Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 02 2019 Labor

    Uploaded by

    Hannah Sy
    19 views25 pages

    Original Title

    02 2019 LABOR

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    19 views25 pages

    02 2019 Labor

    Uploaded by

    Hannah Sy

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 25
    Training & Convention Division University of the Philippines Law Center SUGGESTED ANSWERS TO THE 2019 BAR EXAMINATIONS IN LABOR LAW AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION PARTI Al. Define, explain or distinguish the following terms: (a) Just and authorized causes (2%) SUGGESTED ANSWER: A termination based on just cause under Art. 282 of the Labor Code means that the employee has committed a wrongful act or omission inimical to the interests of the employer, which justifies the severance of the employer-employee relationship, e.g., the employee Shas committed some serious misconduct; gross insubordination; fraud Qor loss of trust and confidence; gross and habitual neglect of duty; means payment of separation pay and damages. Resignation must be at least with 30 days’ notice on the part of the employee, whereas in Oconstructive dismissal the employee can leave anytime. a © (b)Will Ms. T's claim for constructive dismissal prosper? Explain. (3%) SUGGESTED ANSWER: No. The Supreme Court ruled that “... the employer did not violate any law when it gave the employee the option to resign because there is nothing illegal with the practice of allowing an employee to resign instead of being separated for cause, so as not to smear her employment...” This case applies to Ms. T as she was caught stealing and her resignation gives her a chance not to smear her records. [Sicangco v. NLRC, G.R. No. 110261, August 4, 1994] ALTERNATIVE ANSWER: No. Ms. T was not placed in a situation that left her with 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. Siason, UP LAW TRAINING AND CONVENTION DIVISION | BRICDNAPA2020 | Page 9 of 25 G.R. No. 215555, July 29, 2015] ALTERNATIVE ANSWER: Yes. In cases of constructive dismissal, there is cessation of work because “continued employment is rendered impossible, unreasonable or unlikely, as an offer involving a demotion in rank or a diminution in pay’ and other benefits.” [Divine World College of Laoag vs. Mina, G.R. No. 195155, April 13, 2016] In this case, the words of the employer are in the form of a veiled threat tantamount to coercion. Thus, there is constructive dismissal. Note: In the consideration of this alternative answer, it is respectfully suggested that as long as the examinee defines what constructive dismissal is, he should nevertheless be given full credit whatever the explanation is. Ad. After due proceedings, the Labor Arbiter (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 Slieu of reinstatement as well as his full backwages. N PA: While ABC, Inc. accepted the finding of illegal dismissal, it nevertheless filed a motion for reconsideration, claiming that the LA Zerred in awarding both separation pay and full backwages, and instead, should have ordered Mr. K' s reinstatement to his former position Zwithout loss of seniority rights and other privileges, but without payment of backwages. In this regard, ABC, Inc. pointed out that the LA's ruling did not contain any finding of strained relations or that reinstatement is 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 backwages correct? Explain. (3%) SUGGESTED ANSWER: Yes, it is correct but only insofar as it contends to order reinstatement. Firstly, a motion for reconsideration before the Labor Arbiter is a prohibited pleading under the 2011 NLRC Rules of Procedure as amended. However, assuming that it is not, ABC’s contention to delete the separation pay and instead order reinstatement is correct. The general rule is that in case a dismissal is declared, actual reinstatement should be the norm and thus must be granted as a matter of course. [Emiritus v. Dalig, G.R. No. 204761, April 2, 2014] Separation pay is awardable only if there are strained relations between the UP LAW TRAINING AND CONVENTION DIVISION | BRICDNAPA2020 | Page 10 of 25 employer and the employee “... if strained relations are neither alleged nor proven, there is no basis to order the award of separation pay. [Pasos v. PNCC, G.R. No. 192394, July 3, 2013] Since the facts do not disclose that there were strained relations between Mr. K and ABC Inc,, and the LA’s decision fails to state that there is a bar to reinstatement, the general norm of reinstatement must be followed. As to the award of backwages, ABC Inc.’s claim to delete is incorrect. Under Article 294, an employee who is illegally dismissed is entitled to payment of full backwages, inclusive of allowances and other benefits or their monetary equivalent, computed from the time his compensation was withheld up to the time of his actual reinstatement OR up to the finality of the decision in case no actual reinstatement is ordered. (b)Assuming that on appeal, the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) upholds the decision of the LA, where, how, and within what timeframe should ABC, Inc. assail the NLRC ruling? (2%) SUGGESTED ANSWER: ea A motion for reconsideration must first be filed in the NLRC, which must be filed within ten (10) calendar days from receipt of decision, resolution or order, with proof of service