Print - Siliman Labor Qnaw

LABOR LAW Bar Q & A (as arranged by Topics) 1994-2006
ANSWERS TO BAR EXAMINATION QUESTIONS

IN
LABOR LAW
&
SOCIAL LEGISLATION
ARRANGED BY TOPIC (1994 2006)
Edit d !"d A##!"$ d %&'
Atty. Janette Laggui-Icao and Atty. Alex Andrew P. Icao

(Silliman University College of Law ()*& 26+ 200, U-d!t d %&'
!omualdo L. Se"eris II# LL$.

(Silliman University College of Law A-#i* 2.+ 200.
From the ANSWERS TO BAR EXAMINATION QUESTIONS in POLITICAL LAW by the

U/ LAW COM/LEX and /0ILI//INE ASSOCIATION O1 LAW SC0OOLS
Page of 108
FORWAR!
This work is not intended for sa e or !o""er!e# This work is freeware# It "a$ %e free $ !o&ied and distri%'ted# It is &ri"ari $ intended for a those who desire
to ha(e a dee&er 'nderstanding of the iss'es to'!hed %$ the Phi i&&ine Bar E)a"inations and its trend# It is s&e!ia $ intended for aw st'dents fro" the &ro(in!es who* (er$ often* are re!i&ients of de i%erate $ distorted notes fro" other 'ns!r'&' o's aw s!hoo s and st'dents# +hare to others this work and $o' wi ri!h $ rewarded %$ God in hea(en# It is a so (er$ good kar"a# %e
,e wo' d ike to seek the ind' gen!e of the reader for so"e Bar -'estions whi!h are i"&ro&er $ ! assified 'nder a to&i! and for so"e to&i!s whi!h are i"&ro&er $ or ignorant $ &hrased* for the a'thors are .'st Bar Re(iewees who ha(e &re&ared this work whi e re(iewing for the Bar E)a"s 'nder ti"e !onstraints and within their i"ited know edge of the aw# ,e wo' d ike to seek the reader/s ind' gen!e for a ot of t$&ogra&hi!a errors in this work#
The Authors
Page " of 108
T!%* 23 C2"t "t4

