasi-judicial body can award interest in the concept of actual and
compensatory damages in accordance. The award of interest in money claim was explained in
Limlingan v. Asian Institute Management, Inc., G.R. No. 220481, February 17, 2016, that the rate of
interest in the concept of actual and compensatory damages as well as its accrual are as follows:
1. When the obligation is breached, and it consists in the payment of a sum of money, i.e., a loan or
forbearance of money, the interest due should be that which may have been stipulated in writing.
Furthermore, the interest due shall itself earn legal interest from the time it is judicially demanded. In
the absence of stipulation, the rate of interest shall be 6% per annum to be computed from default,
i.e., from judicial or extrajudicial demand under and subject to the provisions of Article 1169 of the
Civil Code.
2. When an obligation, not constituting a loan or forbearance of money, is breached, an interest on

the amount of damages awarded may be imposed at the discretion of the court at the rate of 6% per
annum. No interest, however, shall be adjudged on unliquidated claims or damages, except when or
until the demand can be established with reasonable certainty. Accordingly, where the demand is
established with reasonable certainty, the interest shall begin to run from the time the claim is made
judicially or extrajudicially (Art. 1169, Civil Code), but when such certainty cannot be so reasonably
established at the time the demand is made, the interest shall begin to run only from the date the
judgment of the court is made (at which time the quantification of damages may be deemed to have
been reasonably ascertained). The actual base for the computation of legal interest shall, in any
case, be on the amount finally adjudged.
3. When the judgment of the court awarding a sum of money becomes final and executory, the rate
of legal interest, whether the case falls under paragraph 1 or paragraph 2, above, shall be 6% per
annum from such finality until its satisfaction, this interim period being deemed to be by then an
equivalent to a forbearance of credit.
Labor Relations, Second Edition 2018, by Atty. Voltaire T. Duano and in pages 589-590 of the book
entitled Principles and Cases Labor Standards and Social Legislation, Second Edition 2018, by Atty.
Voltaire T. Duano. Questions involving the same subject matter were given during the 2011 and
2016 (on award of interest in money claim) Bar Examinations.
(b) Assuming that the NLRC has jurisdiction, has the action prescribed? (2.5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The action has not prescribed. This is because Nicanor’s surviving spouse’s cause of action will
accrue upon the categorical denial of the claim. In this case, there was demand for its payment,
however, the management had promsied to pay as soon as it is able to pay off all retrenched rank-
and-file employees. However, it is was only after five (5) years that the management was able to
pay. Moreover, there was no denial of the claim. Therefore, prescription did not set in. In the
Degamo v. Avantgarde Shipping Corp., G.R. No. 154460, November 22, 2005 and Serrano v. Court

of Appeals, G.R. No. 139420, August 15, 2001, following cases, the Supreme Court explained the
accrual of a cause of action under Article 306 [291].
same subject matter was given during the 2010 Bar Examination.
(c) May Nicanor’s spouse successfully claim additional damages as a result of the alleged
undue pressure and influence? (2.5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes, Nicanor’s spouse can successfully claim additional damages as a result of the alleged undue
pressure and influence. This is provided under Article 224 (a [4] of the Labor Code which provides
for claims for actual, moral, exemplary and other forms of damages arising from employer-employee
relationship within the jurisdictional authority of the Arbitration Branch of the NLRC.
In the alternative, it can be argued that Nicanor’s spouse cannot successfully claim additional
damages because it is the jurisdictional authority of the Arbitration Branch of the NLRC. The
employer-employee relationship is only incidental and the cause of action arises from other sources
like torts and damages. Therefore, jurisdiction belongs to the regular courts.
NOTE: The foregoing answer can be found in pages 26, 32-38 of the book entitled Principles and
same subject matter were given during the 2016, 199 and 1995 Bar Examinations.
IV
Natasha Shoe Company adopted an organizational streamlining program that resulted in the
retrenchment of 550 employees in its main plant. After having been paid their separation
benefits, the retrenched workers demanded payment of retirement benefits under a CBA
between their union and management Natasha Shoe Company denied the workers’ demand.
(a) What is the most procedurally peaceful means to resolve this dispute? (2.5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Since this is a money claim involving the interpretation and implementation of the CBA, the
retrenched workers can refer the matter to the grievance machinery and if it remained unresolved
within seven (7) days from the date of its submission the same shall be automatically referred to the
voluntary arbitration prescribed in the CBA.
In the alternative it can be argued, that since this is a dispute between the retrenched workers and
the employer the same cannot be a subject matter of grievance and voluntary arbitration. This is
because only disputes between the union and the company as ruled in Tabique v. International
Copra Export Corporation, G. R. No. 183335, December 23, 2009, shall be referred to grievance
machinery or voluntary arbitrators. Thus, the dispute should be resolved by way of mandatory
conciliation-mediation in accordance with Article 234 of the Labor Code.
NOTE: The foregoing answer can be found in pages 193-195, 436, 433-442 of the book entitled
Principles and Cases Labor Relations, Second Edition 2018, by Atty. Voltaire T. Duano. Questions
involving the same subject matter were given during the 2017, 2010, 2008, 2001, 1997 and 1995
Bar Examinations.

