Professional Documents
Culture Documents
SUGGESTED ANSWERS
to the
2018 BAR EXAMINATIONS IN
LABOR LAW
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 1974-1975, 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 of
service.
(a) Is Narciso entitled to retirement benefits? (2.5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
1
ALTERNATIVE ANSWERS:
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
2
II
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
(a) No. The motion should be denied. Under Article 240 of the
Labor Code (LC), a petition for certification election may be
filed on the basis of a valid charter certificate issued to a
chartered local by a duly registered federation.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
(b) No. The existence of another chartered local under the same
federation within the same bargaining unit is not among the
grounds to cancel union registration under Article 247 LC, as
amended by RA 9481.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
(b) Petition for cancellation of union registration filed by employer
Neuman Corporation may prosper. While the employer may
file a case as it is considered a party-in-interest in cancellation
proceedings (Del Castillo, Asian Institute of Management v
Asian Institute of Management Faculty Association, G.R. No.
207971, January 23, 2017), the union’s certification may be
revoked or cancelled if it appears that there are sufficient
grounds for its cancellation viz., fraud or misrepresentation in
3
the election of officers xxx; fraud or misrepresentation in the
ratification of constitution and by-laws.
III
(a) Does the NLRC have jurisdiction to award money claims including
interest on the amount unpaid? (2.5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
(a) The NLRC has jurisdiction over money claims arising from an
employer-employee relationship where the amount claimed is
in excess of PhP 5,000, including interest, regardless of whether
or not there is a claim for reinstatement. (Sec. 10, RA 8042, as
amended by RA 10022.
(b) Assuming that the NLRC has jurisdiction, has the action
prescribed?(2.5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
4
of the complaint. Great injustice would be committed if the
employee’s claim were brushed aside on mere technicality,
especially when it was the employer’s action that prevented
Nicanor from filing the claims within the required period.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
(b) Yes, the action has unfortunately prescribed as there is only a
three-year prescriptive period for monetary claims under the
Labor Code as in the case of retirement benefits.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
IV
5
(a) What is the most procedurally peaceful means to resolve this
dispute? (2.5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
(a) The parties may resolve this through plant-level mechanisms
such as a labor-management committee or a grievance
machinery under a collective bargaining agreement.
(b) Can the workers claim both separation pay and retirement
benefits? (2.5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
(b) Yes. In the absence of any 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 (Goodyear Philippines, Inc. v.
Angus, G.R. No. 185449, November 12, 2014).
6
below the prescribed minimum. The hotel also claimed that she was not
entitled to holiday pay and night shift differential pay because hotel workers
have to work on holidays and may be assigned to work at night.
(a) Does the hotel have valid legal grounds to deduct food and lodging
costs from Nelda's basic salary? (2.5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
(a) No. In Atok Big Wedge Association v. Atok Big Wedge Company,
(G.R. No. L-7349, July 19, 1955), the Supreme Court
distinguished facilities from supplement. Supplements
constitutes extra remuneration given to laborers above their
wage. Facilities are items of expense necessary for the laborer’s
and his family’s existence and subsistence. Board and
lodging are treated as supplement if the company benefits
from the employees not going home anymore or not leaving his
work station to eat. Since Nelda is a chambermaid, her board
and lodging should be treated as supplement.
(b) Applying labor standards law, how much should Nelda be paid for
work done on Good Friday? Show the computation in your test
booklet and encircle your final answer. (2.5%)
7
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
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:
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
(b) Assume that the eligibility of 30 voters was challenged during the
pre-election conference. The ballots of the 30 challenged voters
were placed inside an envelope sealed by the DOLE Election
Officer. 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:
8
challenged votes should be opened. Pursuant to Rule IX,
Section 11 of the Rules Implementing Book V of the Labor
Code, the envelope with the challenged votes shall be
opened and the question of eligibility shall be passed upon
by the DOLE med-arbiter.
VII
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER :
9
demandable and enforceable as a matter of right. The “basic salary” of an
employee for the purposes of computing the 13th month pay include all
remuneration or earnings paid by his employer for services rendered but
does not include allowances and monetary benefits which are not
considered or integrated as part of the regular or basic salary (Protacio v.
LayaMananghaya & Co., G.R. No. 168654, March 25, 2009).
10
VIII
(b) the Contractor shall employ the necessary personnel like helpers,
salesmen, and drivers who are determined by the Contractor to be
efficiently trained;
(d) the Contractor's 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.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes, Nathaniel is correct. Similar to the case of Coca-Cola Bottlers
Philippines, Inc. v. Agito, (G.R. No. 179546, February 13, 2009), the lack of
control by the Contractor (Newmark) over the worker Nathaniel can be
gleaned from the Service Agreement. It is apparent that Newmark has to
comply with Nutrition City’s regulations, and that Nutrition City has the
right to request the replacement of Newmark’s personnel. It is likewise
apparent that the Agreement did not identify the work needed to be
performed and the final result to be accomplished, pointing to the
conclusion that Newmark did not obligate itself to perform an identifiable
job, work, or service. Nathaniel, thus, was under the control of Nutrition
City.