%&'&!AL P!I'CIPL&S###################################################################################################10
Constitutional Provisions on La(or ()**+ ############################################################################10 Inter,retation of La(or Laws ()**+ ######################################################################################10 Inter,retation of La(or Laws- Li(eral A,,roac. (/001 ######################################################10 La(or Legislations- Pur,ose (/001 #######################################################################################11 La(or Standard vs. La(or !elation ()**2 ###########################################################################11 La(or Standard vs. La(or !elation (/003 ###########################################################################11 La(or Statutes- Classification ()**4 'o. )5 #########################################################################11 La(or Statutes- Princi,le of Solutio Inde(iti- 'ot A,,lica(le ()**6 #################################10 La(or vs. Social Legislation####################################################################################################10 La(or- as Pro,erty !ig.t (/001 #############################################################################################10 !ig.ts of &m,loyer7&m,loyee ()**1 ####################################################################################10 !ig.ts of t.e &m,loyer- 8anagement Prerogative (/000 #################################################10 !ig.ts of t.e &m,loyer- 8anagement Prerogative- $enefits- Unilaterally %iven (/004 #11 11 !ig.ts of t.e &m,loyer- 8anagement Prerogative- Contracting 9ut Services ()**6 12 !ig.ts of t.e &m,loyer- 8anagement ,rerogatives ()**6 13 !ule- In:unction in La(or Cases (/000 Social Justice as %uiding Princi,les in La(or (/003 13
JU!IS;IC<I9'
C$A- Im,lementation = Inter,retation ()**4 ;amages- A(sence of &-& !elations.i, ()**4 ;amages- 'ot arising from t.e &-& !elations ()*** ;ismissal- Int>l Agency ()**6 Intra-cor,orate 8atters79fficers ()**1 Intra-cor,orate 8atters79fficers ()**2 La(or Ar(iter ()**4 La(or Ar(iter- A,,eals (/00) La(or ;is,ute ( /00) 8ed-ar(iter ()**1 8oney Claims- !einstatement ()**1 'at>l La(or !elations Commission ()**4 'at>l La(or !elations Commission (/00) 'at>l La(or !elations Commission (/00) 'at>l La(or !elations Commissions (/00) 9verseas &m,loyment- Claim- <orts (/006 9verseas &m,loyment- 8andatory !emittance- ?oreign &xc.ange (/001 !ecovery of @ages ()**6 !emedies- illegal dismissal ()*** Secretary of La(or- Aut.ority ()**+ Secretary of La(or- ;ismissal of &m,loyees ()**+ Aoluntary Ar(itrator ()**2 Aoluntary Ar(itrator (/003
1,
13 13 14 14 15 15 15 15 15 18 18 18 18 16 16 16 00 00 00 01 01 01 01
LA$9! !&LA<I9'S
C$A- A,,ro,riate $argaining Unit ()**+ C$A- Ar(itral Award- !etroactive &ffect (/00) C$A- Ar(itral Awards- &ffectivity ()**6
22
00 00 00 Page # of 108
C$A- Automatic !enewal Clause ()*** ################################################################################01 C$A- Automatic !enewal Clause (/00) ################################################################################01 C$A- $argaining !e,resentative (/000 ####################################################################################01 C$A- Certification &lection (/004 ############################################################################################01 C$A- Certification &lection- B'o-UnionC @in (/001 ##############################################################02 C$A- Certification &lection- Consent &lection- !un-9ff &lection (/000 #################################02 C$A- Certification &lection- ?reedom Period ()*** #############################################################02 C$A- Certification &lection- Pro(ationary &m,loyees ()*** ##################################################02 C$A- Closed S.o, Provision- @.en not a,,lica(le ()*** #####################################################03 C$A- Closed S.o, vs. Agency S.o, ()**2 ##########################################################################03 C$A- Contract $ar !ule vs. ;eadlocD $ar !ule ()*** ############################################################03 C$A- Coverage- 'on-Union 8em(ers- !eligious Sect (/004 ################################################03 C$A- inter,retation (/006 #########################################################################################################04 C$A- Jurisdictional Pre-Conditions ()**1 #############################################################################04 C$A- LocD-out vs. Closed S.o, (/006 #####################################################################################04 C$A- 8andatory Su(:ects of $argaining ()**1 ####################################################################04 C$A- !egistration !eEuirement- Contract $ar-!ule (/000 #####################################################05 C$A- !un-9ff &lection (/001 ###################################################################################################05 C$A- Sale of &sta(lis.ment- &ffect ()**6 ################################################################################05 C$A- Social Security vs. Union Security (/006 ########################################################################05 C$A- Su(stitutionary ;octrine (/000 ########################################################################################05 C$A- Union Security Clause (/006 ###########################################################################################08 C$A- Union Security Clause- Closed S.o, Provision ()**4 ##################################################08 C$A- Union- !e,resentation Issue ()*** #################################################################################08 C$A- @age Increase Coverage- 'on-Union &m,loyees (/004 #############################################06 C$U- Com,any Union vs. Union S.o, (/006 ##########################################################################06 C$U- Confidential &m,loyees ()**6 #########################################################################################06 C$U- Consent &lection vs. Certification &lection (/006 ##########################################################10 C$U- 8anagerial &m,loyees- Su,ervisory &m,loyees ()**4 ###############################################10 C$U- 8anagerial &m,loyees- Su,ervisory &m,loyees ()*** ###############################################10 C$U- 8odes- ;etermination of &xclusive $argaining Agreement (/001 #########################11 ;ue Process- ;isci,linary Cases ()**4 ###################################################################################11 &m,loyees- grou,s of em,loyees ()**1 ###############################################################################10 &m,loyees- 8anagerial &m,loyee vs. 8anagerial Staff ()**6 #############################################10 &m,loyees- managerial em,loyees vs. su,ervisory em,loyees (/00/ ############################10 &m,loyees- 8anagerial vs. Su,ervisory vs. !anD-and-?ile &m,loyees (/003 #####################10 !ig.t to StriDe5 Sym,at.y vs. %eneral StriDe (/006 ################################################################11 !ig.t to StriDe- Assum,tion Power#############################################################################################11 !ig.t to StriDe- Com,ulsory Ar(itration- Certification to 'L!C ()**4 ###############################12 !ig.t to StriDe- &ffects- Fired !e,lacements (/001 ################################################################12 !ig.t to StriDe- &ffects- illegal striDe ()**4 ###############################################################################12 !ig.t to StriDe- &ffects- illegal striDe ()**4 ###############################################################################12 !ig.t to StriDe- &ffects- illegal striDe (/000 ###############################################################################12 !ig.t to StriDe- &ffects- StriDers> illegal Acts (/001 ##############################################################12 !ig.t to StriDe- illegal dismissal (/003 ###################################################################################12 !ig.t to StriDe- illegal locDout ()**4 ######################################################################################13 !ig.t to StriDe- illegal striDe- Loss of &m,loyment ()**6 ########################################################13 !ig.t to StriDe- Industries Aital to 'ational Interest (/006 ######################################################14 !ig.t to StriDe- Industries Aital to 'ational Interest- !eturn to @orD 9rder ()**1 ################14 !ig.t to StriDe- Lawful StriDe- &ffect on Partici,ants ()**2 #####################################################15 Page 4 of 108
!ig.t to StriDe- Lawful- !ig.t to !einstatement (/001 !ig.t to StriDe- Limitations (/000 !ig.t to StriDe- 'ational Interest- ;9L& Sec. intervention (/006 !ig.t to StriDe- PicDeting Activity (/000 (/006 !ig.t to StriDe- PicDeting Activity- illegal dismissal !ig.t to StriDe- !eturn to @orD 9rder ()**6 !ig.t to StriDe- !eturn to @orD 9rder ()**2 !ig.t to StriDe- !eturn to @orD 9rder ()**+ !ig.t to StriDe- !eturn to @orD 9rder- Assum,tion 9rder (/003 !ig.t to StriDe- Statutory !eEuisites- Procedural !eEuirements (/006 !ig.t to StriDe- <em,orary Sto,,age (/00/ !ig.t to StriDe- @ildcat StriDe ()**2 !ig.t to StriDe- @orD Slowdown ()**+ Self 9rganiGation- AcEuisition of Legal Personality (/003 Self 9rganiGation- A,,ro,riate $argaining Unit- Confidential &m,loyees (/00/ Self 9rganiGation- $L! Certification- Certification &lection ()**+ Self 9rganiGation- Certification &lection (/00) Self 9rganiGation- Certification &lection- $ystander !ule ()**1 Self 9rganiGation- Certification &lection- UnorganiGed &sta(lis.ment (/003 Self 9rganiGation- &-& !elations.i,- Certification &lection ()**+ Self 9rganiGation- %ov>t &m,loyees (/006 Self 9rganiGation- Im,ortance ()**1 Self 9rganiGation- 8em(ers.i, Policy ()**+ Self 9rganiGation- !ig.t to ;isaffiliate from t.e Local Union- illegal dismissal ()**6 Self 9rganiGation- !ig.t to Self-9rganiGation of Coo, &m,loyees (/00/ Self 9rganiGation- Union ;ues- Assessment (/00/ Self 9rganiGation- Union ;ues- Assessments ()**2 Self 9rganiGation- Unions- Assessments (/00) Self 9rganiGation- Unions- ?inancial !ecords ()*** Self 9rganiGation- Unions- ?inancial !ecords (/00) Self 9rganiGation- Unions- 8em(ers.i,- ;ismissal in $ad ?ait. (/00/ Self-9rganiGation (/00/ Self-9rganiGation- ;ismissal due to Union Activities (/006 Self-9rganiGation- %ov>t vs. Private &m,loyees ()**1 Self-9rganiGation- !ig.t to Join (/000 ULP- Awards of ;amages (/00) ULP- Contracting 9ut La(or (/00) ULP- ;efinition = &xam,les of ULP ()**1 ULP- Jurisdiction- La(or Ar(iter ()**2 ULP- !efusal to 'egotiate ()**2 ULP- !ig.ts = 9(ligations- @orDers> Association (/006 ULP- Su(:ect to Criminal Prosecution (/004
15 15 18 18 18 16 16 16 20 20 21 21 21 20 20 20 21 21 22 22 22 23 23 23 24 24 24 25 25 28 28 28 28 26 26 26 30 30 30 31 31 30
LA$9! S<A';A!;S
&-& !elations.i,- Cor,oration ()*** &-& !elations.i,- ;etermined (y ?acts = Laws (/000 &-& !elations.i,- &lements ()**1 &-& !elations.i,- %!9>s = 'ig.t Clu(s ()*** ()*** &-& !elations.i,- Security %uards- ?loating Status &-& !elations.i,- Self-&m,loyed (/003
,2
30 31 31 31 31 32
Page $ of 108
&-& !elations.i,- @orDers ,aid (y !esults (/006 32 33 &-& !elations.i,- @orDing Student = Sc.ool ()**2 33 &m,loyment- Aliens- !eEuisites ()**4 34 &m,loyment- C.ildren- $elow )4 yrs old (/006 34 &m,loyment- ;river as Fouse.el,er = in a Commercial &sta(lis.ment ()**+ 34 &m,loyment- Fandica,,ed &m,loyee ()**+ 34 &m,loyment- Fandica,,ed &m,loyee (/000 35 &m,loyment- Fandica,,ed @orDers- Contractual &m,loyees (/001 35 &m,loyment- FomeworDers (/000 &m,loyment- Fouse.el,ers (/000 35 35 &m,loyment- 8inors (/001 &m,loyment- 8inors- FaGardous @orD (/00/ 38 38 &m,loyment- !adio-<A S.ow Fost- &x,iration of <erm (/004 &m,loyment- @omen- Anti-Sexual Farassment Act (/000 36 &m,loyment- @omen- Anti-Sexual Farassment Act (/000 36 36 &m,loyment- @omen- Anti-Sexual Farassment Act (/006 &m,loyment- @omen- Anti-Sexual Farassment vs. ;iscrimination against @omen (/003 40 40 &m,loyment- @omen- ;iscrimination (y reason of Age ()**+ 40 &m,loyment- @omen- ;iscrimination (y reason of 8arriage ()**4 40 &m,loyment- @omen- discrimination- illegal dismissal ()**2 41 &m,loyment- @omen- Sexual Farassment Act (/004 41 &m,loyment- @omen- Sexual Farassment Act (/001 40 Inde,endent Contractor (/00) 40 Inde,endent Contractor (/00/ Inde,endent Contractor vs. La(or-9nly Contracting- ?our-?old <est (/000 41 41 Inde,endent Contractor- Lia(ilities (/006 41 La(or-9nly Contract vs. Jo( Contracting ()**2 42 La(or-9nly Contractor (/00/ 42 La(or-9nly Contractor vs. Inde,endent Contractor ()**6 !ecruitment = Placement- Cancellation- Certificate of !egistration- <ravel $an (/006 43 43 !ecruitment = Placement- illegal recruitment to economic sa(otage (/004 43 !ecruitment = Placement- illegal recruitment- &conomic Sa(otage (/00/ 44 !ecruitment = Placement- Large Scale Illegal !ecruitment (/004 44 !ecruitment = Placement- 'on-<ransfera(ility of License ()**+ 44 !ecruitment = Placement- !ecruitment Agencies (/00/ 44 !ecruitment = Placement- <ravel Agency- Pro.i(ition (/001 45 @age ;istortion (/00/ 45 @age- !eduction of 8inimum Pay = @ages (/001 45 @age- @age ;istortion- ;efinition = &lements (/001 45 @age- @age ;istortion- 8eans of Solving (/001 45 @age- @age ;istortion- 'ot a ground for StriDe7LocDout (/001 48 @ages- )3t. mont. ,ay ()**6 48 @ages- )3t. mont. ,ay ()**+ 48 @ages- $onus (/00/ 46 @ages- $onus (/003 @ages- $onus- 'ature ()**4 46 46 @ages- Com,utation of $asic Salary ()**2 46 @ages- Com,utation- Foliday Pay (/00/ 50 @ages- Com,utation- Foliday Pay- 9vertime Pay (/00/ Page % of 108
@ages- Foliday Pay (/004 #########################################################################################################50 @ages- 8oney Claims ()**+ #####################################################################################################50 @ages- 8oney Claims- Attorney>s ?ees- ;amages (/00) #####################################################51 @ages- Paid (y !esults- Foliday Pay (/00/ ############################################################################51 @ages- <eac.ers- &C9LA ()**2 ###########################################################################################51 @ages- Un,aid @ages- Preference of Credit in favor of &m,loyees ()**4 ####################50 @ages- Un,aid @ages- Preference of Credit in favor of &m,loyees (/003 ####################50 @ages- Un,aid @ages- Preference of Credit in favor of &m,loyees ()**4 ####################50 @ages- Un,aid @ages- Preference of Credit in favor of &m,loyees ()*** ####################51 @ages- @age ;istortion ()**2 ###############################################################################################51 @ages- @ages vs. Salary- Su(:ect to Attac.ment ()**6 ###################################################51 @ages- @aiver of Com,ensation ()**1 ################################################################################52 @orDing Fours- C.arita(le Institution- 9vertime Pay (/00/ ###################################################52 @orDing Fours- C.arita(le Institution- @eeDly !est Period- ()**+ ########################################52 @orDing Fours- Com,ressed @orD @eeD (/004 #################################################################52 @orDing Fours- 'ig.t S.ift ;ifferential (/00/ ##########################################################################52 @orDing Fours- Saturday @orD (/003 ###################################################################################53 @orDing Fours- SicD Leave- 9vertime Pay ()**2 ###################################################################53 @orDing Fours- @.en Com,ensa(le- B@.ile on CallH (/006 ##################################################53 @orDing Fours- @.en Com,ensa(le- B@.ile on CallH- @aiting <ime ()**2 #########################54 <&!8I'A<I9' 9? &8PL9I8&'<################################################################################.6
$acDwages (/00/ ######################################################################################################################54 $acDwages vs. Un,aid @ages ()**6 #######################################################################################54 $acDwages- $asis (/00) ##########################################################################################################55 $acDwages- $asis (/00) ##########################################################################################################55 $acDwages- $asis (/00) ##########################################################################################################55 ;ismissal- Aut.oriGed Causes (/00/ #####################################################################################58 ;ismissal- Aut.oriGed Causes vs. Just Cause (/006 ##########################################################58 ;ismissal- Aut.oriGed Causes- Closure = Cessation (/00) ###############################################58 ;ismissal- Aut.oriGed Causes- Closure = Cessation of $usiness- 9ld Age (/001 ##############58 ;ismissal- Aut.oriGed Causes- Closure = Cessation of $usiness- Se,aration Pay (/001 56 56 ;ismissal- Aut.oriGed Causes- ;ownsiGing &m,loyees (/00) ;ismissal- Aut.oriGed Causes- !edundancy ()*** 56 56 ;ismissal- Aut.oriGed Causes- !edundancy (/000 ;ismissal- Aut.oriGed Causes- !etrenc.ment = !edundancy (/00) 80 80 ;ismissal- Aut.oriGed Causes- !etrenc.ment ()**+ ;ismissal- Aut.oriGed Causes- !etrenc.ment (/003 81 81 ;ismissal- Aut.oriGed Causes- Seniority !ule (/00) 81 ;ismissal- Aut.oriGed Causes- SicDness (/006 80 ;ismissal- Constructive ;ismissal- ?loating Status (/006 80 ;ismissal- Constructive ;ismissal- <ransfer ()**1 ;ismissal- ;amages !ecovera(le (/00) 81 81 ;ismissal- ;ue Process- !eEuirements ()**6 81 ;ismissal- ;ue Process- !eEuirements (/001 ;ismissal- Just Cause- Immoral Conduct ()**1 82 82 ;ismissal- Just Cause- Inde,endent Contractor (/004 ;ismissal- Just Cause- 8isconduct ()**1 83 83 ;ismissal- Just Cause- Pro(ationary &m,loyees- !ig.ts (/001
Page & of 108
;ismissal- Just Cause- !eEuirements ()*** ;ismissal- Just Cause- Se,aration Pay ()**1 ;ismissal- Just Causes (/00) ;ismissal- Just Causes vs. Aut.oriGed Causes (/000 ;ismissal- Just Causes- ;iso(edience ()**4 ;ismissal- Just Causes- ;iso(edience (/003 ;ismissal- Just Causes- Insu(ordination ()*** ;ismissal- Just Causes- 8isconduct ()**4 ;ismissal- Just Causes- Juitclaims ()*** ;ismissal- Lia(ility- Cor,orate 9fficers ()**2 ;ismissal- Payroll !einstatement (/004 ;ismissal- Payroll !einstatement- !einstatement 9rder ()*** ;ismissal- !einstatement ()**6 ;ismissal- !einstatement ()**4 ;ismissal- !eEuirements ()**+ ;ismissal- !eEuirements ()*** ;ismissal- !eEuirements- Sus,ension of <ermination ()**6 ;ismissal- !eEuisites- !einstatement ;ismissal- Se,aration Pay- $acDwages (/00/ &m,loyee- Contractual &m,loyees- Seafarers (/00/ &m,loyee- Contractual @orDer vs. Casual @orDer (/004 &m,loyee- Pro(ationary &m,loyees ()**+ &m,loyee- Pro(ationary &m,loyees (/00) &m,loyee- Pro:ect &m,loyee vs. !egular &m,loyee ()**1 &m,loyee- Pro:ect &m,loyees vs. Casual &m,loyees (/004 &m,loyee- !egular &m,loyee- Constructive ;ismissal (/004 &m,loyee- !egular &m,loyees ()**6 &m,loyee- !egular &m,loyees ()**4 &m,loyee- !egular &m,loyees vs. Pro:ect &m,loyee ()**+ &m,loyee- !egular vs. Pro:ect &m,loyees (/00/ Prescri,tive ,eriod- illegal dismissal ()**6 Prescri,tive ,eriod- illegal dismissal (/00/ Prescri,tive ,eriod- illegal dismissal ()**2 !esignation- Aoluntary- Juitclaim ()**6 !esignation- Aoluntary- Juitclaims ()*** !etirement- 9,tional !etirement (/004 !etirement- !etirement $enefits ()**6 !etirement- !etirement Pay (/00)
83 84 84 85 85 88 88 88 86 86 86 60 60 60 61 61 60 61 61 62 62 63 63 63 63 64 64 65 65 68 68 66 66 100 100 101 101 101
S9CIAL L&%ISLA<I9'S
&m,loyees Com,ensation Act- @orD-Connected ;isa(ility ()**1 %SIS- $enefits (/006 %SIS- ;eat. $enefit ()*** %SIS- ;eat. $enefits- ;e,endent- /6-.our ;uty !ule (/004 8aternity $enefits (/000 Paternity Leave (/00/ Paternity Leave- 8aternity Leave (/004 SSS- Com,ulsory Coverage ()**4 SSS- Com,ulsory Coverage ()*** SSS- Com,ulsory Coverage (/000
102
100 101 101 101 102 102 102 103 103 103
Page ' of 108
SSS- Com,ulsory Coverage (/00/ #########################################################################################103 SSS- %SIS- $eneficiality- Porta(ility Provisions of !A 21** (/004 #################################104 SSS- %SIS- Jurisdiction- $enefit Claims ()**4 #################################################################104 SSS- Prescri,tive Period- $enefit Claims (/00) #################################################################104 SSS-%SIS- &m,loyees Com,ensation Act ()**2 ##############################################################105 State Insurance ?und ()**6 ####################################################################################################105 State Insurance ?und ()**4 ####################################################################################################105 Stray Juestions####################################################################################################################105 Stray Pro(lem- Political Law- Power of t.e President- ?<AA (/001 #####################################108
Page ( of 108
LABOR LAW Bar Q & A (as arranged by Topics) 19942006
GENERAL /RINCI/LES
C2"4tit)ti2"!* /#26i4i2"4 2" L!%2# (1995) @.at are t.e salient features of t.e ,rotection to la(or ,rovision of t.e ConstitutionK L4MN SUGGESTE7 ANSWER' <.e salient features of t.e Protection to La(or ,rovision of t.e Constitution (Article OIII. Section 3 are as follows5 ). &xtent of Protection - ?ull ,rotection to la(or/. Coverage of Protection - Local and overseas# organiGed and unorganiGed3. &m,loyment Policy - ?ull em,loyment and eEuality of em,loyment o,,ortunities for all-
of la(or to its of ,roduction enter,rises to investments# and
:ust s.are in t.e fruits and t.e rig.t of reasona(le returns on to ex,ansion and growt..
I"t #-# t!ti2" 23 L!%2# L!84 (1995)