(b) Can the workers claim both separation pay and retirement benefits. (2.5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes, the workers can claim both separation pay and retirement benefits. This was settled rule in the
case of Goodyear v. Marina Angus, G.R. No. 185499, 14 November 2014 where it was ruled that in
the absence of an express or implied prohibition against it, collection of both retirement benefits and
separation pay upon severance from employment is allowed. This is grounded on the social justice
policy that doubts should always be resolved in favor of labor rights. (Aquino v. National Labor
Relations Commission, G.R. No. 87653, February 11, 1992)
V
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 for each 8-hour workday, and PhP70.00 for work done on
Good Friday. She sued for underpayment of wages and non-payment of holiday pay and
night shit differential 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 minim m. The hotel also claimed that
she was not entitled to holiday pay and night shift differential pay hotel workers have to work
on holidays and may be be assigned to work at night.
(a) Does the hotel have valid legal grounds to deduct food and lodging costs from Nelda's
basis salary? (2.5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
As held in Mabeza v. National Labor Relations Commission, G.R. No. 118506, April 18, 1997:
Granting that meals and lodging were provided and indeed constituted facilities, such facilities could
not be deducted without the employer complying first with certain legal requirements. Without
satisfying these requirements, the employer simply cannot deduct the value from the employee’s
wages. First, proof must be shown that such facilities are customarily furnished by the trade.
Second, the provision of deductible facilities must be voluntarily accepted in writing by the employee.
Finally, facilities must be charged at fair and reasonable value. (Labor Code, Art. 97 [f])
Applying the above, unless the hotel can comply with the legal requirements it has no valid legal
grounds to deduct food and lodging costs from Nelda's basis salary.
Labor Standards and Social Legislation, Second Edition 2018, by Atty. Voltaire T. Duano. Questions
involving the same subject matter were given during the 2013 and 2010 Bar Examinations.
(b) Applying labor standards law, how much should Nelda be paid for work done Good
Friday? Show the computation in your test booklet and encircle your final answer. (2.5%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
It can be argued:
The rule in order to be paid regular holiday like two successive holidays provides as follows, Where
there are two (2) successive regular holidays, like Holy Thursday and Good Friday, an employee
may not be paid for both holidays if he absents himself from work on the day immediately preceding
the first holiday, unless he works on the first holiday, in which case he is entitled to his holiday pay
on the second holiday.(Section 10, Rule IV, Book III, Rules to Implement the Labor Code)
Applying the above rule, unless Nelda had complied with the rules on absences she is not entitled
for her holiday pay for work done on Good Friday.
However, on the assumption that she complied with the rules Nelda should be paid as follows: P560
x 200%=P1,120.00 or since he only worked for one hour the pay should be as follows: 70 x 200% =
P140.00
involving the same subject matter was given during the 2013 and 2010 Bar Examinations.
VI
A certification election was conducted in Nation Manufacturing Corporation, whereby 55% of
eligible voters in the bargaining unit cast their votes. The results were as follows:
Union Nana : 45 votes
Union Nada : 40 votes
Union Nara : 30 votes
No Union : 80 votes
Union Nana moved to be declared as the winner of the certification election.
a) Can Union Nana be declared as the winner? (2.5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Union Nana cannot be declared as the winner. This is because the said union did not obtain the
majority of the valid votes casts as provided under Article 268 of the Labor Code.
NOTE: The foregoing answer can be found in pages 416-417 and 419of the book entitled Principles
and Cases Labor Relations, Second Edition 2018, by Atty. Voltaire T. Duano. Questions involving
the same subject matter were given during the 2014, 2009 Bar Examinations.
b) Assume that the eligibility of 30 voters was challenged during pre-election conference. The
ballots of the 30 challenged voters were placed inside an envelope sealed by the DOLE
Election Office. Considering the said envelope remains sealed, what should be the next
course of action with respect to the said challenged votes? (2.5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The procedure in the Challenge of Votes provides as follows:

The ballot of the voter who has been property challenged during the Pre-Election conferences, shall
be placed in an envelope which shall be sealed by the Election Officer in the presence of the voter
and the representatives of the contending unions. The election Officer shall indicate on the envelope
the voter’s name, the union challenging the voter, and the ground for the challenged. The sealed
envelope shall then be signed by the Election Officer and the representatives of the contending
unions. The Election Officer shall note all challenges in the minutes of the election proceedings and
shall have custody of all envelops containing the challenged votes. The envelopes shall be opened
and the question of eligibility shall be passed upon by the Mediator-Arbiter only if the number of
segregated votes will materially alter the results of the election. (Section 11, Rule IX, Book V, Rules
to Implement the Labor Code, as amended by Department Order No. 40-F-03, Series of 2008 and
renumbered by Department Order No. 40-I-15, Series of 2015)
Applying the said procedure, if the number of segregated votes will materially alter the results of the
election the next course of action with respect to the said challenged votes is to open the said
envelopes and the question of eligibility shall be passed upon by the Mediator-Arbiter.
VII
Nico is a medical representative engaged in the promotion of Pharmaceutical products and
medical devices for North Pharmaceuticals, Inc. He regularly visits. physicians' clinics to
inform them of the chemical composition and benefits of his employer's products. A the end
of everyday, he receives a basis 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%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
For purposes of computing Nico's 13th month pay his daily "productivity allowance" cannot be
included.
In Philippine Spring Water Resources, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 205278, June 11, 2014,
clarified as to when a commission forms part of basic salary to be considered in the computation of
13th month pay. The High Court said: It is well-established in jurisprudence that the determination of
whether or not a commission forms part of the basic salary depends upon the circumstances or
conditions for its payment. In Phil Duplicators, Inc. v. NLRC, G.R. No. 110068, November 11, 1993,
227 SCRA 747, the Court held that commissions earned by salesmen form part of their basic salary.
The salesmen’s commissions, comprising a pre-determined percentage of the selling price of the
goods sold by each salesman, were properly included in the term basic salary for purposes of
computing the 13th month pay. The salesmen’s commissions are not overtime payments, nor profit-
sharing payments nor any other fringe benefit, but a portion of the salary structure which represents
an automatic increment to the monetary value initially assigned to each unit of work rendered by a
salesman. On the other hand, in Boie-Takeda Chemicals, Inc. v. De la Serna, G.R. Nos. 92174 and
102552, December 10, 1993, 228 SCRA 329, the so-called commissions paid to or received by
medical representatives were excluded from the term basic salary because these were paid to the
medical representatives and rank-and-file employees as productivity bonuses, which were generally
tied to the productivity, or capacity for revenue production, of a corporation and such bonuses
closely resemble profit-sharing payments and had no clear direct or necessary relation to the
amount of work actually done by each individual employee.
Applying the above rule, the productivity allowance cannot be included.

Labor Standards and Social Legislation, Second Edition 2018. Question involving the same subject
matter was given during the 2011 Bar Examination. An alternative answer can be given by stating
that it will depend as to whether the productivity bonus form part of the salary. In fine, whether or not
the productivity bonus forms part of the basic salary depends upon the circumstances or conditions
for its payment, which indubitably are factual in nature. If the productivity bonuses were because
they were generally tied to the productivity, or capacity for revenue production it will not form part of
the salary. However, if has a clear direct or necessary relation to the amount of work actually done
by each individual employee then it form part of the salary. This was the distinction given by the case
of Reyes v. NLRC, G.R. No. 160233, August 8, 2007 citing the cases of Phil Duplicators, Inc. v.
NLRC, G.R. No. 110068, November 11, 1993 and monetary value initially assigned to each unit of
work rendered by a salesman. On the other hand, in Boie-Takeda Chemicals, Inc. v. De la Serna,
G.R. Nos. 92174 and 102552, December 10, 1993.
VIII
Nathaniel has been a salesman assigned by Newmark Enterprises (Newmark) for nearly two
years at the Manila office of Nutrition City, Inc. (Nutrition City). He was deployed pursuant to
a service agreement between Newmark and Nutrition City, the salient provisions of which
were as follows:
a) the Contractor (Newmark) agrees to perform and provide the Client (Nutrition City),
on a non-exclusive basis, such tasks or activities that are considered contractible
under existing laws, as may be needed by the Client from time to time;
b) the Contractor shall employ the necessary personnel like helpers, salesmen, and
drivers who are determined by the Contractor to be efficiently trained;
c) the Client may request replacement of the Contractor’s personnel if quality of the
desired result is not achieved;
d) the Contractors personnel will comply with the Client's policies, rules, and
regulations; and
e) the Contractor’s two service vehicles and necessary equipment will be utilized in
carrying out the provisions of this Agreement.
When Newmark fired Nathaniel, he filed an illegal dismissal case against the wealthier
company, Nutrition City, Inc., alleging that he was a regular employee of the same. Is
Nathaniel correct? (2.5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Nathaniel is correct in so far as the existence of employer-employee relationship between him and
the principal.
The rules requires that the Service Agreement between the principal and the contractor shall include
the following:
i. The speciﬁc description of the job or work being subcontracted, including its term or duration.
ii. The place of work and terms and conditions governing the contracting arrangement, to include the
agreed amount of the contracted job or work as well as the standard administrative fee of not less
than ten percent (10%) of the total contract cost; and