that a copy of the © same has been furnished, within the reglementary period, the adverse Sparty. [Section 15, Rule VI, 2011 NLRC Rules of Procedure] [RA GComment: I integrated the experts’ discussion in the answer. The legal Obasis was found with a quick search, so it needs to be checked.] a A\ a If the LA ruling is still upheld, from the NLRC, the case may go to the Court of Appeals in a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of Court within a reglementary period of 60 days from the time of receipt of the Resolution denying the Motion for Reconsideration. [St. Martin Funeral Home v. NLRC, G.R. No. 130866, September 16, 1998] The petition is grounded on grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of the NLRC. It is an initiatory pleading, therefore must be accompanied by a verification and certification of non-forum shopping. Factual issues may be raised and all pertinent pleadings, decision and resolution must be a certified true copy. A.10. For purposes of prescription, within what periods from the time the cause of action accrued should the following cases be filed: UP LAW TRAINING AND CONVENTION DIVISION | BRICDNAPA2020 | Page 11 of 25 (a) Money claims arising from employer-employee relations (1%) SUGGESTED ANSWER: All money claims arising from employer-employee relations accruing during the effectivity of this Code shall be filed within three (3) years from the time the cause of action accrued; otherwise they shall be forever barred. [Labor Code, Article 306 (291)] ALTERNATIVE ANSWER: Money claims arising from employer-employee relations prescribe in three (3) years from the time the money claim arises. But for Service Incentive Leave, the three (3)-year prescriptive period commences, not at the end of the year when the employee becomes entitled to the commutation of his service incentive leave, but from the time when the employer refuses to pay its monetary equivalent after demand of commutation or upon termination of the employee's services. [Autobus Transport Systems, Inc. v. Bautista, G.R. No. 156367, 16 May 2005] (b) Illegal dismissal (1%) SUGGESTED ANSWER: The prescriptive period for filing an illegal dismissal complaint is four years from the time the cause of action accrued. [Teekay Shipping Philippines, Inc. vs. Ramier Concha, G.R. No. 185463, February 2 22, 2012; Civil Code, Article 1146] BRICDNAPA2020 (0) Unfair labor practice (1%) SUGGESTED ANSWER: All unfair labor practices arising from Book V shall be filed with the appropriate agency within one (1) year from accrual of such unfair labor practice; otherwise, they shall be forever barred. [Labor Code, Article 305 (290)] (d)Offenses under the Labor Code (1%) SUGGESTED ANSWER: Offenses penalized under this Code and the rules and regulations issued pursuant thereto shall prescribe in three (3) years. [Labor Code, Article 305 (290)] (c) Illegal recruitment (1%) UP LAW TRAINING AND CONVENTION DIVISION | BRICDNAPA2020 | Page 12 of 25 BRICDNAPA2020 SUGGESTED ANSWER: Illegal recruitment cases under this Act shall prescribe in five (5) years: Provided, however, that illegal recruitment cases involving economic sabotage as defined herein shall prescribe in twenty (20) years. [Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995, Republic ‘Act No. 8042, [June 7, 1995], Section 12] Note that RA 8042 only applies to Migrant Workers. [legal recruitment for local employment is subject to the provisions of the Labor Code, in particular, Article 305 (290), first paragraph, to wit: offenses penalized under this Code xxx shall prescribe in three (3) years. END OF PARTI UP LAW TRAINING AND CONVENTION DIVISION | BRICDNAPA2020 | Page 13 of 25 BRICDNAPA2020 PART II B.11, Briefly discuss the powers and responsibilities of the following in the scheme of the Labor Code: (a)Secretary of Labor (2%) SUGGESTED ANSWER: 1. Power to inspect employer's records and premises at any time of the day or night whenever work is being undertaken therein, and the right to copy therefrom, to question any employee and investigate any fact, condition or matter which may be necessary to determine violations or which may aid in the enforcement of the Labor Code and of any labor law, wage order or rules and regulations issued pursuant thereto. [Labor Code, Article 128(a)] 2. Power to issue compliance orders to give effect to the labor standards provisions of this Code and other labor legislation based on the findings of labor employment and enforcement officers or industrial safety engineers made in the course of inspection. [Labor Code, Article 128 (b)] 3. Power to issue writs of execution to the appropriate authority for the enforcement of their orders, except in cases where the employer contests the findings of the labor employment and enforcement officer and raises issues supported by documentary proofs which were not considered in the course of inspection. [Labor Code, Article 128 (b)] 4, Power to order stoppage of work or suspension of operations of any unit or department of an establishment when non- compliance with the law or implementing rules and regulations poses grave and imminent danger to the health and safety of workers in the workplace. [Labor Code, Article 128 (c)] 5. Assumption of Jurisdiction and/or Certification to the NLRC for Compulsory Arbitration in labor disputes causing or likely to cause a strike or lockout in an industry indispensable