Professional Documents
Culture Documents
2019 Labor Law Bar Q and A Law Student Codals
2019 Labor Law Bar Q and A Law Student Codals
A.1.
Suggested answer: A just cause is a fault-based ground for dismissal under Art.
297, LC; whereas an authorized cause is a non-fault ground for dismissal under
Art. 298-299, LC.
A seasonal employee is one engaged for the duration of the season for which he
has been engaged; whereas, a project employee is on whose employment is co-
terminus with the specific project or undertaking for which he has been engaged;
provided, its scope or duration was made known to him upon engagement. [Art.
295, LC]
Strikes are carried out through temporary stoppage of work; whereas, lockouts are
carried out through temporary withholding of work. [Art. 279, LC]
A.2.
X is a member of the Social Security System (SSS). In 2015, he died without any spouse
or children. Prior to the semester of his death, X had paid 36 monthly contributions. His
mother, M, who had previously been receiving regular support from X, filed a claim for
the latter’s death benefits.
M is entitled to the death benefits. Being the mother of X, who was single and
without issue, she is elevated to the status of sole beneficiary. [Sec. 8(k), RA
8282]
(b) Assuming that X got married to his girlfriend a few days before his death, is M
entitled to claim death benefits from the SSS? Explain.
A.3.
One day, A, B, and C approached the Medical Director and inquired about the non-
payment of their employment benefits. In response, the Medical Director told them that
they are not entitled to any because they are mere “independent contractors” as
expressly stipulated in the contracts which they admittedly signed. As such, no-
employer-employee relationship exists between them and the hospital.
(b) Is the Medical Director’s reliance on the contracts signed by A, B, and C to refute
the existence of an employer-employee relationship correct? If not, are A, B, and C
employees of MM Medical Center, Inc.? Explain.
A.4.
Mrs. B, the personal cook in the household of X, filed a monetary claim against her
employer, X, for denying her service incentive leave pay. X argued that Mrs. B did not
avail of any service incentive leave at the end of her one (1) year of service and hence,
not entitled to the said monetary claim.
(b) Assuming that Mrs. B is instead a clerk in X’s company with at least 30 regular
employees, will her monetary claim prosper? Explain.
Being a corporate employee, Mrs. B is a covered employee. Not being one of the
less than 10 regular employees, as her employee has at least 30 regular
employees, she is qualified. Hence, prescription being a non-issue, she is entitled
to service incentive leave.
A.5.
Ms. F, a sales assistant, is one of the eight (8) workers regularly employed by ABC
Convenience Store. She was required to report on December 25 and 30.
No, ABC Convenience Store, being a retail establishment does not have the duty
to pay holiday pay to Ms. F because she is one of its less than 10 regular
employees. As such, she is disqualified by Art. 94(a), LC.
A.6.
D, one of the sales representatives of OP, Inc., was receiving a basic pay of P50,000.00
a month, plus a 1% overriding commission on his actual sales transactions. In addition,
beginning 3 months ago, or in August 2019, D was able to receive a monthly gas and
transportation allowance of P5,000.00 despite the lack of any company policy therefor.
In November 2019, D approached his manager and asked for his gas and transportation
allowance for the month. The manager declined his request, saying that the company
had decided to discontinue the aforementioned allowance considering the increased
costs of its overhead expenses. In response, D argued that OP, Inc.’s removal of the gas
and transportation allowance amounted to a violation of the rule on non-diminution of
benefits.
No, D’s argument is not tenable. The Principle of Non-Diminution of Benefits [Art.
100, LC] strictly pertains to pre-promulgation benefits and not to post-
promulgation benefits such as subject allowance [Apex Mining Co. v. NLRC, GR
86200, Feb 25, 1992; Insular Hotel Employees Union-NFL v. Waterfront Insular
Hotel Davao, GR 174040, Sept. 22, 2010]. If what is diminished is s post-
promulgation benefit, the rule violated is the Principle of Grants. At any rate, the
subject allowance has not yet ripened to a demandable right since its enjoyment
was for a few months only and the company did not intend to grant it
permanently.