iii. A provision on the issuance of the bond/s defined under Section 3(a) renewable every year.
(Section 11, D.O. No. 174, Series of 2017)
On the other hand, a finding of violation of 11 shall render the principal the direct employer of the
employees of the contractor or subcontractor, pursuant to Article 109 of the Labor Code, as
amended. (Section 12, D.O. No. 174, Series of 2017)
Applying the above rules, since Newmark and Nutrition City violated the required terms to be stated
in the Service Agreement then Nutrition City is the direct employer of Nathaniel.
As to whether Nathaniel is a regular employee of Nutrition City, the rules are as follows:
Regular employees are further classified into: (1) regular employees by nature of work; and (2)
regular employees by years of service. (E. Ganzon, Inc. vs. National Labor Relations Commission,
G.R. No. 123769, 22 December 1999, 321 SCRA 434, 440) The former refers to those employees
who perform a particular activity which is necessary or desirable in the usual business or trade of the
employer, regardless of their length of service; while the latter refers to those employees who have
been performing the job, regardless of the nature thereof, for at least a year. (Pangilinan vs. General
Milling Corporation, G.R. No. 149329, 12 July 2004)
Tested from the nature of his work and the activity of the principal Nathaniel could be a regular
employee while if it is tested on the length of service then Nathaniel is a regular employee as he has
been employed with the principal for a least a year. In fact he was employed for nearly two years.
Labor Standards and Social Legislation, Second Edition 2018, and page 676 of the book entitled
Principles and Cases Labor Relations, Second Edition 2018, by Atty. Voltaire T. Duano. Questions
involving the same subject matter were given during the 2009 (on terms of Service Agreement) and
22013 and 2008 (on regular employees) Bar Examinations. An alternative answer can be given by
characterizing the relationship of the principal with the contractor as to whether it is a job contracting
or LOC. Then as to who would be the direct employer and extent of liability can be determined or
concluded.
IX
Sgt. Nemesis was a detachment non-commissioned officer of the Armed Forces of the
Philippines in Nueva Ecija. He and some other members of his detachment sought
permission from their Company Commander for an overnight pass to Nueva Vizcaya to settle
some important matters. The Company Commander orally approved their request and
allowed them to carry their firearms as the place they were going to was classified as a
“critical place.” They arrived at the place past midnight; and as they were alighting from a
tricycle, one of his companions accidentally dropped his rifle, which fired a single shot, and
in the process hit Sgt. Nemesis fatally. The shooting was purely accidental. At the time of his
death, he was still legally married_to Nelda but had been separated de facto from her for 17
years. For the last 15 years of his life, he was living in with Narda, with whom he has two
minor children. Since Narda works as a kasambahay, the two children lived with their
grandparents, who provided their daily- support. Sgt. Nemesis and Narda only sent money to
them every year to them for their school tuition.
Nelda and Narda, both for themselves and the latter, also on behalf of her minor children,
separately filed claims for compensation as a result of the death of Sgt. Nemesis. The Line of

Duty Board of the AFP declared Sgt. Nemesis’ death to have been “in line of duty’, and
recommended that all benefits due to Sgt. Nemesis be given to his dependents. However, the
claims were denied by GSIS because Sgt. Nemesis was not in his workplace nor performing
his duty as a soldier of the Philippine Army when he died.
(a) Are the dependents of Sgt. Nemesis entitled to compensation as a result of his death?
(2.5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The death of Sgt. Nemesis is compensable because it is work-connected. However, in so far as

entitlement of the dependents of Sgt. Nemesis for compensation as a result of his death the
dependent spouse cannot claim compensation. The law requires that the dependent spouse should
be a legitimate spouse living with the employee. (Article 173 [i], Labor Code).
In this case, the legitimate spouse Nelda is not entitled because she is not living with Sgt. Nemesis
while Narda will not qualify as dependent spouses as she is not a legitimate spouse of Sgt. Nemesis
although she is living with the latter. On the other hand, in so far as the dependent child the law
requires that the dependent child be legitimate, legitimated, legally adopted or xxx, who is
unmarried, not gainfully employed, not over 21 years of age provided he is incapacitated and
incapable of self-support due to physical or mental defect which is congenital or acquired during
minority. The two minor children are therefore qualified as dependent children. Hence, entitled to
compensation.
NOTE: The foregoing answer can be found in pages 835 and 857-860 of the book entitled Principles
and Cases Labor Standards and Social Legislation, Second Edition 2018, by Atty. Voltaire T. Duano.
Question involving the same subject matter was given during the 2005 and 1996 Bar Examinations.
(b) As between Nelda and Narda, who should be entitled to the benefits? (2.5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Nelda and Narda are not entitled to the benefits because they failed to qualify within the definition
(Article 173 [i], Labor Code) of dependent spouse.
NOTE: The foregoing answer can be found in pages 835 and 857-860 of the book entitled Principles
and Cases Labor Standards and Social Legislation, Second Edition 2018, by Atty. Voltaire T. Duano.
Question involving the same subject matter was given during the 2005 and 1996 Bar Examinations.
X
Nonato had been continuously employed and deployed as a seaman who performed services
that were necessary and desirable to the business of N-Train hipping, through its local agent,
Narita Maritime Services (Agency), in accordance with the 2010 Philippine Overseas
Employment Administration Standard Employment Contract (2010 POEA-SEC). Nonato's last
contract (for ye months) expired on November 15, 2016. Nonato was then repatriated due to
"finished contract." He immediately reported to the Agency and complained that e had been
experiencing dizziness, weakness, and difficulty in breathing. The agency referred him to Dr.