to the national interest. [Labor Code, Article 278 (g)] (b) Bureau of Labor Relations (2%) SUGGESTED ANSWER: The BLR has the following administrative functions: (1) registration of labor unions; (2) keeping of registry of labor unions; and (3) maintenance and custody of CBAs. () Voluntary Arbitrators (2%) UP LAW TRAINING AND CONVENTION DIVISION | BRICDNAPA2020 | Page 14 of 25 SUGGESTED ANSWER: The VA has original and exclusive jurisdiction to hear and decide all unresolved grievances arising from the interpretation or enforcement of the CBA and company personnel policies. [Labor Code, Art. 274] The VA shall also hear and decide all other disputes including ULP and bargaining deadlocks upon agreement of the parties [Labor Code, Article 275] ALTERNATIVE ANSWER: Where the application of any prescribed wage increase by virtue of a law or wage order issued by any Regional Board results in distortions of the wage structure within an establishment, the employer and the union shall negotiate to correct the distortions. Any dispute arising from wage distortions shall be resolved through the grievance procedure under their collective bargaining agreement and, if it remains unresolved, through voluntary arbitration. Unless otherwise agreed by the parties in writing, such dispute shall be decided by the voluntary arbitrators within ten (10) calendar days from the time said dispute was referred to voluntary arbitration. [Labor Code, Article 124] B12. Due to serious business reverses, ABC Co. decided to terminate the services of several officers receiving "fat" compensation packages. One of Z these officers was Mr. X, its Vice-President for External Affairs and a ©O member of the Board of Directors. Aggrieved, Mr. X filed a complaint for illegal dismissal before the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRO) - Regional Arbitration Branch. ICDNAPA 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 filed before the Regional Trial Court. The Labor Arbiter (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. (2.5%) UP LAW TRAINING AND CONVENTION DIVISION | BRICDNAPA2020 | Page 15 of 25 SUGGESTED ANSWER: No, the LA did not err. There is a two-tiered test to determine whether a dispute is with the LA or the RTC, to wit: a) the status or the relationship of the parties, and b) the nature of the question that is the subject of the controversy. [Viray v. CA, G.R. No. 92481, November 9, 1990] Distinction should be made between a labor controversy and an intra-corporate dispute. Not all conflicts between a corporation and a stockholder involve corporate matters. [Cosare v. Broadcom, G.R. No. 201298, February 5, 2014] In the case at bar, since Mr. X seeks to recover his position as a Vice-President of External Affairs and not as a member of the board of ABC Co,, then the LA has jurisdiction to try his case and therefore the motion to dismiss was correctly denied by the LA. ALTERNATIVE ANSWER: Yes, the LA erred in refusing to dismiss the case on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. The position of Vice-President for External Affairs being explicitly stated as one of corporate officers provided by the company’s by-laws, then this is an intra-corporate controversy which Qfalls under the jurisdiction of the RTC acting as a commercial court. S [Matling v. Coros; Cosare v. Broadcom in the reverse] & (Assuming that jurisdiction is not at issue and that the NLRC < reverses the LA's ruling of illegal dismissal with finality, may ABC 4S Co. claim reimbursement for the amounts it paid to Mr. X during © __ the time that he was on payroll reinstatement pending appeal? % Explain. (25%) a SUGGESTED ANSWER: No, it may not. A reinstatement order by the LA is immediately executory and no reimbursement is due even if it is reversed on appeal. [Garcia v. PAL, G.R. No. 164856, January 20, 2009] B.13. Mr. A signed a one (1)-year contract with XYZ Recruitment Co. for deployment as welding supervisor for DEF, Inc. located in Dubai. The employment contract, which the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA) approved, stipulated a salary ofUS$600.00 a month, Mr. A had only been in his job in Dubai for six (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 UP LAW TRAINING AND CONVENTION DIVISION | BRICDNAPA2020 | Page 16 of 25 salary could be retained. Together with some other Filipino workers, Mr. A agreed to a reduced salary of US$400.00 a month and thus, continued with his employment. (a)Was the reduction of Mr. A's salary valid? Explain. (2.5%) SUGGESTED ANSWER: No, the reduction of Mr. A’s salary is invalid. All the Terms and Conditions in the POEA contract remain in force until such changes are approved by the POEA. To substitute or alter to the prejudice of the worker, employment contracts approved and verified by the Department of Labor and Employment from the time of actual signing thereof by the parties up to and including the period of the expiration of the same without the approval of the Department of Labor and Employment constitutes a prohibited practice. [Sec. 6, RA 8042] ALTERNATIVE ANSWER: © No, the reduction of Mr. A’s salary is invalid. The Labor Code S provisions on retrenchment and other authorized causes of termination Gare to apply to Mr. A, and hence, he should be entitled to retrenchment pay of 1 month guaranteed pay or ¥ month for every year of service,

    You might also like