A.7.
W Gas Corp. is engaged in the manufacture and distribution to the general public of
various petroleum products. On January 1, 2010, W Gas Corp. entered into a Service
Agreement with Q Manpower Co., whereby the latter undertook to provide utility
workers for the maintenance of the former’s manufacturing plant. Although the workers
were hired by Q Manpower Co., they used the equipment owner by W Gas Corp. in
performing their tasks, and were likewise subject to constant checking based on W Gas
Corp.’s procedures.
On February 1, 2010, Mr. R, one of the utility workers, was dismissed from employment
in line with the termination of the Service Agreement between W Gas Corp. and Q
Manpower Co. Thus, Mr. R filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against W Gas Corp.,
claiming that Q Manpower Co. is only a labor-only contractor. In the course of the
proceedings, W Gas Corp. presented no evidence to prove Q Manpower Co.’s
contractualization.
(b) Will Mr. R’s complaint for illegal dismissal against W Gas Corp. prosper? Explain.
Yes, it will prosper. In labor-only contracting, the legal personality of the principal
merges with that of its labor-only contractor who is just its agent. [Coca-Cola
Bottlers Phils., Inc. v. Dela Cruz, et al., GR 184977, Dec. 7, 2009] Hence, pursuant
to the Principle of Merger of Legal Personalities, the former as the real employer
can be proceeded against for illegal dismissal despite the termination of subject
contracting agreement.
A.8.
Ms. T was caught in the act of stealing the company property of her employer. When
Ms. T admitted to the commission of the said act to her manager, the latter advised her
to just tender her resignation; otherwise, she would face an investigation which would
likely lead to the termination of her employment and the filing of criminal charges in
court.
Acting on her manager’s advice, Ms. T submitted a letter of resignation. Later on, Ms. T
filed a case for constructive dismissal against her employer. While Ms. T conceded that
her manager spoke to her in a calm and unforceful manner, she claimed that her
resignation was not completely voluntary because she was told that she should not
resign, she could be terminated from work for just cause and worse criminal charges
could be filed against her.
(b) Will Ms. T’s claim for constructive dismissal prosper? Explain.
No, Ms. T’s claims will not prosper. She was not placed in a situation that left her
no option except to self-terminate. Instead, she was just given a graceful exit. A
graceful exit is within the prerogative of an employer to give instead of binding an
employee to his fault, or filing an action for redress against him. [Central
Azucarera de Bais, Inc., et al. v. Janet T. Siason, GR 215555, July 29, 2015]
A.9.
After due proceedings, the LA declared Mr. K to have been illegally dismissed by his
former employer, ABC, Inc. As a consequence, the LA directed ABC, Inc. to pay Mr. K
separation pay in lieu of reinstatement as well as his full back wages.
While ABC, Inc. accepted the finding of illegal dismissal, it nevertheless filed a motion
for reconsideration, claiming that the LA erred in awarding both separation pay and full
back wages, and instead, should have ordered Mr. K’s reinstatement to his former
position without loss of seniority rights and other privileges, but without payment of
back wages. In this regard, ABC, Inc. pointed out that the LA’s ruling did not contain any
finding of strained relations or that reinstatement was no longer feasible. In any case, it
appears that no evidence was presented on this score.
(a) Is ABC, Inc.’s contention to delete the separation pay, and instead, order
reinstatement without back wages correct? Explain.
As to separation pay, the LA’s decision fails to state that there is a bar to
reinstatement; hence, he should have ordered reinstatement; hence, he should
have ordered reinstatement pursuant to the general rule prescribed by Art. 294 of
the Labor Code. Since the alternative relief of separation pay is an exception, it
must be justified with a reinstatement bar. As to back wages, however, it cannot
be deleted because it is a logical consequence of a finding of illegal dismissal [ICT
Marketing Services, Inc. v. Mariphil Sales, GR 202090, Sept. 9, 2015]. Hence,
absent any reason for limiting or withholding it, it should be awarded as it was
awarded by the LA.