Neri, who examined, treated, and prescribed him with medications. After a few months of
treatment and consultations, Nonato was declared fit to resume work as a seaman. Nonato
went back to the Agency to ask for re-deployment but the Agency rejected his application.
Nonato filed an illegal dismissal case against the Agency and its principal, with a claim for
total disability benefits based on the ailments that he developed on board N-Train hipping-
vessels. The claim was based on the certification of his own physician, Dr. Nunez, that he
was unfit for sea duties because of his hypertension and diabetes.
a) Was Nonato a regular employee of N-Train Shipping? (2.5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Nonato is not a regular employee of N-Train Shipping. The fact that seafarers are not regular
employees is already a settled rule.
In Petroleum Shipping Limited (formerly Esso International Shipping (Bahamas) Co., Ltd.) v. NLRC,
G.R. No. 148130, June 16,2006, the Supreme Court said that the issue on whether seafarers are
regular employees is already a settled matter. Thus, the High Court said:
It was in Ravago v. Esso Eastern Marine, Ltd., G.R. No. 158324, 14 March 2005, 453 SCRA 381
where the Honorable Supreme Court traced its ruling in a number of cases that seafarers are
contractual, not regular, employees. Thus, in Brent School, Inc. v. Zamora, G.R. No. 48494, 5
February 1990, 181 SCRA 702 the Supreme Court cited overseas employment contract as an
example of contracts where the concept of regular employment does not apply, whatever the nature
of the engagement and despite the provisions of Article 280 of the Labor Code. In Coyoca v. NLRC,
G.R. No. 113658 March 31, 1995, the Supreme Court held that the agency is liable for payment of a
seaman’s medical and disability benefits in the event that the principal fails or refuses to pay the
benefits or wages due the seaman although the seaman may not be a regular employee of the
agency.
The Supreme Court squarely passed upon the issue in Millares v. NLRC, G.R. No. 110524, July 29,
2002, where one of the issues raised was whether seafarers are regular or contractual employees
whose employment are terminated every time their contracts of employment expire. The Supreme
Court explained:
[I]t is clear that seafarers are considered contractual employees. They can not be considered as
regular employees under Article 280 of the Labor Code. Their employment is governed by the
contracts they sign everytime they are rehired and their employment is terminated when the
contract expires. Their employment is contractually fixed for a certain period of time. They fall
under the exception of Article 280 whose employment has been fixed for a specific project or
undertaking the completion or termination of which has been determined at the time of
engagement of the employee or where the work or services to be performed is seasonal in
nature and the employment is for the duration of the season. We need not depart from the
rulings of the Court in the two aforementioned cases which indeed constitute stare decisis with
respect to the employment status of seafarers.
same subject matter were given during the 2017, 2014 and 2002 Bar Examinations.

b) Can Nonato successfully claim disability benefits against N-Train Shipping and its agent
Narita Maritime Services? (2.5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The claim for disability benefits of Nonato against N-Train Shipping and its agent Narita Maritime
Services will not prosper for prematurity.
The Supreme Court laid down the procedures for filing disability benefits and its effect in case of
failure to comply with the procedures in Daraug v. KGJS Fleet Management Manila, G.R. No.
211211, January 14, 2015. Thus, in denying the claim for disability benefits due to prematurity the
Supreme Court ruled:
Petitioner Did Not Comply With The Procedures

In Vergara v. Hammonia Maritime Services, Inc.31 (Vergara), it was stated that the Department of
Labor and Employment (DOLE), through the POEA, has simplified the determination of liability for
work-related death, illness or injury in the case of Filipino seamen working on foreign oceangoing
vessels. Every seaman and the vessel owner (directly or represented by a local manning agency)
are required to execute the POEA Standard Employment Contract (POEA-SEC) as a condition sine
qua non prior to the deployment of the seaman for overseas work. The POEA-SEC is supplemented
by the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) between the owner of the vessel and the covered
seaman. In this case, the parties entered in to a contract of employment in accordance with the
POEA-SEC and they agreed to be bound by the CBA.
Thus, in resolving petitioner’s claim for disability compensation, the Court will be guided by the
procedures laid down in the POEA-SEC and in the CBA. On this point, Section 20(B)(3) of the
POEA-SEC provides:
Upon sign-off from the vessel for medical treatment, the seafarer is entitled to sickness allowance
equivalent to his basic wage until he is declared fit to work or the degree of permanent disability has
been assessed by the company-designated physician but in no case shall this period exceed one
hundred twenty (120) days.
For this purpose, the seafarer shall submit himself to a post-employment medical examination by a
company-designated physician within three working days upon his return except when he is
physically incapacitated to so, in which case, a written notice to the agency within the same period is
deemed a compliance. Failure of the seafarer to comply with the mandatory reporting requirement
shall result in his forfeiture of the right to claim the above benefits.
If a doctor appointed by the seafarer disagrees with the assessment, a third doctor may be agreed
jointly between the Employer and the seafarer. The third doctor’s decision shall be final and binding
on both parties.
Xl
Your favorite relative, Tita Nilda, approaches you and seeks your advice n 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 the 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%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Tita Nilda is not correct in saying that engagement of a kasambahay is a private matter and should
not be regulated by the State. This is a valid subject matter of the exercise of police power to give
effect to the declared policy of the law such as the need to protect the rights of domestic workers
against abuse, harassment, violence, economic exploitation and performance of work that is
hazardous to their physical and mental health; and in protecting domestic workers and recognizing
their special needs to ensure safe and healthful working conditions, promotes gender-sensitive
measures in the formulation and implementation of policies and programs affecting the local
domestic work. (Section 2, Article I, Republic Act No. 10361)
Labor Standards and Social Legislation, Second Edition 2018. This is the first time that this type of
question was asked in the Bar Examination.
b) is the stipulation that she may be requested to work on a rest day legal? (2.5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The stipulation that Noray may be requested to work on a rest day is legal. The law provides that, “
Nothing in this provision shall deprive the domestic worker and the employer from agreeing to the
following:
(a) Offsetting a day of absence with a particular rest day;

(b) Waiving a particular rest day in return for an equivalent daily rate of pay;
(c) Accumulating rest days not exceeding five (5) days; or
(d) Other similar arrangements. (Section 21, Article IV, Republic Act No. 10361)
Labor Standards and Social Legislation, Second Edition 2018. This is the first time that this type of
question was asked in the Bar Examination.
c) Are stay-in family drivers included under the Kasambahay Law?(2.5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Stay-in family drivers are not included under the Kasambahay Law. This was very clear in the Rules
Implementing the Kasambahay Law providing as follows:
The following are not covered:

(a) Service providers;

(b) Family drivers;
(c) Children under foster family arrangement; and
(d) Any other person who performs work occasionally or sporadically and not on an occupational
basis. (Section 2, Rule I, Implementing Rules and Regulations of Republic Act 10361)
Labor Standards and Social Legislation, Second Edition 2018. Questions involving the same subject
matter were given during the 2012 and 1998 Bar Examinations.
XII
Nena worked as an Executive Assistant for Nesting, CEO of Now 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 be dismissed from
the service since he did not ask for any-sexual favor from Nena. Is Nesting correct? (2.5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Nesting is not correct.