With respect to the service vehicles and equipment, these may not be
considered as substantial capital on the part of Newmark, as the facts do
not establish their sufficiency to carry out the Agreement. The presence of
11
Newmark’s vehicles and equipment did not necessarily preclude the use of
Nutrition City’s own capital and assets.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
IX
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.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
(a) The death of Sgt. Nemesis arose out of and in the course of his
employment as a soldier on active duty in the AFP and hence,
12
compensable. The concept of a “workplace” cannot always be
literally applied to a soldier on active duty. Sgt. Nemesis had
permission to go to Nueva Vizcaya and he and his companions
had permit to carry their firearms which they could use to
defend themselves when attacked. A soldier on active duty is
really on duty 24 hours a day since he can be called upon
anytime by his superiors, except when he is on vacation leave
status, which Sgt. Nemesis was not, at the time of his death
(Hinoguin v. ECC, G.R. No. 8430, April 17, 1989).
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
(b) To be considered as a beneficiary, the spouse must be the legal
spouse and living with the employee at the time of his death.
Nelda, as the surviving spouse who has been separated de facto
from the deceased employee, may still however be entitled if
the separation was due to the covered employee’s
abandonment of the spouse without valid reason, or for other
justifiable reasons. Narda, not being a legitimate spouse, is
not entitled to the benefits; however, the ECC may act as
referee and arbitrator between two (2) claimants to help each
other reach a mutually acceptable compromise settlement of
allocating the compensation among themselves and their
dependent children (Samar Mining Co. Inc. v. WCC, G.R. No.
L-29938-39, March 31, 1971).
(c) Are the minor children entitled to the benefits considering that they
were not fully dependent on Sgt. Nemesis for support? (2.5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
(c) Being a dependent does not mean absolute dependency for the
necessities of life, but rather, that the claimant looked up to
and relied on the contribution of the covered employee for his
13
means of living as determined by his position in life. One need
not be in the deceased’s household in order to be a dependent.
(Malate Taxicab v. Del Villar G.R. No. L-7489, Feb. 29, 1956).
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
(b) No. Nonato was repatriated due to a finished contract and not
due to any accident or illness he suffered while on board N-
Train's vessel. Moreover, Nonato was declared fit-to-work by
14
the company-designated physician. Under the 2010 POEA-
SEC, if a doctor appointed by the seafarer disagrees with the
assessment of the company-designated physician, a third
doctor may be agreed upon jointly between the employer and
the seafarer. The third doctor’s decision shall be final and
binding on both parties. In this case, no third doctor was
appointed. Thus, the fit-to-work assessment by the company-
designated physician stands.
ALTERNATIVE EXPLANATION:
XI
Your favorite relative, Tita Nilda, approaches you and seeks your advice
on 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 all 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:
15
regulated by the police power of the State. Through the Batas
Kasambahay (R.A. 10361), the State recognizes this employment
relationship and establishes minimum labor standards for
domestic workers, toward decent employment and income,
enhanced coverage of social protection and respect for human
rights, and strengthened social dialogue. Also, since domestic
workers are generally working women in vulnerable working
conditions, the State regulates domestic worker employment to
prevent abuse and exploitation and uphold the gender rights of
domestic workers.
(b) Is the stipulation that she may be requested to work on a rest day
legal? (2.5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
(c) Are stay-in family drivers included under the Kasambahay Law?
(2.5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
(c) No. Family drivers are not included under the Kasambahay
Law. A “Kasambahay” refers to any person engaged in
domestic work within an employment relationship such as, but
not limited to, the following: general househelp, nursemaid or
“yaya”, cook, gardener, or laundry person, but shall exclude
any person who performs domestic work only occasionally or
sporadically and not on an occupational basis.
16
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
(c) The Republic Act No. 10361 does not exclude family drivers
from the coverage of the Kasambahay law. It is only in the
Implementing Rules that the family drivers were excluded.
Note that the Labor Code explicitly includes “family drivers
and other persons in the personal service of another in the
coverage of the Labor Code, and hence, it is believed that the
family drivers should fall within the ambit of the Kasambahay
Law. The exclusion of driver in the Implementing Rules is
without basis.
Domestic helper or househelper or domestic servant
shall refer to any person, whether male or female, who renders
services in and about the employer’s home and which services
are usually necessary or desirable for the maintenance and
enjoyment thereof, and ministers exclusively to the personal
comfort and enjoyment of the employers’ family. Such
definition covers family drivers, domestic servants, laundry
women, yayas, gardeners, houseboys and other similar
househelps (Apex Mining Company, Inc. v. NLRC, 196 SCRA
251 [1991]).