(b) Assuming that on appeal, the NLRC upholds the decision of the LA, where, how, and
within what timeframe should ABC, Inc. assail the NLRC ruling?
After the denial of the appellant’s motion for reconsideration, the NLRC’s decision
and order of denial can be assailed under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court through
the filing a petition for certiorari within 60 days from receipt of said denial order.
Correction of error of jurisdiction, resulting in the nullification of the assailed
dispositions, should be sought based on the NLRC’s grave abuse of its appellate
power amounting to lack of or excess of jurisdiction.
A.10.
For purposes of prescription, within what periods from the time the cause of action
accrued should the following cases be filed:
(a) Money claims arising from employer-employee relations – within 3 years from
date they become a legal possibility or can be judicially brought [Art. 306, LC; Art.
1150, NCC; Anabe v. Asian Construction, GR 183233, Dec. 23, 2009]
(c) Unfair labor practice – not later than 1 year from date of commission [Art. 305,
LC]. As to its criminal aspect, it shall be prosecuted within 3 years from date of
finality of the ULP judgment [Art. 305, LC[
(d) Offenses under the Labor Code – within 3 years from date of commission [Art.
305, LC]
(e) Illegal recruitment – within 5 years if simple illegal recruitment, and within 20
years if economic sabotage [Sec. 7, Rule IV, RA 10022]
B.11.
Briefly discuss the powers and responsibilities of the following in the scheme of the
Labor Code:
(a) Secretary of Labor – Ordinary Powers: Visitorial and enforcement [Art. 128, LC];
appellate, review of compliance orders issued under Art. 128, LC; and review of
CA orders per Art. 272, LC; rule-making [Art. 5, LC]; and control and supervision
[The Heritage Hotel Manila v. NUWHRAIN-HHMSC, GR 178296, Jan. 12, 2011]
Extraordinary Powers: Assumption power under Art. 278(g); and suspension power
under Art. 292(b), LC.
B.12.
Due to serious business reverses, ABC Co. decided to terminate the services of several
officers receiving “fat” compensation packages. One of these officers was Mr. X, its
Vice-President for External Affairs and a member of the Board of Directors. Aggrieved,
Mr. X filed a complaint for illegal dismissal before the NLRC – Regional Arbitration
Branch.
ABC Co. moved for the dismissal of the case on the ground of lack of jurisdiction,
asserting that since Mr. X occupied the position of Vice-President for External Affairs
which is listed in the by-laws of the corporation, the case should have been tiled before
the RTC.
The LA denied ABC Co.’s motion and proceeded to rule that Mr. X was illegally
dismissed. Hence, he was reinstated in ABC Co.’s payroll pending its appeal to the
NLRC.
(a) Did the LA err in denying ABC Co.’s motion to dismiss on the ground of lack of
jurisdiction? Explain.
The LA did not err. Even if the office occupied by Mr. X may have been listed in the
corporate by-laws as a corporate office, it should have been shown that he was
appointed to it by the Board of Directors. Absent evidence, Mr. X was a corporate
employee; hence, the tenurial issue he brought to the LA was not an intra-
corporate issue. [Cosare v. Broadcom Asia, Inc., et al, GR 2011298, Feb 5, 2014].
Moreover, mere membership in the governing board does not make one a
corporate officer. Unless elected as President, Secretary or Treasurer, a member
of the board would not qualify as a corporate officer. [Sec. 24, Revised
Corporation Code]
(b) Assuming that jurisdiction is not at issue and that the NLRC reverses the LA’s ruling
of illegal dismissal with finality, may ABC Co. claim reimbursement for the amounts it
paid to Mr. X during the time that he was on payroll reinstatement pending appeal?
Explain.
ABC Co. cannot claim reimbursement because Mr. X had nothing to do with the
reinstatement because Mr. X had nothing to do with the reinstatement given him.
On the contrary, the company exercised its exclusive right to determine which
type of reinstatement to hive him. Had it informed him of the possibility of a
reimbursement, he would not have chosen to be driven to perjury at the end of the
day through a reimbursement by compulsion. In this case, the Principle of Unjust
Enrichment has no application; hence, he can keep the salaries he received.