The law penalizing sexual harassment in our jurisdiction is RA 7877. Section 3 thereof defines work-
related sexual harassment in this wise:
Sec. 3. Work, Education or Training-related Sexual Harassment Defined.—Work, education or
training-related sexual harassment is committed by an employer, manager, supervisor, agent of the
employer, teacher, instructor, professor, coach, trainor, or any other person who, having authority,
influence or moral ascendancy over another in a work or training or education environment,
demands, requests or otherwise requires any sexual favor from the other, regardless of whether the
demand, request or requirement for submission is accepted by the object of said Act.
(a) In a work-related or employment environment, sexual harassment is committed when: xxx (3)
The above acts would result in an intimidating, hostile, or offensive environment for the employee.
Contrary to Nesting’s claim, it is enough that his acts result in creating an intimidating, hostile or
offensive environment for the employee.
Labor Standards and Social Legislation, Second Edition 2018. Questions involving the same subject
matter were given during the 2011, 2009, 2006, 2005, 2004, 2003 and 2000 Bar Examinations.
XIII
Nicodemus was employed as a computer programmer by Network Corporation, a
telecommunications firm. He has been coming to work in shorts and sneakers, in violation of
the “prescribed uniform policy” based on company rules and regulations. The company
human resources manager wrote him a letter, giving him 10 days to comply with the

company uniform policy. Nicodemus asserted that wearing shorts and sneakers made him
more productive, and cited his above-average output. When he came to work still in violation
of the uniform policy, the company sent him a letter of termination of employment.
Nicodemus filed an illegal dismissal case. The Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of Nicodemus and
ordered his reinstatement with backwages. Network Corporation, however, refused to
reinstate him. The NLRC 1st Division sustained the Labor Arbiter’s judgment. Network
Corporation still refused to reinstate Nicodemus. Eventually, the Court of Appeals reversed
the decision of the NLRC and ruled that the dismissal was valid. Despite the reversal,
Nicodemus still filed a motion for execution with respect to his accrued backwages.
(a) Were there valid legal grounds to dismiss Nicodemus from his employment? (2.5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes, Nicodemus can be dismissed on based on willful disobedience to the lawful order under Article
297 (a) of the Labor Code and the “prescribed uniform policy” of the company.
The basis is the case of St. Luke’s v. Sanchez, G.R. No. 212054, March 11, 2015 were it was ruled:
At the same time, the employee has the corollary duty to obey all reasonable rules, orders, and
instructions of the employer; and willful or intentional disobedience thereto, as a general rule,
justifies termination of the contract of service and the dismissal of the employee. (Malabago v.
NLRC, 533 Phil. 292, 300 [2006]) x x x x. Note that for an employee to be validly dismissed on this
ground, the employer’s orders, regulations, or instructions must be: (1) reasonable and lawful, (2)
sufficiently known to the employee, and (3) in connection with the duties which the employee has
been engaged to discharge.”
Labor Relations, Second Edition 2018. Questions involving the same subject matter were given
during the 2008, 2003 and 1995 Bar Examinations.
(b) Should Nicodemus’ motion for execution be granted? (2.5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes, Nicodemus’ motion for execution should be granted. He is entitled to his accrued salary.
The accrued wages/salaries (reinstatement wages/salaries) is the consequence of the reinstatement

aspect of the decision of the Labor Arbiter referred in paragraph 3, Article 229 [223] of the Labor
Code. This means that a dismissed employee whose case was favorably decided by the Labor
Arbiter is entitled to receive wages pending appeal upon reinstatement, which is immediately
executory. In other words, it refers to the wages or salaries which automatically accrued to a
dismissed employee from the notice of the Labor Arbiter’s order of reinstatement until its ultimate
reversal by the higher court, which could be the NLRC, the Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court.
The entitlement to accrued wages/salaries (reinstatement wages/salaries ) of a dismissed employee
was discussed in the cases of Roquero v. Philippine Airlines, G.R. No. 152329, 449 Phil. 437
(2003), Garcia v. Philippine Airlines, G.R. No. 164856, January 20, 2009, 576 SCRA 479, Islriz
Trading v. Capada, G.R. No. 168501, January 31, 2011, Pfizer Inc. v. Velasco, G.R. No. 177467,
March 9, 2011 and Wenphil Corporation v. Abing, G.R. No. 207983, April 7, 2014.

In resolving the rule on entitlement to accrued wages between the period where the Labor Arbiter’s
order of reinstatement is pending appeal and the NLRC Resolution overturning that of the Labor
Arbiter, the case of Garcia v. Philippine Airlines, Inc., G.R. No. 164856, January 20, 2009, 576
SCRA 479, is in point. The Supreme Court examined its conflicting rulings with respect to the
application of paragraph 3 of Article 223 of the Labor Code, viz:
The core of the seeming divergence is the application of paragraph 3 of Article 223 of the Labor
Code which reads:
‘In any event, the decision of the Labor Arbiter reinstating a dismissed or separated employee,
insofar as the reinstatement aspect is concerned, shall immediately be executory, pending appeal.
The employee shall either be admitted back to work under the same terms and conditions prevailing
prior to his dismissal or separation or, at the option of the employer, merely reinstated in the payroll.
The posting of a bond by the employer shall not stay the execution for reinstatement provided
herein.’
The view as maintained in a number of cases is that:

‘x x x [E]ven if the order of reinstatement of the Labor Arbiter is reversed on appeal, it is obligatory
on the part of the employer to reinstate and pay the wages of the dismissed employee during the
period of appeal until reversal by the higher court. On the other hand, if the employee has been
reinstated during the appeal period and such reinstatement order is reversed with finality, the
employee is not required to reimburse whatever salary he received for he is entitled to such, more so
if he actually rendered services during the period.
In other words, a dismissed employee whose case was favorably decided by the Labor Arbiter is
entitled to receive wages pending appeal upon reinstatement, which is immediately executory.
Unless there is a restraining order, it is ministerial upon the Labor Arbiter to implement the order of
reinstatement and it is mandatory on the employer to comply therewith.
Cases Labor Relations, Second Edition 2018. Question involving the same subject matter was given
during the 2009 Bar Examination.
XIV
Nelson complained before the DOLE Regional Office about Needy Corporation's failure to pay
his wage increase amounting to PhP5,000.00 as mandated in a Wage Order issued by the
Regional Tripartite Wages and Productivity Board. Consequently, Nelson-asked the DOLE to
immediately issue an Order sustaining his money claim. To his surprise, he received a notice
from the DOLE to appear before the Regional Director for purposes of conciliating the
dispute between him and Needy Corporation. When conciliation before the Regional Director
the latter proceeded to direct both parties to submit their respective position papers in
relation to the dispute. Needy Corporation argued, that since Nelson was willing to settle for
75% of his money claim during conciliation proceedings, only a maximum of 75% of the said
money claim may be awarded to him.
(a) Was DOLE’s action to conduct mandatory conciliation in light of Nelson’s complaint
valid? (2.5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:

Yes, the DOLE’s action to conduct mandatory conciliation is valid. This is mandated by Article 234 of
the Labor Code, except as provided in Title VII-A, Book V of this Code, as amended, or as may be
excepted by the Secretary of Labor and Employment, all issues arising from labor and employment
shall be subject to mandatory conciliation-mediation.
Cases Labor Relations, Second Edition 2018. This was the first time that a question of this nature
was asked in the Bar Examinations.
(b) Should the Regional Director sustain Needy Corporation’s argument? (2.5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The Regional Director should not sustain Needy Corporation’s argument. This is because under
Article 239 of the Labor Cod, information and statements made at conciliation proceedings shall be
treated as privileged communication and shall not be used as evidence in the Commission.
Conciliators and similar officials shall not testify in any court or body regarding any matters taken up
at conciliation proceedings conducted by them. Thus, Needy Corporation cannot raise the argument
that Nelson was willing to settle for 75% of his money claim during conciliation proceedings.
NOTE: The foregoing answer can be found in pages 239 of the book entitled Principles and Cases
Labor Relations, Second Edition 2018. Question involving the same subject matter was given during
the 2007 Bar Examination.
XV
Nexturn Corporation employed Nini and Nono, whose tasks involved directing and
supervising rank-and-file employees engaged in company operations. Nini and Nono are
required to ensure that such employees obey company rules and regulations, and
recommend to the company's Human Resources Department any required disciplinary action
against erring employees. In Nexturn Corporation, there are independent unions,
representing rank- and-file and supervisory employees, respectively.
a) May Nini and Nono join a union? (2.5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes, Nini and Nono can join a union. This is clearly allowed under Article 255 of the Labor Code
which provides in substance that supervisory employees may join, assist or form separate collective
bargaining units and/or legitimate labor organizations of their own.
the 2017, 2010, 2004 and 1994 Bar Examinations.
b) May the two unions be affiliated with the same Union Federation? (2.5%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes, the two unions can be affiliated with the same Union Federation. This is clearly allowed under
Article 255 of the Labor Code which provides in substance that the rank-and-file union and the
supervisors’ union operating within the same establishment may join the same federation or national
union.
the 2017, 2010, 2004 and 1994 Bar Examinations.
XVI
Nagrab Union and Nagrab Corporation have an existing CBA which contains the following
provision: “New_employees within the coverage of the bargaining unit who may be regularly
employed shall become members of Nagrab Union. Membership in good standing with the
Nagrab Union is a requirement for continued employment with Nagrab Corporation.” Nagrab
Corporation subsequently acquired all the assets and rights of Nuber Corporation and
absorbed all of the latter’s employees. Nagrab Union immediately demanded enforcement of
the above-stated CBA provision with respect to the absorbed employees. Nagrab Corporation
refused on the ground that this should not apply fo the absorbed employees who were
former employees of another corporation whose assets and rights it had acquired.
(a) Was Nagrab Corporation correct in refusing to enforce the CBA 4 provision with respect
to the absorbed employees? (2.5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Nagrab Corporation was not correct in refusing to enforce the CBA provision with respect to the
absorbed employees. This is because it cannot invoke its merger with another corporation as a valid
ground to exempt its absorbed employees from the coverage of a union shop clause contained in its
existing Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) with its own certified labor union.
In BANK OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS V. BPI EMPLOYEES UNION-DAVAO CHAPTER-

FEDERATION OF UNIONS IN BPI UNIBANK, G.R. No. 164301, August 10, 2010, the High Court
resolved the question in this manner: At the outset, we should call to mind the spirit and the letter of
the Labor Code provisions on union security clauses, specifically Article 248 (e), which states, x x x
Nothing in this Code or in any other law shall stop the parties from requiring membership in a
recognized collective bargaining agent as a condition for employment, except those employees who
are already members of another union at the time of the signing of the collective bargaining
agreement. This case which involves the application of a collective bargaining agreement with a
union shop clause should be resolved principally from the standpoint of the clear provisions of our
labor laws, and the express terms of the CBA in question, and not by inference from the general
consequence of the merger of corporations under the Corporation Code, which obviously does not
deal with and, therefore, is silent on the terms and conditions of employment in corporations or
juridical entities.
NOTE: The foregoing answer can be found in page 305-308 of the book entitled Principles and
Cases Labor Relations, Second Edition 2018. Question involving the same subject matter was given
during the 2011 Bar Examination.

(b) May a newly-regularized employee of Nagrab Corporation (who is not-part of the absorbed
employees) refuse to join Nagrab Union? How would you advise the human resources
manager of Nagrab Corporation to proceed? (2.5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The newly-regularized employee of Nagrab Corporation (who is not-part of the absorbed employees)
cannot refuse to join Nagrab Union in view of the union security clause provision of the CBA. While
the right to join includes the right not to join, however, the exception is the UNION SECURITY
CLAUSE where it imposes upon employees the obligation to acquire or retain union membership as
a condition affecting employment. Thus, I will advise the human resources manager of Nagrab
Corporation to comply with the provision of the CAB stating that : “New_employees within the
coverage of the bargaining unit who may be regularly employed shall become members of Nagrab
Union.
NOTE: The foregoing answer can be found in page 299, 303-308 of the book entitled Principles and
Cases Labor Relations, Second Edition 2018. Questions involving the same subject matter were
given during the 2005, 2011 and 1997 Bar Examinations.
XVII
Upon compliance with the legal requirements on the conduct of a strike, Navarra Union
staged a strike against Newfound Corporation on account of a collective bargaining
deadlock. During the strike, some members of Navarra Union broke the windows and
punctured the tires of the company-owned buses. he Secretary of Labor and Employment
assumed jurisdiction over the dispute.
(a) Should all striking employees be admitted back to work upon the assumption of
jurisdiction by the Secretary of Labor and Employment? Will these include striking
employees who damaged company properties? (2.5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
All striking employees be admitted back to work and including striking employees who damaged
company properties. The effect of assumption of jurisdiction of the Secretary of Labor is clear under
Article 278 (g) which provides in substance that such assumption shall have the effect of
automatically enjoining the intended or impending strike or lockout as specified in the assumption or
certification order. If one has already taken place at the time of assumption or certification, all striking
or locked out employees shall immediately return-to-work and the employer shall immediately
resume operations and readmit all workers under the same terms and conditions prevailing before
the strike or lockout.
Labor Relations, Second Edition 2018. Questions involving the same subject matter were given
during the 2003 and 1997 Bar Examinations.
(b) May the company, readmit strikers only by restoring them to the payroll? 5%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The company may not readmit strikers by restoring them to the payroll. The phrase “under the same
terms and conditions” found in Article 278 (g) [263 (g)] of the Labor Code was interpreted by the
Supreme Court in the case of the University of Immaculate Concepcion, Inc. v. Secretary of Labor,
G.R. No. 151379, January 14, 2005 as follows:
With respect to the Secretary’s Order allowing payroll reinstatement instead of actual reinstatement
for the individual respondents herein, an amendment to the previous Orders issued by her office, the
same is usually not allowed. Article 263(g) of the Labor Code aforementioned states that all workers
must immediately return to work and all employers must readmit all of them under the same terms
and conditions prevailing before the strike or lockout. The phrase “under the same terms and
conditions” makes it clear that the norm is actual reinstatement. This is consistent with the idea that
any work stoppage or slowdown in that particular industry can be detrimental to the national interest.
Clearly, reinstatement should be actual and not payroll reinstatement.

