VASQUEZ, RHODORA A.

LABOR RELATIONS
ATTY. TEOFILO VILLANUEVA

I.

A.

Yes, their contention is meritorious.

Under the provisions of the Labor Code and the Constitution, the union members should
not be dismissed from work for actively participating in a strike.

In the given case, the Department of Education Secretary has obviously violated the
righhts of the employees to participate in the strike and was illegally dismissed.

Wherefore, the employees contention is meritorious.

B.

No, alien employees is not covered by the provisions of the Labor Code as the law
provides only for the citizens of the Philippines.

C.

Consent Election means the approval of the members to conduct an election to

represent the union.

While certification election is the process whereby the union file for the certification for
election who shall represent the union.

II

A.

Yes, the Labor Arbiter shall have jurisdiction as provided for under the Labor Code in all
issues and conflicts arising from employee-employer relations and any issues as
regards CBA.
B.

Yes, the diaffiliation of Maigla Union to Malusog Fedearation is valid.

According to the Labor Code, specifically in the rules of Collective Bargaining

Agreement, disaffiliation of a union is a matter of their right so long as they notified the
union of the decision to disaffiliate providing reasons like violating the rights of the
members.

In the given scenario, Masigla was able to file for a notice of disaffiliation to Malusog
Federation for deliberate and derekiction of duty tiwards members.

Wherefore, the disafilliation of Masigla Union is valid.

C.

I will rule in the negative.

According to the Labor Code, a union must be affiliated to the organization in order to
have a valid CBA.

I find that the Unfair Labor Practice filed by Malusog Federation is irrelevant to the
issue as they don’t have affiliation with ABC Corp. In this case, since they were also not
registered in the Department of Labor and Employment as a valid union, the basic
requirements was not met to be eligible as an affiliated uniion to ABC Corp.

Wherefore, Masigla Union’s argument lacks merit.

III

If I were the Labor Arbiter, I will rule in favor of the employees.

According to the Labor Code, those who are included or are members of the union in
which a CBA is existing, the company has the liability over the complaints within the
agrrement signed by parties whenever there is a violation of such.

In the given case, while the CBA is existing, the abolition of the position of those hotel
cleaners, constitute an unfair Labor Practice within the jurisdiction of the Labor Arbiter
as there is an existing agreement between Chogo Hotel and the company’s union.
Wherefore, the contention of the employees are meritorious.

IV

The claim lacks merit.

According to the Labor Code, a member of the union shall be deducted membership
fees. While if a non-member shall be charged for an agency fee. Membership fee for the
union is being deducted and do not need any authorization from the employee for such
deduction.

In the given scenario, it is clear that although Nobita is a member of a rival union
Suneo-EU, he has been receiving the benefits from the CBA that Damulag-EU had
negotiated with the company in which he is considered to be a member thereof.

Wherefore, being a member and receiving the benefits from CBA that Damulag EU has
negotiated, he is hence considered as a member and must pay the membership fees
and dues.

V.

Yes, the argument is tenable.

According to the Labor Code, in the event of dissolution of the original union where the
certification election was previously intended to and won, the union may validly still
performs its function as a baragaining agent and represent the employees.

In the given scenario, although the union has already been dissolved, the mere fact that
it won the certification election, it still has the capacity to execute its function and
perform its duties.

Wherefore, Matindig Tinig’s argument is tenable.

VI.

A.

The requirements in granting the Motion to Reduce Bond of the employer are as
follows:
- There should be financial losses on the part of the employer
- Inability to post the appeal bond
- Insolvency on the part of the employer
- Must submit a surety bond

B.

No, the dismissal of the appeal is correct.

According to the Labor Code, the requirement for granting the motion to reduce bond of
the employer on appeals from the decision of the labor arbiter must be perfected by
showing the audited amount from the previous and current year and the losses it
incurred.

In the given case, the company was only able to show the previous audit and did not
submit the current to show the incapacity on their part to pay the bond.

Wherefore, the dismissal is meritorious.

VII

No, the petition for review on certiorari filed by Raon Electronics Corp will not prosper.

In the caseof St. Martin’s Funeral, the Supreme Court held that the mere fact that the
petitioner in this case is performing the duty of a manager constitute an
employee-employer relations although it was just out of kindness. Wherefore, the
petitioner is eligible for claims as he was illegally dimissed. The Labor Arbiter has the
jurisdiction to assess the existence of the employee-employer relations wherefore
proper escalation of the issue must be applied before filing a Review on Certiorari.

In the given case, the mere fact that Scottie Brownlee worked as Operations Manager
ar Raon constitute an employee-employer relations which the Labor Arbiter has
jurisdiction over the determination of such. The filing of Petition on Certiorari is improper
as the proper escalation must be followed, in this case The Court of Appeals.

Wherefore, the petition for review on certiorari filed by Raon Electronics Corp will not
prosper.
VIII

A.

The contention of the Company lacks merit.

Under the Labor Code, the visitorial power is vested with the Regional Director to
investigate if there are violations of the Labor Code.

In the given case, the mere jurisdiction of the Regional Director is to inspect the premise
and provide the result of the inspection conducted and issue a compliance order which
the Regional Director advised the Company.

Wherefore, the contention of the Company lacks merit as the Regional Director has the
visitorial power to investigate.

B.

Yes, my answer would be different.

As provided for under the labor code, the jurisdiction of the Regional Director is limited
to the monetary awad which is below 5,000 without reinstatement while the jurisdiction
of the Labor Arbiter would be any amount above 5,000 pesos or below 5,000 but with
reinstatement.

In the given scenario, the jurisdictional limit that goes beyond 5,000 pesos as prescribed
by Art.129 of the labor Code, the Labor Arbiiter shall have jurisdiction over such case.

Wherefore, my answer would vary.

C.

The Secretary of Labor has jurisdiction to check the status of employment and if there
are any violations between the employee and employer. The instance whereby a duly
authorized representative be deprived of its jurisdiction under Art .128 of the Labor
Code is when they were not given the proper authority to inspect the company or the
premise to oversee if there are violations or mistreatment of employees that are
happening or they are being deprived of Visitorial Rights.