[Garcia, et al. v. PAL, GR 164856, Jan. 20, 2009]
B.13.
Mr. A signed a 1-year contract with XYZ Recruitment Co. for deployment as wielding
supervisor for DEF, Inc. located in Dubai. The employment contract, which the POEA
approved, stipulated a salary of USD 600.00 a month.
Mr. A had only been in his job in Dubai for 6 months when DEF, Inc. announced that it
was suffering from severe financial losses and thus intended to retrench some of its
workers, among them Mr. A. DEF, Inc. hinted, however, that employees who would
accept a lower salary could be retained.
Together with some other Filipino workers, Mr. A agreed to a reduced salary of USD
400.00 a month and thus, continued with his employment.
(a) Was the reduction of Mr. A’s salary valid? Explain.
No, the reduction is not valid. There is a contractual breach. Applying lex ex
contractu or lex loci celebrationis, Philippine law controls; hence, the substantial
character of the alleged financial losses must have been proven with financial
statements duly certified by an independent external auditor. Mere
announcement of losses would not suffice. The threat of retrenchment was just a
scheme to conveniently effect the illegal substitution of the POEA-approved
employment contracts.
(b) Assuming that the reduction was invalid, may Mr. A hold XYZ Recruitment Co. liable
for underpayment of wages? Explain.
Yes, Mr. A may hold XYZ Recruitment Co. liable for the payment of his wages
under the rule that a recruiter is solidarily liable for breaches of the terms and
conditions of the POEA-approved employment contract [Sec. 1(f), Rule II, Book II,
POEA Rules and Regulations; Datuman v. First Cosmopolitan Manpower and
Promotion Services, Inc., GR 156029, Nov. 14, 2008]
B.14
Upon a review of the wage rate and structure pertaining to its regular rank and file
employees, K Corporation found it necessary to increase its hiring rates for employees
belonging to the different job classification levels to make their salary rates more
competitive in the labor market.
After the implementation of the new hiring salary, Union X, the exclusive bargaining
agent of the rank and file employees, demanded a similar salary adjustment for the old
employees. It argued that the increase in hiring rates resulted in wage distortion since it
erased the wage gap between the new and old employees. In other words, new
employees would enjoy almost the same salary rates as K Corporation’s old employees.
(b) Did a wage distortion arise under the circumstances which legally obligated K
Corporation to rectify the wages of its old employees? Explain.
No. Since the cause of the alleged elimination is not one of the recognized causes,
as it was an adjustment of the hiring rate for new hires joining other wage groups,
the elimination of the wage gap is not a wage distortion. It is rather clear that the
increased rate would only be given to new hires and not to all the members of the
wage group/s they would be joining. Hence, the company has nothing to adjust or
rectify.
B.15.
On December 1, 2018, GHI Co., an organized establishment, and Union J, the exclusive
bargaining agent therein executed a 5-year CBA which, after ratification, was registered
with the Bureau of Labor Relations.
(a) When can the union ask, at the earliest, for the renegotiation of all terms of the
CBA, except its representation aspect? Explain.
Except for the representation aspect of the CBA, the other provisions can be
renegotiated not later than 3 years from date of the CBA’s effectivity. [Art. 265,
LC]
(b) When is the earliest time that another union can file for a petition for certification
election? Explain.
Another union can file a petition for certification election during the freedom
period of the CBA which is its last 60 days. [Art. 265, LC]
B.16.
W Ship Management, Inc. hired Seafarer G as bosun in its vessel under the terms of the
2010 POEA-Standard Employment Contract.
On his 6th month on board, Seafarer G fell ill while working. In particular, he complained
of stomach pain, general weakness, and fresh blood in his stool. When his illness
persisted, he was medically repatriated on January 15, 2018. On the same day, Seafarer
G submitted himself to a post-employment medical examination, wherein he was
referred to further treatment. As of September 30, 2018, Seafarer G has yet to be
issued any fit-to-work certification by the company-designated physician, much less a
final and definitive assessment of his actual condition. Since Seafarer G still felt unwell,
he sought an opinion from a doctor of his choice who later issued an independent
assessment stating that he was totally and permanently disabled due to his illness
sustained during work.