Labor Relations, Second Edition 2018. This is the first time that a question of this nature was asked
in the Bar Examinations.
XVIII
Nestor and Nadine have been living in for the last 10 years without the benefit of marriage.
Their union has produced four children. Nadine was three months pregnant with her 5th child
when Nestor left her for another woman. When Nadine was eight months pregnant with her
5th child, she applied for maternity leave benefits. Her employer refused on the ground that
this was already her 5" pregnancy and that she was only living in with the father of her child,
who is now in a relationship with another woman. When Nadine gave birth, Nestor applied for
paternity leave benefits. His employer also denied the application on the same grounds that
Nadine’s employer denied her application.
(a) Can Nadine’s employer legally deny her claim for maternity benefits? (2.5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes, Nadine’s employer can legally deny her claim for maternity benefits. This is because the
maternity benefits shall be paid only for the first four (4) deliveries or miscarriages. (See Section 14-
A, RA 8282) In this case, the said pregnancy was the 5th child of Nadine. Thus, she already
exhausted the limitations for entitlement to maternity benefits under the law.
involving this subject matter were given during the 2015, 2012, 2010, 2005 and 2000 Bar
Examinations.
(b) Can Nestor’s employer legally deny his claim for paternity benefits? (2.5%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Nestor’s employer can legally deny his claim for paternity benefits for his failure to comply with the
conditions for entitlement to paternity benefits.
Under the law, a married male employee shall be entitled to paternity benefits provided that:
a. he is an employee at the time of delivery of his child;
b. he is cohabiting with his spouse at the time she gives birth or suffers a miscarriage.
c. he has applied for paternity leave in accordance with Section 4 hereof; and
d. his wife has given birth or suffered a miscarriage. (Section 3, Revised Implementing Rules and
Regulations of Republic Act No. 8187 for the Private Sector)
In this case, Nadine is not Nestor’s lawful wife to whom he is cohabiting.
Cases Labor Standards and Social Legislation, Second Edition 2018, by Atty. Voltaire T. Duano.
Questions involving this subject matter were given during the 2013, 2012, 2011, 2005 and 2002 Bar
Examinations.
XIX
Northeast Airlines sent notices to transfer without diminution in salary or rank, to 50 ground
crew personnel who were front-liners at Northeast Airlines counters at the Ninoy Aquino
International Airport (NAIA). The 50 employees were informed that they would be distributed
to various airports in Mindanao to anticipate robust passenger volume growth in the area.
Northeast Union representing rank-and-file employees, filed unfair labor practice and illegal
dismissal cases before the NLRC, citing, among others, the inconvenience of the 50
concerned employees and union discrimination, as 8 of the 50 concerned round crew
personnel were union officers. Also, the Union argued that Northeast Airlines could easily
hire additional employees from Mindanao to boost ground operations in the Mindanao
airports.
a) Will the transfer of the 50 ground crew personnel amount to Illegal dismissal (5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The transfer of the 50 ground crew personnel does not amount to Illegal dismissal. This is because
their transfer is a valid exercise of management prerogatives.
In Gemina, Jr. v. Bankwise, Inc. (Thrift Bank) G.R. No. 175365, October 23, 2013, it was held: The
employer’s right to conduct the affairs of its business, according to its own discretion and judgment,
is well-recognized. An employer has a free reign and enjoys wide latitude of discretion to regulate all
aspects of employment and the only criterion to guide the exercise of its management prerogative is
that the policies, rules and regulations on work-related activities of the employees must always be
fair and reasonable. (The Coca-Cola Export Corporation v. Gacayan, G.R. No. 149433, December
15, 2010, 638 SCRA 377, 398-399)

According to Endico v. Quantum Foods Distribution Center, G.R. 161615, January 30,2009,
“Managerial prerogatives, however, are subject to limitations provided by law, collective bargaining
agreements, and general principles of fair play and justice. The test for determining the validity of the
transfer of employees was explained in the case of Blue Dairy Corporation v. NLRC, G.R. No.
129843, 14 September 1999, 314 SCRA 401, 408-409 the Supreme Court explained the test for
determining the validity of the transfer of employees, as follows:
But, like other rights, there are limits thereto. The managerial prerogative to transfer personnel must
be exercised without grave abuse of discretion, bearing in mind the basic elements of justice and fair
play. Having the right should not be confused with the manner in which that right is exercised. Thus,
it cannot be used as a subterfuge by the employer to rid himself of an undesirable worker. In
particular, the employer must be able to show that the transfer is not unreasonable, inconvenient or
prejudicial to the employee; nor does it involve a demotion in rank or a diminution of his salaries,
privileges and other benefits.
As their employer, Northeast Airlines has the right to regulate, according to its discretion and best
judgment, work assignments, work methods, work supervision, and work regulations, including the
hiring, firing and discipline of its employees. The Supreme Court upholds these management
prerogatives so long as they are exercised in good faith for the advancement of the employer’s
interest and not for the purpose of defeating or circumventing the rights of the employees under
special laws and valid agreements. (Challenge Socks Corporation v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No.
165268, November 8, 2005, 474 SCRA 356, 362-363)
In this case it does not show that Northeast Airlines implemented the transfer for the purpose of
defeating or circumventing the rights of the said 50 ground crew personnel.
NOTE: The foregoing answer can be found in pages 31-32 of the book entitled Principles and Cases
Labor Standards and Social Legislation, Second Edition 2018, by Atty. Voltaire T. Duano, and in
pages 789-790of the book entitled Principles and Cases Labor Relations, Second Edition 2018, by
Atty. Voltaire T. Duano. Questions involving management prerogatives were given during the 2000,
2001 and 1994 Bar Examinations.
b) Will the unfair labor practice case prosper? (2.5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The unfair labor practice case will not prosper. This is because the act did not constitute an act of
interfering, restraining or coercing the said employees in the exercise of their right to self-
organization under Article 259 [a] of the Labor Code.
In T & T Shoplifters Corporation/Gin Queen Corporation v. T&T Shoplifters Corporation/Gin Queen