3. Article 6 of t.e La(or Code ,rovides t.at in case of dou(t in t.e im,lementation and inter,retation of t.e ,rovisions of t.e Code and its Im,lementing !ules and !egulations# t.e dou(t s.all (e resolved in favor of la(or. Article )20/ of t.e Civil Code also ,rovides t.at in case of dou(t# all la(or legislation and all la(or contracts s.all (e construed in favor of t.e safety and decent living for t.e la(orer.
6. %uarantees 6.). Unionism and 8et.od of ;etermination Conditions of &m,loyment - !ig.t of all worDers to self-organiGation# collective (argaining and negotiations. 6./. Concerted Activities - !ig.t to engage in ,eaceful concerted activities# including t.e rig.t to striDe in accordance wit. law. 6.3. @orDing Conditions - !ig.t to security of tenure# .umane conditions of worD and a living wage. 6.6. ;ecision 8aDing Processes - !ig.t to ,artici,ate .i ,olicy and decision maDing ,rocesses affecting t.eir rig.ts and (enefits as way to ,rovided (y law. 4. S.are in ?ruits of ,roduction - !ecognition of rig.t of la(or to its :ust s.are in fruits of ,roduction. ANOT0ER SUGGESTE7 ANSWER' o <.e Constitution (In Article OIII# Section 3 ,rovides t.at t.e State s.all afford ,rotection to la(or# local and overseas# organiGed and unorganiGed. o <.e State s.all afford ,rotection to la(or (y ,romoting full em,loyment and eEuality of em,loyment o,,ortunities for all.
o @orDers are entitled to security of tenure# .umane conditions of worD and a living wage. o <.e State s.all guarantee t.e rig.t of all worDers to self organiGation# collective
8ica-8ara com,any assails t.e validity of t.ese statutes on t.e ground t.at t.ey violate its constitutional rig.t to eEual ,rotection of t.e laws. Is t.e contention of 8ica 8ara Com,any tena(leK ;iscuss fully SUGGESTE7 ANSWER' 'o# t.e Constitution ,rovides t.at t.e state s.all afford full ,rotection to la(or. ?urt.ermore# t.e State affirms la(or as a ,rimary economic force. It s.all ,rotect t.e rig.ts of worDers and ,romote t.eir welfare. ALTERNATI9E ANSWER'
a 'o# (ecause a law w.ic. ,romotes a constitutional mandate does not violate t.e eEual ,rotection clause. <.e constitutional mandate is for t.e State to afford full ,rotection to la(or suc. t.at# w.en conflicting interests of la(or and ca,ital are to (e weig.ed on t.e scales of :ustice# t.e .eavier influence of t.e latter s.ould (e counter(alanced (y t.e sym,at.y t.e law s.ould accord t.e under,rivileged. ( <.e contention of 8ica-8ara Com,any is not tena(le. <.e constitutional rig.t to eEual ,rotection of t.e laws is not violated (y reasona(le classification. <.us# it is constitutionally ,ossi(le to treat worDers differently from em,loyers.
(argaining and negotiations# and ,eaceful concerted activities# including t.e rig.t to striDe# in accordance wit. law.
o @orDers s.all also ,artici,ate in ,olicy and decision maDing ,rocesses affecting t.eir
<.e social :ustice ,rinci,le em(odied in t.e Constitution could (e t.e (asis for treating worDers more favora(ly t.an em,loyers# in t.e im,lementation and inter,retation of t.e ,rovisions of t.e La(or Code and of its im,lementing rules and regulations.
rig.ts and (enefits as may (e ,rovided (y law. <.e State s.all ,romote t.e ,rinci,le of s.ared res,onsi(ility (etween worDers and em,loyers and t.e ,referential use of voluntary modes in settling la(or dis,utes# including conciliation# and s.all enforce mutual com,liance t.erewit. to foster industrial ,eace.
<.e State s.all regulate t.e relations (etween worDers and em,loyers# recogniGing t.e rig.t
I"t #-# t!ti2" 23 L!%2# L!84: Li% #!* A--#2!;< (2006)