Seafarer G then proceeded to file a claim for total and permanent disability
compensation. The company asserts that the claim should be dismissed due to
prematurity since Seafarer G failed to first settle the matter through the third-doctor
conflict resolution procedure as provided under the 2010 POEA-SEC.
(a) What is the third-doctor conflict resolution procedure under the 2010 POEA-SEC.
In the event of conflicting medical assessments, the parties are required to select
a third physician whose finding shall be final and binding on them. Under Sec.
20(B) of the 2010 POEA-SEC, the selection is consensual; however, jurisprudence
has made it mandatory. [Philippine Hammonia Ship Agency, Inc. v. Eulogio
Dumadag, GR 194362, June 26, 2013]
(b) Will Seafarer G’s claim for total and permanent disability benefits prosper despite
his failure to first settle the matter through the third-doctor conflict resolution
procedure? Explain.
Yes, it will prosper. The Third Physician Rule has no application when the
company-designated physician exceeds the 120-day treatment period without
making a final, categorical and definitive assessment. Here, he allowed 209 days
to elapse without issuing a fit-to-work assessment or a disability grade. [Apines v.
Elburg Shipmanagement Phil., Inc. GR 202114, Nov. 9, 2016]
B.17.
Ms. A is a volleyball coach with 5 years of experience in her field. Before the start of the
volleyball season of 2015, she was hired for the sole purpose of overseeing the training
and coaching of the University’s volleyball team. During her hiring, the Vice-President
for Sports expressed to Ms. A the University’s expectation that she would bring the
University a championship at the end of the year.
In her first volleyball season, the University placed 9th out of the 10 participating teams.
Soon after the end of the season, the Vice-President for Sports informed Ms. A that she
was a mere probationary employee and hence, she need not come back for the next
season because of the poor performance of the team.
In any case, the Vice-President for Sports claimed that Ms. A was a fixed-term
employee whose contract had ended at the close of the year.
(b) Assuming that Ms. A was dismissed by the University for serious misconduct but
was never given a notice to explain, what is the consequence of a procedurally infirm
dismissal from service under our Labor law and jurisprudence? Explain.
The violation of Mr. A’s right to statutory due process requires the assessment of
the University with nominal damages. The amount is P30,000.00 because a
dismissal for failure to qualify is akin to a dismissal for a just cause. [Abbott
Laboratories v. Alcaraz, GR 192571, July 23, 2013]
B.18.
When resolving a case of unfair labor practice filed by a union, what should the critical
point of analysis to determine if an act constitutes ULP?
B.19.
Because of dwindling sales and the consequent limitation of production, rumors were
rife that XYZ, Inc. would reduce its employee force. The next day, the employees of
XYZ, Inc. received a notice that the company will have a winding down period of 10
days, after which there will be a 6-month suspension of operations to allow the
company to address its precarious financial position.
On the 4th month of suspension of its operations XYZ, Inc. posted announcement that it
will resume its operations in 60 days but at the same time announced that instead of
closing down due to financial losses, it will retrench 50% of the work force.
(a) Is the announcement that there would be retrenchment affecting 50% of the work
force sufficient compliance with the legal requirements for retrenchment? Explain.
No. The 30-day notice requirement is a written notice that must be served on both
the DOLE and the affected employees. [Art. 298, LC] Hence, the posted
announcement is a violation of the prescribed pre-termination procedure.
(b) Assuming that XYZ, Inc., instead of retrenchment, extended the suspension of its
operations from 6 months to 8 months, would the same be legally permissible? If not,
what are the consequences?
Temporary suspension of business operations under Art. 301 of the LC should not
exceed 6 months; otherwise, the suspension would ripen to constructive
dismissal after the period expires. In such case, the company would be ordered to
reinstate and pay back wages.
B.20.
LawStudentPh.com –
2020
Privacy Policy