XII
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
17
Golden Donuts, (G.R. No. 106341, September 2, 1994), the Supreme Court
held that a managerial employee is bound by more exacting work ethics,
with a high standard of responsibility. Sexual harassment of a subordinate
amounts to “moral perversity” which provides a justifiable ground for
dismissal due to lack of trust and confidence.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
XIII
18
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:
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
(a) The “dismissal too harsh” doctrine may be invoked which
means the illegal dismissal case filed by Nicodemus may
prosper. It may be argued that the “uniform policy” need not
warrant dismissal as penalty for violation, as it may have no
direct bearing on company operations. This is in the context of
Nicodemus’ above-average performance as an employee.
19
XIV
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
(b) No. Article 239 of the Labor Code provides that the
information and statements given in confidence at the
conciliation-mediation proceedings shall be treated as
privileged communication and shall not be used as evidence in
any arbitration proceeding, except when there is a waiver of
confidentiality. In the present case, Nelson’s willingness to
settle for 75% of his money claim may not be used against him
in the money claims case before the Regional Director due to
the confidentiality rule.
20
XV
(a) Yes. Nini and Nono, in effect, are supervisors as defined under
Article 219(m) who may join a supervisory union pursuant to
Article 255 of the Labor Code.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
(a) No. Nini and Nono are confidential employees as they have
access to confidential labor relations information. The broad
rationale behind this rule is that employees should not be
placed in a position involving a potential conflict of interest
(San Miguel Corp. Supervisors and Exempt Employees Union v.
Laguesma, 277 SCRA 370 [1997]).
(b) May the two unions be affiliated with the same Union Federation?
(2.5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
XVI
21
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 to the absorbed employees who were former
employees of another corporation whose assets and rights it had acquired.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
(b) How would you advise the human resources manager of Nagrab
Corporation to proceed? (2.5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
22
3) There is sufficient evidence to support the sole and
exclusive bargaining agent’s decision to expel the
employee from membership.
XVII
(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:
(a) Yes. Under Article 278(g) of the Labor Code, all striking
employees shall immediately return to work and the employer
shall immediately resume operations and re-admit all workers
under the same terms and conditions prevailing before the
strike or lockout.
Regarding the striking union members who damaged
company property, the employer should still reinstate them,
but after their reinstatement, the employer may institute the
appropriate disciplinary proceedings, or raise the matter on
the illegality of the strike on the ground of violence and illegal
acts committed during the strike before the Secretary of Labor
and Employment assumed jurisdiction.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
(a) Yes, all striking employees should be admitted to work upon
assumption of jurisdiction by the Secretary of DOLE. The
mere issuance of an assumption order by the Secretary
automatically carries with it a return-to-work order, even if
the directive to return to work is not expressly stated in the
23
assumption order (Telefunken Semiconductors Employees
Union-FFW v Court of Appeals, 348 SCRA 565 [2000]).
(b) May the company readmit strikers only by restoring them to the
payroll? (2.5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
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 5th 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.
24
(a) Can Nadine's employer legally deny her claim for maternity
benefits? (2.5%) .
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
(a) Yes, Nadine is not entitled to maternity benefits since it is only
available for the first four (4) deliveries or miscarriages. On
the other hand, her employer cannot refuse on the ground that
Nadine was only living in with her partner since a valid marriage is
not a condition for the grant of maternity leave benefits.
(b) Can Nestor's employer legally deny his claim for paternity
benefits? (2.5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
(b) Yes, Nestor is not entitled to paternity benefits since it is only
available for the first four (4) deliveries or miscarriages of his
legitimate spouse with whom he is living with.
XIX
25
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
26
Pfizer Philippines, Inc] v. Albayda. Jr. G.R. No 172724, August
23, 2010). The mere fact that it would be inconvenient does
not by itself make the transfer illegal (DSS Security v. NLRC,
325 SCRA 157 [2000]).
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
XX
While Nad, Ned, and Nod were 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.
27
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:
(a) Yes. The supervisor of Nad, Ned and Nod directly interfered
with union activities and ultimately with the right to self-
organization. Good faith can be ascribed to Nad, Ned and
Nod’s actions, as prior permission was obtained thru the HR
Manager who apparently failed to communicate such
permission to the plant supervisor.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
(a) No. Unfair labor practice refers to acts that violate the
workers’ right to organize. The prohibited acts are related to
the workers’ right to self-organization, and to the observance
of the collective bargaining agreement. Without this element,
the acts of the Northern Light Corporation in suspending Nad,
Ned and Nod for violating company rules (on trespass and
highly-limited activities during work hours), even if unfair, are
not unfair labor practices (General Santos Coca-Cola Plant
Free Workers Union-TUPAS v Coca-Cola Bottlers Phil. Inc., GR
No. 178647, February 13, 2009).
(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:
28
exemplary damages in illegal dismissal cases (applicable to
suspension) resulting from unfair labor practices may be made
in individual or aggregate amounts. If the offended parties can
be identified, then damages may be awarded individually, such
as in the case at hand.
- NOTHING FOLLOWS -
29