@.at is t.e conce,t of li(eral a,,roac. in inter,reting t.e La(or Code and its Im,lementing !ules and !egulations in favor of la(orK (/.4M
SUGGESTE7 ANSWER'
<.e worDersP welfare s.ould (e t.e ,aramount consideration in inter,reting t.e La(or Code and its Im,lementing !ules and !egulations. <.is is
Page 10 of 108
rooted in t.e Constitutional mandate to afford full ,rotection to la(or. Article 6 of t.e La(or Code
SUGGESTE7 ANSWER'
LA$9! !&LA<I9'S law focuses its ,rovisions on

t.e collective as,ects of em,loyer-em,loyee relations.i,. Its legal ,rovisions deal wit. em,loyees organiGing unions and .ow t.roug. t.ese unions# em,loyees are a(le to .ave collective (argaining wit. t.eir em,loyer. 9n t.e ot.er .and# LA$9! S<A';A!;S law
focuses on t.e terms and conditions of
,rovides t.at Call dou(ts in t.e im,lementation and

inter,retation of t.e ,rovisions of t.e La(or Code
including its im,lementing rules and regulations s.all (e resolved in favor of la(orC (PL9< v. 'L!C# %.! 'o. )))*33# July /3#)**2 . It underscores t.e ,olicy of social :ustice to accommodate t.e
interests of t.e worDing class on t.e .umane :ustification t.at t.ose w.o .ave less in life s.all
.ave more in law (PAL v. Santos# %.!. 'o. 22+24#

?e(ruary 6# )**3 .
em,loyment of em,loyees as individual em,loyees or t.ose legal ,rovisions dealing wit. wages# .ours of worD and ot.er terms and conditions of
em,loyment. <.ere may (e instances w.en t.e ,rovisions of la(or relations law may interrelate wit. ,rovisions
L!%2# L $i4*!ti2"4: /)#-24 (2006)

@.at is t.e ,ur,ose of la(or legislationK (/.4M
SUGGESTE7 ANSWER'
La(or legislation is an exercise of ,olice ,ower. <.e ,ur,ose of la(or legislation is to regulate t.e relations (etween em,loyers and em,loyees
res,ecting
t.e
terms
and
conditions
of
of la(or standards law. <.us# a C$A w.ic. is dealt wit. in la(or relations law may .ave ,rovisions t.at im,roves u,on t.e minimum terms and conditions
of em,loyment ,rescri(ed in la(or standards law#
liDe a C$A ,roviding for a .ig.er minimum wage#
em,loyment# eit.er (y ,roviding for certain standards or for a legal frameworD wit.in w.ic. (etter terms and conditions of worD could (e
or for t.e com,utation of a .ig.er overtime ,ay or

t.e ,ayment of .oliday ,ay not only for regular .olidays (ut also for certain s,ecial .olidays.
negotiated t.roug. collective (argaining. It is intended to correct t.e in:ustices in.erent in em,loyer-em,loyee relations.i,.
L!%2# St!"d!#d 64= L!%2# R *!ti2" (199.)

;ifferentiate la(or standards law from la(or relations law. Are t.e two mutually exclusiveK
L!%2# St!t)t 4: C*!44i3i;!ti2" (199, N2= 1') ). @.at are t.e t.ree (3 general classifications of
SUGGESTE7 ANSWER'
LA$9! S<A';A!;S law is t.at la(or law w.ic.
,rescri(es terms and conditions of em,loyment

liDe $ooD in $ooD IA# <itle I and $ooD AI of t.e
La(or Code. <.ese $ooDs of t.e La(or Code deal wit. worDing conditions# wages# worDing conditions for women# minors# .ouse.el,ers and .omeworDers# medical and dental services# occu,ational
.ealt. and safety# termination and retirement. 9n t.e ot.er .and# LA$9! !&LA<I9'S law is t.at la(or law w.ic. regulates t.e relations (etween em,loyers and worDers liDe $ooD A of t.e La(or Code w.ic. deals wit. la(or organiGations#
la(or statutesK ;escri(e and give an exam,le of eac. classification. SUGGESTE7 ANSWER' <.e t.ree (3 general classifications of la(or statutes are5 a La(or !elations Laws( La(or Standards Laws- and c Social Security Laws.
LA$9! !&LA<I9'S Laws are t.ose la(or statutes t.at deal wit. t.e relations of la(or and management# liDe t.e laws on unions# collective
(argaining# unfair la(or ,ractices# striDes# locDouts

and ,icDeting.
LA$9! S<A';A!;S are t.ose la(or statutes t.at

,rescri(e conditions standards relating to terms and of em,loyment for com,liance (y
collective (argaining# unfair la(or ,ractices and striDes and locDouts. La(or standards laws and la(or relations laws are not mutually exclusive- t.ey are com,lement to
eac. ot.er. <.us# t.e law on striDes and locDouts
em,loyers# liDe t.e laws on .ours of worD# weeDly rest ,eriods# .oliday ,ay# wages# and laws dealing wit. women# minors# .ouse-.el,ers# and industrial
.ome-worDers.
w.ic. is an exam,le of la(or relations law includes <.ese ,rovisions are exam,les of la(or standards law.
some ,rovisions on t.e security of tenure of worDers w.o go on striDe or w.o are locDed out.
S9CIAL S&CU!I<I Laws are t.ose la(or statutes

t.at ,rovide ,rotection not only to a worDer (ut also
to mem(ers of .is family in case of loss of income

or w.en t.ere is need for medical care a(out (y contingencies liDe sicDness# deat.# and old age. &xam,les of social laws are t.e Social Security Law# (roug.t disa(ility# security !evised
L!%2# St!"d!#d 64= L!%2# R *!ti2" (200>) Fow do t.e ,rovisions of t.e law on la(or relations interrelate# if at all# wit. t.e ,rovisions ,ertaining to la(or standardsK 4M
%overnment Service Insurance Act# t.e Articles of t.e La(or Code on &m,loyees Com,ensation# t.e
Page
of 108
State Insurance ?und# and t.e 'ational Fealt.

Insurance Act.
laws are social legislation# (ut not all social legislation is la(or law.
L!%2# St!t)t 4: /#i";i-* 23 S2*)ti2 I"d %iti:

N2t A--*i;!%* (1994)
Conce,cion <extile Co. included t.e overtime ,ay#

nig.t-s.ift differential ,ay# and t.e liDe in t.e com,utation of its em,loyeesP )3t.-mont. ,ay. Su(seEuently# wit. t.e ,romulgation of t.e
L!%2#: !4 /#2- #t& Ri$<t (2006) @.at ,ro,erty rig.t is conferred u,on an em,loyee once t.ere is an em,loyer-em,loyee relations.i,K
;iscuss (riefly. (4M SUGGESTE7 ANSWER'
Fis em,loyment is not merely a contractual

relations.i,. 9nePs em,loyment is a ,ro,erty rig.t wit.in t.e mantle of constitutional ,rotection
decision of t.e Su,reme Court in t.e case of San

8iguel Cor,oration vs. Inciong ()03 SC!A )3* .olding t.at t.ese ot.er monetary claims s.ould not (e included in t.e com,utation of t.e )3t.mont. ,ay# Conce,cion <extile Co. soug.t to recover under t.e principle of solutio indebiti its
(Callanta v. Carnation P.il.# 'o. L-201)4# 9cto(er /+# )*+1 . Fence# t.e em,loyee en:oys security of tenure and .e cannot (e dismissed exce,t for
cause and only after due ,rocess. <.e worDer is t.us ,rotected and insulated against any ar(itrary
over,ayment of its em,loyeesP )3t.-mont. ,ay# (y

de(iting against future )3t.-mont. ,ayments w.atever excess amounts it .ad ,reviously made. ) Is t.e Com,anyPs action tena(leK
de,rivation of .is :o( (P.ili,s Semi Conductors

LP.ils.N v. ?adriEuela# %.!. 'o. )6)2)2# A,ril )6# /006 .
SUGGESTE7 ANSWER'
) <.e Com,anyPs action is not tena(le. <.e
,rinci,le of salutio inde(iti w.ic. is a civil law conce,t is not a,,lica(le in la(or law. <.us# solutio
inde(iti is not a,,lica(le to t.e instant case# (;avao ?ruits Cor,orations vs. 'ational La(or !elations Commission# et at. //4 SC!A 41/ ALTERNATI9E ANSWERS'
Ri$<t4 23 E?-*2& #@E?-*2&

/
(1996)
@.at are t.e rig.ts of an em,loyer and an
em,loyeeK
SUGGESTE7 ANSWER'
<.e Constitution in Art. OIII# Section 3 ,rovides for

t.e following rig.ts of em,loyers and em,loyees5
A. &m,loyers !ig.t to a reasona(le return on
<.e Com,anyPs action would (e tena(le if
,ayment was done (y mistaDe# In w.ic. case
recovery can (e done under t.e ,rinci,le of solutio

inde(iti. $ut if t.ere was no mistaDe# t.e Com,anyPs action would (e untena(le (ecause it
investments# and to ex,ansion and growt.. ). <o a :ust s.are in t.e fruits of ,roduction-
/.
!ig.t to self organiGation# collective (argaining

and negotiations and ,eaceful concerted
would violate Article )00 of t.e La(or Code w.ic.

,ro.i(its elimination or diminution of (enefits. 3. 6.
activities# including t.e rig.t to striDe in

accordance wit. law<o security of tenure# .umane conditions of worD# and a living wage- and <o ,artici,ate in ,olicy and decision-maDing
L!%2# 64= S2;i!* L $i4*!ti2" /. Is t.ere any distinction (etween la(or legislation
and social legislationK &x,lain.
,rocesses affecting t.eir rig.ts and (enefits as

may (e ,rovided (y law# ALTERNATI9E ANSWER' In an em,loyer-em,loyee relations.i,# it is t.e rig.t of t.e em,loyer to use t.e services of an em,loyee w.o is under .is (em,loyerPs orders as regards
SUGGESTE7 ANSWER' LA$9! L&%ISLA<I9' is sometimes distinguis.ed

from social legislation (y t.e former referring to
la(or statutes# liDe La(or !elations Law and La(or

Standards# and t.e latter to Social Security Laws. La(or legislation focuses on t.e rig.ts of t.e worDer in t.e worD,lace. S9CIAL L&%ISLA<I9' is a (road term and may include not only laws t.at give social security
t.e em,loyment. 9n t.e ot.er .and# it is t.e rig.t

of t.e em,loyee to receive com,ensation for t.e services .e renders for t.e em,loyer. Ri$<t4 23 t< E?-*2& #: M!"!$ ? "t /# #2$!ti6 (2000)
,rotection# (ut also t.ose t.at .el, t.e worDer

secure .ousing and (asic necessities. <.e
a An exclusive sc.ool for girls# run (y a religious

order# .as a ,olicy of not em,loying unwed mot.ers# women wit. live-in ,artners# and
Com,re.ensive Agrarian !eform law could also (e considered a social legislation. ALTERNATI9E ANSWER' Ies. La(or Legislation is limited in sco,e# and
deals (asically wit. t.e rig.ts and duties of
les(ians. Is t.e ,olicy violative of any ,rovision of

t.e La(or Code on em,loyment of womenK (3M ( <.e same sc.ool dismissed two female faculty
em,loyees and em,loyers. Social Legislation is more encom,assing and includes suc. su(:ects as agrarian relations# .ousing and .uman settlement#
,rotection of women and c.ildren# etc. All la(or
mem(ers on account of ,regnancy out of wedlocD.