Corporation Workers Union, G.R. No. 191714, February 26, 2014 citing the case of Insular Life
Assurance Co., Ltd. Employees Association – NATU v. Insular Life Assurance Co., Ltd., (147 Phil.
194 [1971]) the Supreme Court had occasion to lay down the test of whether an employer has
interfered with and coerced employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization, that is,
whether the employer has engaged in conduct which, it may reasonably be said, tends to interfere
with the free exercise of employees’ rights; and that it is not necessary that there be direct evidence

that any employee was in fact intimidated or coerced by statements of threats of the employer if
there is a reasonable inference that anti-union conduct of the employer does have an adverse effect
on self-organization and collective bargaining.
In the given facts, it does not show that the act of Northern Airlines in sending notices of transfer
relates to the commission of acts that transgress their right to organize or it was made to interfere,
restrain or coerce them with the exercise of their right to self-organization.
Cases Labor Relations, Second Edition 2018.
XX
In Northern Lights Corporation, union members Nad, Ned and Nod sought permission from
the company to distribute flyers with respect to a weekend union activity. The company HR
manager granted the request through a text message sent to another union member, Norlyn.
While Nad, Ned, and Nod re distributing the flyers at the company assembly plant, a
Company supervisor barged in and demanded that they cease from distributing the flyers,
stating that the assembly line employees were trying to beat a production deadline and were
thoroughly distracted. Norlyn tried to show the HR manager's text message authorizing flyer
distribution during work hours, but the supervisor brushed it aside. As a result, Nad, Ned,
and Nod were suspended for violating company rules on trespass and highly-limited union
activities during work hours. The Union filed an unfair labor practice (ULP) case before the
NLRC for union discrimination.
a) Will the ULP case filed by the Union prosper? (2.5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The ULP case filed by the Union will not prosper. This is because the act did not constitute an act of
interfering, restraining or coercing the said employees in the exercise of their right to self-
organization under Article 259 [a] of the Labor Code.
In T & T Shoplifters Corporation/Gin Queen Corporation v. T&T Shoplifters Corporation/Gin Queen

Corporation Workers Union, G.R. No. 191714, February 26, 2014 citing the case of Insular Life
Assurance Co., Ltd. Employees Association – NATU v. Insular Life Assurance Co., Ltd., (147 Phil.
194 [1971]) the Supreme Court had occasion to lay down the test of whether an employer has
interfered with and coerced employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization, that is,
whether the employer has engaged in conduct which, it may reasonably be said, tends to interfere
with the free exercise of employees’ rights; and that it is not necessary that there be direct evidence
that any employee was in fact intimidated or coerced by statements of threats of the employer if
there is a reasonable inference that anti-union conduct of the employer does have an adverse effect
on self-organization and collective bargaining.
In the given facts, it does not show that the act of the company supervisor in barging in and
demanding for Nad, Ned, and Nod to cease from distributing the flyers relates to the commission of
acts that transgress their right to organize or it was made to interfere, restrain or coerce them with
the exercise of their right to self-organization.

Cases Labor Relations, Second Edition 2018. . Questions involving the same subject matter were
given during the 2004 Bar Examinations.
b) Assume the NLRC ruled in favor of the Union. The Labor Arbiter's judgment included, among
others, an award for moral and exemplary damages at PhP50,000.00 each for Nad, Ned, and Nod.
Northern Lights Corporation argued that any award of damages should be given to the Union and
not individually to its members. Is Northern Lights Corporation correct? (2.5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Northern Lights Corporation is not correct. The rights that were violated belongs to the union
members, Nad, Ned, and Nod, and not the union itself. Further, the said union members were the
real party in interest in the said case for ULP filed by the union against the corporation and not the
union itself. The union is a juridical person and as a rule it cannot not suffer moral damages.
REFERENCES:
https://web.facebook.com/voltsphil.atty/posts/325753704820995

Labrev Bar Q - A (2018) (RLB)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

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

Labrev Bar Q - A (2018) (RLB)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

SUGGESTED ANSWERS IN THE 2018 BAR EXAMINATIONS IN LABOR LAW | By Atty.

ATTY. VOLTAIRE DUANO, LLM

DISCLAIMER: Only as a guide. No special claim.

(a) Is Narciso entitled to retirement benefits? (2.5%)

Compiled and arranged by RLB

xxx xxx xxx

Compiled and arranged by RLB

Compiled and arranged by RLB

2. When an obligation, not constituting a loan or forbearance of money, is breached, an interest on

Compiled and arranged by RLB

Compiled and arranged by RLB

Compiled and arranged by RLB

a) Can Union Nana be declared as the winner? (2.5%)

Compiled and arranged by RLB

Applying the above rule, the productivity allowance cannot be included.

Compiled and arranged by RLB

Compiled and arranged by RLB

Compiled and arranged by RLB

The death of Sgt. Nemesis is compensable because it is work-connected. However, in so far as

Compiled and arranged by RLB

a) Was Nonato a regular employee of N-Train Shipping? (2.5%)

Compiled and arranged by RLB

Petitioner Did Not Comply With The Procedures

Compiled and arranged by RLB

(a) Offsetting a day of absence with a particular rest day;

c) Are stay-in family drivers included under the Kasambahay Law?(2.5%)

Compiled and arranged by RLB

(a) Service providers;

Nesting is not correct.

Compiled and arranged by RLB

The accrued wages/salaries (reinstatement wages/salaries) is the consequence of the reinstatement

Compiled and arranged by RLB

The view as maintained in a number of cases is that:

Compiled and arranged by RLB

a) May Nini and Nono join a union? (2.5%)

Compiled and arranged by RLB

In BANK OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS V. BPI EMPLOYEES UNION-DAVAO CHAPTER-

Compiled and arranged by RLB

Compiled and arranged by RLB

Clearly, reinstatement should be actual and not payroll reinstatement.

Compiled and arranged by RLB

In this case, Nadine is not Nestor’s lawful wife to whom he is cohabiting.

Compiled and arranged by RLB

b) Will the unfair labor practice case prosper? (2.5%)

In T & T Shoplifters Corporation/Gin Queen Corporation v. T&T Shoplifters Corporation/Gin Queen

Compiled and arranged by RLB

a) Will the ULP case filed by the Union prosper? (2.5%)

In T & T Shoplifters Corporation/Gin Queen Corporation v. T&T Shoplifters Corporation/Gin Queen

Compiled and arranged by RLB

Compiled and arranged by RLB

You might also like