;id t.e sc.ool violate any ,rovision of t.e La(or Code on em,loyment of womenK (3M SUGGESTE7 ANSWER'
Page
" of 108
a
Code.
'o# t.e ,olicy does not violate t.e La(or <.e ,ractice is a valid exercise of
(d
management function. Considering t.e nature and

reason for existence of t.e sc.ool# it may ado,t (e
'o# (ecause t.is amounts to a diminution of (enefits w.ic. is ,ro.i(ited (y t.e La(or Code-
suc. ,olicy as will advance its lauda(le o(:ectives.

In fact# t.e ,olicy accords wit. t.e constitutional ,rece,t of inculcating et.ical and moral values in sc.ools. <.e sc.ool ,olicy does not discriminate
against women solely on account of sex (Art. )34# La(or Code nor are t.e acts ,ro.i(ited under Art. )32 of t.e La(or Code. ALTERNATI9E ANSWER' <.e sc.ool violated Art. )32 (/ of t.e La(or Code w.ic. states t.at5 CIt s.all (e unlawful for any em,loyer to disc.arge suc. woman on account of
,regnancyC. <.e ,regnancy .ere could o(viously .ave resulted from love and suc. only lends su(stance to t.e saying t.at Ct.e .eart .as
'o# (ecause it is a fringe (enefit t.at .as already ri,ened into a demanda(le rig.t or entitlement. ()0M ALTERNATI9E ANSWER' (( Ies# (ecause it is suffering losses for t.e first timeIes# (ecause t.is is a management (c ,rerogative w.ic. is not due any legal or contractual o(ligation-
An em,loyer cannot (e forced to continue giving a (enefit# (eing given as a management ,rerogative# w.en it can no longer afford to ,ay for it. <o .old
ot.erwise# would (e to ,enaliGe t.e em,loyer for .is ,ast generosity. (ProducerPs $anD of t.e
reasons of its own w.ic. reason does not DnowC# a

matter t.at cannot C(e so casually eEuated wit. immoralityC. LC.ua-Jua v. Clave# )+* SC!A ))2
P.ili,,ines v. 'L!C# %.!. 'o. )0020)# 8arc. /+#

/00) ALTERNATI9E ANSWER'
()**0 N. SUGGESTE7 ANSWER' ( 'o# (ecause to tolerate ,regnancy out of

wedlocD will (e a (latant contradiction of t.e
(d
'o# (ecause t.is amounts to a diminution of

ri,ened into a demanda(le rig.t or
(enefits w.ic. is ,ro.i(ited (y t.e La(or Code(e 'o# (ecause it is a fringe (enefit t.at .as
already
sc.oolPs lauda(le mission w.ic.# as already stated#

accords wit. .ig. constitutional ,rece,ts.
entitlement. A com,any ,ractice favora(le to em,loyees .ad indeed (een esta(lis.ed and t.e ,ayments made ,ursuant t.ereto# ri,ened into (enefits en:oyed (y t.em. And any (enefit and su,,lement (eing
<.is answer does not contradict t.e ruling in C.uaJua w.ere t.e teac.er merely fell in love wit. a (ac.elor student and t.e teac.er# also single# did not get ,regnant out of wedlocD.
en:oyed (y t.e em,loyees cannot (e reduced#

diminis.ed# discontinued or eliminated (y t.e
Ri$<t4 23 t< E?-*2& #: M!"!$ ? "t /# #2$!ti6 : B " 3it4: U"i*!t #!**& Gi6 "
(200,) Little Fands %arment Com,any# an unorganiGed manufacturer of c.ildrenPs a,,arel wit. around
em,loyer (y virtue of Article )00 of t.e La(or Code of t.e P.ili,,ines w.ic. ,ro.i(its t.e diminution or
elimination of t.e em,loyer of t.e em,loyeesP existing (enefits. (Sevilla <rading Co. v. Semana# %.!. 'o. )4/641# A,ril /+# /006 ALTERNATI9E ANSWER'
)#000 worDers# suffered losses for t.e first time in

.istory w.en its US and &uro,ean customers
((
Ies# (ecause it is suffering losses for t.e first
s.ifted t.eir .uge orders to C.ina and $anglades..

<.e management informed its em,loyees t.at it
could no longer afford to ,rovide trans,ortation s.uttle services. ConseEuently# it announced t.at a
normal fare would (e c.arged de,ending on t.e distance traveled (y t.e worDers availing of t.e
time(d 'o# (ecause t.is amounts to a diminution of (enefits w.ic. is ,ro.i(ited (y t.e La(or Code. Iou cannot com,el an em,loyer to continue ,aying t.e (enefits if it is suffering from serious
(usiness losses. Fowever# t.e (enefit .as already

ri,ened into an em,loyer ,ractice or ,olicy# and t.erefore it cannot (e wit.drawn wit.out violating
service. @as t.e Little Fands %arments Com,any wit.in its rig.ts to wit.draw t.is (enefit w.ic. it .ad unilaterally (een ,roviding to its em,loyeesK
Article )00 of t.e La(or Code on non-diminution of

(enefits. Ri$<t4 23 t< E?-*2& #: M!"!$ ? "t /# #2$!ti6 : C2"t#!;ti"$ O)t S #6i; 4 (1994) Far(or Aiew Fotel .as an existing Collective
Select t.e (est answer(s and (riefly ex,lain your reason(s t.erefor. Ies# (ecause it can wit.draw a (enefit t.at (a
is unilaterally given(( Ies# (ecause it is suffering losses for t.e
$argaining Agreement (C$A wit. t.e union of ranD-and-file em,loyees consisting# among ot.ers#
of (artenders# waiters# room(oys# .ousemen and stewards. ;uring t.e lifetime of t.e C$A# Far(or
first time(c
Ies# (ecause t.is is a management ,rerogative w.ic. is not due any legal or
Aiew Fotel# for reasons of economy and efficiency#

decided to a(olis. t.e ,osition of .ousemen and
contractual o(ligation-
Page
# of 108
stewards w.o do t.e cleaning of t.e .otelPs ,u(lic areas. 9ver t.e ,rotest of t.e Union# t.e Fotel contracted out t.e aforementioned :o( to t.e City Service Janitorial Com,any# a (onafide inde,endent contractor w.ic. .as a su(stantial ca,ital in t.e form of Janitorial tools# eEui,ment# mac.ineries and com,etent man,ower.
Ri$<t4 23 t< E?-*2& #: M!"!$ ? "t -# #2$!ti6 4 (1994)

$ulacan 8edical Fos,ital ($8F entered into a Collective $argaining Agreement (C$A wit. its Union# w.erein it is ex,ressly sti,ulated in t.e 8anagement Prerogative Clause t.at $8F s.all# in t.e exercise of its management ,rerogatives# .ave t.e sole and exclusive rig.t to ,romulgate# amend and modify rules and regulations for t.e em,loyees wit.in t.e (argaining unit. A year after t.e contract was signed# $8F issued its !evised !ules and !egulations and furnis.ed a co,y t.ereof to t.e Union for dissemination to all em,loyees covered (y t.e C$A. <.e Union wrote $8F demanding t.at t.e !evised !ules and !egulations (e first discussed wit. t.em (efore its im,lementation. $8F refused. So# t.e Union filed an action for unfair la(or ,ractice (ULP against $8F.
Is t.e action of t.e Far(or Aiew Fotel legal and validK SUGGESTE7 ANSWER'
<.e action of Far(or Aiew Fotel is legal and valid. <.e valid exercise of management ,rerogative# discretion and :udgment encom,asses all as,ects of em,loyment# including t.e .iring# worD assignments# worDing met.ods# time# ,lace and manner of worD# tools to (e used# ,rocesses to (e followed# su,ervision of worDers# worDing regulations# transfer of em,loyees# worD su,ervision# lay-off of worDers# and t.e disci,line# dismissal and recall of worDers# exce,t as ,rovided for# or limited (y s,ecial laws. Com,any ,olicies and regulations are# unless s.own to (e gross o,,ressive or contrary to law# generally (inding and valid on t.e ,arties and must (e com,lied wit. until finally revised or amended unilaterally or ,refera(ly t.roug. negotiation or (y com,etent aut.ority. (San 8iguel Cor,oration vs. !eynaldo !. U(aldo and &mmanuel 'oel A. CruG# C.airman and 8em(er res,ectively of t.e Aoluntary Ar(itration Panel# et al %.! 'o. */+4*# ) ?e(ruary )**3. J. Cam,os# Jr.# /)+ SC!A /*3
).
/.
Is t.e Union correctK

Assuming t.at t.e C$A was signed Cor executed (efore t.e )*+2 Constitution was
ratified# would your answer to t.e ,receding Euestion (e differentK SUGGESTE7 ANSWER'
) <.e Union is correct. A ,rovision in t.e collective (argaining agreement concerning management ,rerogatives# may not (e inter,reted as cession of t.e em,loyees rig.t to ,artici,ate in t.e deli(eration of matters w.ic. may affect t.eir rig.t and t.e formulation of ,olicies relative t.ereto# suc. as t.e formulation of a code of disci,line. A line must (e drawn (etween management ,rerogatives regarding (usiness o,erations ,er se and t.ose w.ic. affect t.e rig.ts of t.e em,loyees# and in treating t.e latter# management s.ould see to it t.at its em,loyees are at least ,ro,erly informed of its decisions or modes of action.
ALTERNATI9E ANSWER'
a <.e action of t.e Far(or Aiew Fotel is legal and valid. C9'<!AC<I'% 9U< S&!AIC&S or functions (eing ,erformed (y union mem(ers is not illegal ,er se. In fact# it is t.e ,rerogative of management to ado,t cost-saving measures to ensure economy and efficiency. Contracting out services or functions (eing ,erformed (y Union mem(ers (ecomes illegal only w.en it interferes wit.# restrains or coerces em,loyees in t.e exercise of t.eir rig.t to self-organiGation.
( <.e action of Far(or Aiew Fotel would# at first glance# a,,ear to (e an unfair la(or ,ractice under Article /6+(c # e.g.. Cto contract out services or functions (eing ,erformed (y union mem(ers if suc. will interfere wit.# restrain or coerce em,loyees in t.e exercise of t.eir rig.t to self- organiGation.C
Considering# .owever# t.at in t.e case at (ar# t.ere is no s.owing t.at t.e contracting out of services would violate t.e em,loyees rig.t to selforganiGation# it is su(mitted t.at t.e .otelPs action is a valid exercise of its management ,rerogatives and t.e rig.t to maDe (usiness :udgments in accordance wit. law.
<.e attainment of a .armonious la(ormanagement relations.i, and t.e existing state ,olicy of enlig.tening worDers concerning t.eir rig.ts as em,loyees demand no less t.an t.e o(servance of trans,arency in managerial moves affecting em,loyeesP rig.ts. LP.ili,,ine Airlines# Inc. vs. 'ational La(or !elations Commission# et al# %.! 'o. +4*+4# )3 August )**3. J. 8elo. //4 SC!A /4+# 30). ALTERNATI9E ANSWER' a <.e Union is correct. @orDers .ave t.e rig.t to ,artici,ate in ,olicy and decisionmaDing ,rocesses affecting t.eir rig.ts# (enefits and welfare. (Art. /44J.
( Ies. <.e Union is correct in asDing for discussion of t.e revised rules ,rior to t.eir effectivity. <.e reason is Art. OIII# Sec. 3 of t.e )*+2 Constitution# allowing worDers t.e rig.t to
Page 14 of 108
,artici,ate in ,olicy and decision-maDing matters related to t.eir welfare and (enefits.
on
<.e UnionPs remedy .owever s.ould not (e to file

a ULP case (ut to initiate a %!I&AA'C&
,roceeding# and if unresolved# su(mit t.e matter to voluntary ar(itration. SUGGESTE7 ANSWER' / <.e answer would (e t.e same even if t.e C$A
was signed or executed (efore t.e ratification of
circumstances. 'ot all la(or cases will (e automatically decided in favor of t.e worDer. 8anagement .as also rig.ts w.ic. are entitled to recognition and ,rotection- :ustice must (e dis,ensed according to facts and law- and social :ustice is not designed to destroy or o,,ress t.e em,loyer. ANOT0ER SUGGESTE7 ANSWER' Social :ustice as a guiding ,rinci,le in La(or Law can (e im,lemented side (y side wit. t.e eEual ,rotection clause of t.e Constitution.
t.e )*+2 Constitution (ecause it .as always (een

t.e ,olicy of t.e State to ,romote t.e
enlig.tenment of worDers concerning t.eir rig.ts and o(ligations as em,loyees. (Art. /))- PAL vs. 'L!C# %! +4*+4# August )3# )**3 R)* : I"A)";ti2" i" L!%2# C!4 4 (2000) Professor Juan dela CruG# an aut.or of t.e
In im,lementation of t.e ,rinci,le of social :ustice# t.e Constitution commands t.at t.e State s.all afford ,rotection to la(or. <.us La(or Law may (e
,ro-la(or in t.e sense t.at la(or is given certain
(enefits not given to management. $ut t.is is not
necessarily violative of t.e eEual ,rotection clause of t.e Constitution (ecause said clause allows
reasona(le classification.
text(ooD Commentaries on t.e La(or Code of t.e

P.ili,,ines# citing an American case# wrote5 It is
said t.at t.e ,ro.i(ition against t.e issuance of a
writ of In:unction in la(or cases creates su(stantive

and not ,urely ,rocedural law.C Is t.ere any statutory (asis for t.e statement7comment under
(URIS7ICTION
CBA: I?-* ? "t!ti2" & I"t #-# t!ti2" (199,) Fow are cases arising from t.e Inter,retation or im,lementation collective (argaining of agreements .andled and dis,osedK SUGGESTE7 ANSWER' <.roug. t.e grievance mac.inery and if not resolved (y t.e grievance mac.inery# t.roug. voluntary ar(itration. 7!?!$ 4: A%4 "; 23 EBE R *!ti2"4<i(199,) Pa(lo $agsaDin. a law graduate w.o got tired of taDing t.e (ar examinations after several unsuccessful attem,ts# :oined t.e Investigation ;ivision of @araD <rans,ort Com,any. ?rom t.e very (eginning Pa(lo never liDed .is manager
P.ili,,ine lawK (4M SUGGESTE7 ANSWER' Ies. <.e statutory (asis is Article /46 of t.e La(or
Code. It ,ro.i(its issuance of in:unction# as a
matter of ,olicy# to resolve dis,utes exce,t as

ot.erwise ,rovided in Articles /)+ and /16 of t.e La(or Code. LCaltex ?ili,ino 8anagers and
Su,ervisors Association v. CQ!# 66 SC!A 340 ()*2/ N
S2;i!* ()4ti; !4 G)idi"$ /#i";i-* 4 i" L!%2#

(200>) 8ay social :ustice as a guiding ,rinci,le in la(or
law (e so used (y t.e courts in sym,at.y wit. t.e worDing man if it collides wit. t.e eEual ,rotection clause of t.e ConstitutionK &x,lain. 4M SUGGESTE7 ANSWER' Ies. <.e State is (ound under t.e Constitution to afford full ,rotection to La(or- and w.en conflicting interests collide and t.ey are to (e weig.ed on t.e
scales of social :ustice# t.e law s.ould accord more sym,at.y and com,assion to t.e less ,rivileged worDingman. (?uentes v. 'L!C. /11 SC!A /6 f )**2) Fowever# it s.ould (e (orne in mind t.at
(ecause t.e latter always made fun of t.e formerPs

accident re,orts. @.en Pa(loPs ,atience ran out .e walDed u, to .is manager w.o was reviewing t.e investigatorPs assignments and worDload and (oxed .im until t.e latter colla,sed. <.e incident .a,,ened during office .ours at t.e Investigation ;ivision in t.e ,resence of .is co-em,loyees.
Pa(lo was dismissed wit.out any investigation and

was no longer allowed to enter t.e com,any ,remises. <.e manager filed a com,laint for damages against Pa(lo (efore t.e Pasig !egional <rial
Court (!<C . In turn# Pa(lo filed a case for illegal
social :ustice ceases to (e an effective instrument

for t.e CeEualiGation of t.e social and economic
forcesC (y t.e State w.en it is used to s.ield wrongdoing. (CoraGon Jamer v. 'L!C. /2+ SC!A 13/ ?) **2)) ANOT0ER SUGGESTE7 ANSWER' 'o# social :ustice as a guiding ,rinci,le in law may
not (e used (y t.e courts if it collides wit. t.e eEual ,rotection clause of t.e Constitution. Social :ustice is not a magic wand a,,lica(le in all
dismissal wit. t.e La(or Ar(iter against t.e manager and t.e trans,ort com,any. Pa(lo asDed for reinstatement wit.out loss of seniority rig.ts
wit. full (acD wages. Pa(lo also filed (efore t.e Pasig !<C a motion to dismiss t.e damage suit against .im alleging t.at t.e La(or Ar(iter (efore
Page
$ of 108
w.om t.e case for illegal dismissal was ,ending .ad exclusive :urisdiction over (ot. cases. !esolve t.e motion to dismiss. ;iscuss fully.
SUGGESTE7 ANSWER' <.e motion to dismiss filed (y Pa(lo (efore t.e Pasig !<C s.ould (e denied.
<.e damage suit filed (y t.e manager against Pa(lo does not arise from em,loyer-em,loyee relations.i,. @.ile t.e case involves an em,loyer and .is em,loyee. It is not t.e em,loyer- em,loyee relations.i, (etween t.e two t.at gives rise to t.e damage suit. Instead# it is (ased solely on an alleged tort w.ic. could give rise to a damage suit under t.e Civil Code. <.us# t.e La(or Ar(iter .as no :urisdiction over t.e damage suit.
La(or Code. (8edina v. Castro-$artolome# ))1 SC!A 4*2 ALTERNATI9E ANSWER' <.e 8otion to dismiss s.ould (e granted. According to t.e La(or Code (in Article /)2 (a 6 # t.e La(or Ar(iter .as original and exclusive :urisdiction to .ear and decide# among ot.ers# claims for actual# moral# exem,lary and ot.er forms of damages arising from t.e em,loyer- em,loyee relations.
<.e claim for damages in t.e case in Euestion arose from t.e fact t.at t.e President of t.e Com,any s.outed invectives at 8arlet ;emetrio in t.e ,resence of em,loyees and visitors for a minor infraction s.e committed. If t.e infraction .as somet.ing to do wit. .er worD# t.en# t.e claim for damages could (e considered as arising from em,loyer-em,loyee relations. <.us# t.e claim is under t.e exclusive :urisdiction of t.e La(or Ar(iter.
7!?!$ 4: N2t !#i4i"$ 3#2? t< EBE R *!ti2"4 (1999)

?AC<S5 8ariet ;emetrio was a clerD-ty,ist in t.e 9ffice of t.e President of a multi-national cor,oration. 9ne day s.e was (erated (y t.e President of t.e com,any# t.e latter s.outing invectives at .er in t.e ,resence of em,loyees and visitors for a minor infraction s.e committed. 8ariet was reduced to tears out of s.ame and felt so (itter a(out t.e incident t.at s.e filed a civil case for damages against t.e com,any ,resident (efore t.e regular courts. Soon t.ereafter# 8ariet received a memorandum transferring .er to t.e 9ffice of t.e %eneral 8anager wit.out demotion in ranD or diminution in ,ay. 8ariet refused to transfer.
@it. res,ect to t.e civil suit for damages# t.e com,any lawyer filed a 8otion to ;ismiss for lacD of :urisdiction considering t.e existence of an em,loyer-em,loyee relations.i, and t.erefore# it is claimed t.at t.e case s.ould .ave (een filed (efore t.e La(or Ar(iter. /. !ule on t.e 8otion to ;ismiss. S.ould it (e granted or deniedK &x,lain (riefly (3M . SUGGESTE7 ANSWER' <.e 8otion to ;ismiss s.ould (e denied. It is a regular court and not a La(or Ar(iter t.at .as :urisdiction on t.e suit for damages.
<.e damages are not arising from t.e em,loyerem,loyee relations w.ic. would .ave ,laced t.e suit under t.e :urisdiction of a La(or Ar(iter. <.e suit arises from t.e fact t.at t.e President of t.e com,any s.outed invectives at 8arlet ;emetrio in t.e ,resence of em,loyees and visitors. Fer com,laint for damages is against an officer of t.e Com,any (ased on slanderous language allegedly made (y t.e latter. <.is falls under t.e Jurisdiction of t.e ordinary courts. <.ere is .ere a sim,le action for damages for tortious acts allegedly committed (y t.e defendant. Suc. (eing t.e case# t.e governing statute is t.e Civil Code and not t.e
7i4?i44!*: I"tC* A$ ";& (1994) In )**0# Aic %arcia was .ired (y t.e International La(or 9rganiGation (IL9 9ffice in 8anila as a (ooDDee,er for five years. 9n January 4. )**6# .e was advised t.at .is services were (eing terminated for loss of confidence. %arcia Euestioned .is dismissal (y IL9-8anila as ar(itrary and wit.out (enefit of due ,rocess. ) If you were counsel for IL9# w.at defense7s s.ould you ,ut u,K / If you were t.e La(or Ar(iter# .ow would you decide t.e caseK SUGGESTE7 ANSWER' ) <.e defense t.at I will ,ut u, will (e to claim t.at (eing an international agency# t.e IL9 en:oys immunity# namely functional inde,endence and freedom from control of t.e state in w.ose territory its office is located and is t.us (eyond t.e :urisdiction of t.e La(or Ar(iter. (Sout.east Asian ?is.eries ;evelo,ment Center - AEua Culture ;e,artment# et al vs. 'ational La(or !elations Commission# et al %.! 'o# +1223# )6 ?e(ruary )**/
/ If I were t.e La(or Ar(iter. I will grant t.e motion to dismiss. <.e IL9 (eing an International agency# t.e same is (eyond t.e :urisdiction of t.e La(or Ar(iter and immune from t.e legal writs and ,rocesses of t.e administrative agencies of t.e country# w.ere it is found# for t.e reason t.at t.e su(:ection of suc. an organiGation to t.e aut.ority of t.e local agencies would afford a convenient medium t.roug. w.ic. t.e .ost government may interfere in its o,erations or even influence or control its ,olicies and decisions# and (esides# suc. su(:ection to local :urisdiction would Im,air t.e ca,acity of suc. (ody to im,artially disc.arge its res,onsi(ilities.
Page
% of 108
I"t#!B;2#-2#!t M!tt #4@O33i; #4 (1996)

;iego# &xecutive Aice-President of &vergreen ;evelo,ment Cor,oration (&;C was dismissed (y t.e $oard of ;irectors for .is involvement in irregularities ,re:udicial to &;CPs interests. Fe filed a com,laint for illegal dismissal wit. t.e La(or Ar(iter# ,raying for reinstatement wit. (acD-wages# P4 million ,esos as moral damages# P) million ,esos as exem,lary damages and attorneyPs fees. &;C Euestioned t.e Jurisdiction of t.e La(or Ar(iter. ;iego# in turn contended t.at t.e La(or Ar(iter .as :urisdiction over t.e case as it involves t.e termination of an em,loyee and claims for (acDwages# (enefits and damages. ;ecide.
/. termination dis,utes-
SUGGESTE7 ANSWER'
<.e dismissal of an &xecutive Aice-,resident of a Cor,oration# w.o is a cor,orate officer# (y t.e $oard of ;irectors of t.e cor,oration is not a termination dis,ute under t.e Jurisdiction of a La(or Ar(iter. It is an intra-cor,orate dis,ute t.at is under t.e :urisdiction of t.e Securities and &xc.ange Commission.
I"t#!B;2#-2#!t M!tt #4@O33i; #4 (199.)

8r. Jonat.an Pe# a registered stocD.older of 'ew @ave $eauty S.o,# Inc. was elected AicePresident of 'ew @age at a regular mont.ly meeting. At a su(seEuent meeting of t.e $oard of ;irectors# it was resolved to dismiss Jonat.an as Aice-,resident due to loss of trust and confidence. Jonat.an Pe filed wit. t.e 'ational La(or !elations Commission a com,laint for illegal dismissal wit. damages against 'ew @age claiming t.at .e was dismissed wit.out due ,rocess. 'ew @age filed a 8otion to ;ismiss (ased on lacD of :urisdiction.
!esolve t.e motion. SUGGESTE7 ANSWER' <.e 8otion to ;ismiss s.ould (e granted. <.e election of Jonat.an Pe as Aice President of 'ew @ave $eauty S.o,# Inc# made .im a cor,orate officer.
Fis su(seEuent dismissal as suc. cor,orate officer is considered an intra-cor,orate matter. <.us# t.e dismissal of Pe is not a case of a termination dis,ute w.ic. is under t.e Jurisdiction of a !egional $ranc. of t.e 'L!C. Instead# it is under t.e Jurisdiction of t.e Securities and &xc.ange Commission# it .aving :urisdiction over intracor,orate matters.
L!%2# A#%it # (199,) ). %ive t.e original and exclusive :urisdiction of La(or Ar(iters. SUGGESTE7 ANSWER' La(or Ar(iters .ave original and exclusive :urisdiction over5 ). unfair la(or ,ractices-
3.
6.
4. 1.
cases accom,anied wit. a claim for reinstatement# and involving wages# rates of ,ay# .ours of worD# and ot.er terms and conditions of em,loymentclaims for actual# moral# exem,lary and ot.er forms of damages arising from em,loyer-em,loyee relations5
cases arising from any violation of Article /16 of t.e La(or Code# including Euestions involving t.e legality of striDes and locDout- and exce,t claims of &m,loyees Com,ensation# Social Security. 8edicare and maternity (enefits# all ot.er claims arising from em,loyer-em,loyee relations including t.ose ,ersons in domestic or .ouse.old service# Involving an amount exceeding five t.ousand ,esos (P4#000 00 regardless of w.et.er accom,anied wit. a claim for reinstatement.
Article //3 of t.e La(or Code reads5 C;ecisions# awards# or orders of t.e La(or Ar(iter are final and executory unless a,,ealed to t.e Commission (y any or (ot. ,arties wit.in ten ()0 calendar days from# recei,t of suc. decisions# awards# or orders.C ANOT0ER SUGGESTE7 ANSWER' <.e 'L!C could dismiss outrig.t t.e a,,eal for (eing filed out of time. $ut if t.ere are good reasons t.at may :ustifia(ly ex,lain w.y t.ere was a delay in t.e filing of t.e a,,eal# su(stantial :ustice may (e t.e (asis for t.e 'L!C to taDe cogniGance of t.e a,,eal.
L!%2# 7i4-)t ( 2001)

CAC was a(le to o(tain a Judgment against .is former em,loyer# Com,any C$C# for P240#000.00. In executing t.e :udgment in favor of A# t.e La(or Ar(iter soug.t to levy on $Ps office eEui,ment. $ filed an action for damages and in:unction against t.e La(or Ar(iter (efore t.e !egional <rial Court of t.e ,rovince w.ere $Ps offices are located. Is $Ps action tena(leK @.yK (4M .
L!%2# A#%it #: A-- !*4 (2001)

<.e affected mem(ers of t.e ranD and file elevated a la(or ar(iterPs decision to t.e 'L!C via a ,etition for review filed after t.e la,se of t.e ten-day reglementary ,eriod for ,erfecting an a,,eal. S.ould t.e 'L!C dismiss t.e ,etition outrig.t or may t.e 'L!C taDe cogniGance t.ereofK (4M .
SUGGESTE7 ANSWER'
$Ps action is not tena(le. In t.e case of ;elta Aentures !esources vs. Fon. ?ernando P. La(ato# %.!. 'o. ))+/)1# 8arc. *# /000# t.e Su,reme Court ruled t.at t.e regular courts .ave no :urisdiction to act on la(or cases or various
SUGGESTE7 ANSWER' <.e 'L!C s.ould dismiss t.e a,,eal outrig.t (ecause t.e same was filed (eyond t.e reglementary ,eriod of a,,eal.
Page
& of 108
incidents arising t.erefrom# including t.e execution of decisions# awards or orders. ANOT0ER SUGGESTE7 ANSWER' Ies# $Ps action (efore t.e !egional <rial Court is tena(le if said action is limited to t.e filing of a damage suit against t.e La(or Ar(iter (ecause t.ere exists no em,loyer-em,loyee relations.i, (etween C$C and t.e La(or Ar(iter# and t.ere is no la(or dis,ute (etween t.em. In Agricultural ;evelo,ment Cor,oration vs. Court of A,,eals# %.!. 'o. ))/)3*. January 3)# /000# t.e Su,reme Court# ruled5
CIt is well settled in law and :uris,rudence t.at w.ere '9 em,loyer-em,loyee relations.i, exists (etween t.e ,arties and no issue is involved w.ic. may (e resolved (y reference to t.e La(or Code# ot.er la(or statutes or any collective (argaining agreement# it is t.e !egional <rial Court t.at .as :urisdiction.C
decide on .er claim (y virtue of .is ,lenary
M dB!#%it # (1996)
<.e national council of O Union# t.e exclusive (argaining re,resentative of all daily ,aid worDers of Q Cor,.# called a general meeting and ,assed a resolution w.ic. ,rovides t.at eac. union mem(er was to (e assessed P )#000 to (e deducted from t.e lum, sum of P)0#000.00 w.ic. eac. em,loyee was to receive under t.e C$A. Sergio# a Union mem(er# ,rotested and refused to sign t.e aut.oriGation sli, for t.e deduction. O Union t.en ,assed a resolution ex,elling Sergio from t.e union. Sergio filed a com,laint (efore t.e La(or Ar(iter for illegal deduction and ex,ulsion from t.e union. @ill t.e com,laint ,ros,erK &x,lain.
SUGGESTE7 ANSWER'
<.e com,laint will not ,ros,er (efore t.e La(or Ar(iter (ecause t.ere is .ere an intra-union conflict w.ic. is under t.e Jurisdiction of t.e 8ed-Ar(iter. (See Art# //1 and !ule A of $ooD A of t.e !ules and !egulations Im,lementing t.e La(or Code .
M2" & C*!i?4: R i"4t!t ? "t (1996) Sara .as (een worDing as .ousemaid for t.e $o:ilov s,ouses for t.ree (3 years. In t.e early morning of July /+# t.e s,ouses and Sara were watc.ing t.e live coverage of t.e finals of an 9lym,ic (oxing matc. (etween a $ulgarian and a ?ili,ino w.ic. t.e foreign fig.ter won on ,oints. Peeved (y SaraPs angry remarDs t.at t.e scoring was unfair# t.e $o:ilov s,ouses fired .er on t.e s,ot.
Sara t.ereafter filed a com,laint wit. t.e !egional ;irector of t.e ;9L& for un,aid salaries totalling P4#400.00. <.e $o:ilov s,ouses moved to dismiss t.e com,laint on t.e (elief t.at SaraPs claim falls wit.in t.e Jurisdiction of t.e La(or Ar(iter. Sara# .owever# claimed t.at t.e !egional ;irector can
visitorial ,owers under Art. )/+ and of Art. )/* of t.e La(or Code# as amended# w.ic. em,owers t.e !egional ;irector to .ear and decide# among ot.ers# matters involving recovery of wages.
). /.
@.ose ,osition will you sustainK &x,lain. @ill your answer (e t.e same if SaraPs claim is P6#400.00 wit. reinstatementK &x,lain. SUGGESTE7 ANSWER'
) I will sustain t.e ,osition of t.e $o:ilov s,ouses. Art. )/+ is not a,,lica(le (ecause t.e case did not arise as a result of t.e exercise of visitorial and enforcement ,owers (y t.e !egional ;irector# as t.e duly aut.oriGed re,resentative of t.e Secretary of La(or and &m,loyment. Instead# t.e case is a sim,le money claim under Art. )/*# w.ic. could (e under t.e :urisdiction of t.e !egional ;irector if t.e claim does not exceed P4#000.
3. @.at is t.e :urisdiction of t.e 'ational La(or !elations CommissionK SUGGESTE7 ANSWER' Jurisdiction of t.e 'L!C5 ). exclusive a,,ellate :urisdiction over cases decided (y La(or Ar(iter/.
all
exclusive a,,ellate :urisdiction over all cases decided (y !egional ;irectors or .earing officers involving t.e recovery of wages and ot.er monetary claims and (enefits arising from em,loyer-em,loyee relations w.ere t.e aggregate money claim of eac. em,loyee or .ouse.el,er does not exceed five t.ousand ,esos (P4#000.00 -
3.
$ut t.e claim exceeds P4#000.00. <.us# it is t.e La(or Ar(iter w.o .as :urisdiction under Art. /)2(a of t.e La(or Code. / I will still .old t.at it is t.e La(or Ar(iter t.at .as :urisdiction. It is true t.at t.e money claim no longer exceeds P4#000. $ut t.ere is a claim for reinstatement. <.us# t.is claim is under t.e :urisdiction of a La(or Ar(iter# ,er Art. )/* of t.e La(or Code.
6.
original Jurisdiction to act as a com,ulsory ar(itration (ody over la(or dis,utes certified to 'L!C (y t.e Secretary of La(or and &m,loyment- and ,ower to issue a la(or in:unction.
N!tC* L!%2# R *!ti2"4 C2??i44i2" (2001)

Com,any CAC and Union C$C could not resolve t.eir negotiations for a new C$A. After conciliation ,roceedings (efore t.e 'C8$ ,roved futile# $ went on striDe. Aiolence during t.e striDe ,rom,ted A to file c.arges against striDer-mem(ers of $ for t.eir illegal acts. <.e Secretary of La(or assumed Jurisdiction# referred t.e striDe to t.e 'L!C and issued a return-to-worD order. <.e 'L!C directed t.e ,arties to su(mit t.eir res,ective ,osition
N!tC* L!%2# R *!ti2"4 C2??i44i2" (199,)
Page 18 of 108
,a,ers and documentary evidence. At t.e Initial .earing (efore t.e 'L!C# t.e ,arties agreed to
$itonio# %.!. 'o. )/0//0# June )1# )***# t.e
su(mit t.e case for resolution after t.e su(mission of t.e ,osition ,a,ers and evidence.
Su(seEuently# t.e 'L!C issued an ar(itral award resolving t.e dis,uted ,rovisions of t.e C$A and
Su,reme Court ruled5 PA,,ellate aut.ority over decisions of t.e !egional ;irector involving examination of union
accounts is ex,ressly conferred on t.e $L!

under t.e !ule of Procedure on 8ediationAr(itration.
ordered t.e dismissal of certain striDers for .aving

Dnowingly committed Illegal acts during t.e striDe.
<.e dismissed em,loyees elevated t.eir dismissal

to t.e Court of A,,eals claiming t.at t.ey were
xxx Section 6. Jurisdiction of t.e $ureau R (( <.e $ureau s.all exercise a,,ellate :urisdiction over
all cases originating from t.e !egional ;irector involving .... Com,laints for examination of union (ooDs of accounts. <.e language of t.e law is categorical. Any additional ex,lanation on t.e matter is su,erflous.C N!tC* L!%2# R *!ti2"4 C2??i44i2"4 (2001) Com,any CAC# wit.in t.e reglementary ,eriod# a,,ealed t.e decision of a La(or Ar(iter directing t.e reinstatement of an em,loyee and awarding
de,rived of t.eir rig.t to due ,rocess and t.at t.e

affidavits su(mitted (y A were self-serving and of no ,ro(ative value. S.ould t.e a,,eal ,ros,erK State t.e reason(s for your answer clearly. (4M .
SUGGESTE7 ANSWER'
<.e a,,eal s.ould not ,ros,er. <.e Su,reme
Court# in many cases# .as ruled t.at decisions made (y t.e 'L!C may (e (ased on ,osition ,a,ers. In t.e Euestion# it is stated t.at t.e ,arties
agreed to su(mit t.e case for resolution after t.e
su(mission of ,osition ,a,ers and evidence. %iven t.is fact# t.e striDer-mem(ers of $ cannot now com,lain t.at t.ey were denied due ,rocess. <.ey are in esto,,el. After voluntarily su(mitting a case
and encountering an adverse decision on t.e merits# it is too late for t.e loser to Euestion t.e :urisdiction or ,ower of t.e court. A ,arty cannot ado,t a ,osture of dou(le dealing. (8arEueG vs.
(acDwages. Fowever# APs cas. (ond was filed

(eyond t.e ten day ,eriod. S.ould t.e 'L!C
entertain t.e a,,ealK @.yK (4M . SUGGESTE7 ANSWER'
'o# t.e 'L!C s.ould not entertain t.e a,,eal# as

t.e same was not ,erfected for failure to file a (ond. Art. //3 of t.e La(or Code reads5
CIn case of a :udgment involving a monetary

award# an a,,eal (y t.e em,loyer may (e ,erfected only u,on t.e ,osting of cas. or
Secretary of La(or# )1 8arc. )*+* . ANOT0ER SUGGESTE7 ANSWER'

'o# t.e a,,eal will not ,ros,er. In C8P ?ederal Security Agency vs. 'L!C# %.!. 'o. )/4/*+#
?e(ruary ))# )***# t.e Su,reme Court ruled5 C<.e standard of due ,rocess t.at must (e met in administrative tri(unals allows a certain degree of latitude as long as fairness is not ignored. Fence# it is not legally o(:ectiona(le for (eing violative of due ,rocess# for t.e la(or
ar(iter to resolve a case (ased solely on t.e ,osition ,a,ers# affidavits or documentary
surety (ond... In t.e amount eEuivalent to t.e monetary award in t.e :udgment a,,ealed from.C
In A$A vs. 'L!C# %.!. 'o. )//1/2. July )+# )***#

t.e Su,reme Court ruled5 CAn a,,eal (ond is necessary......t.e a,,eal
may (e ,erfected only u,on t.e ,osting of cas.

or surety (ond issued (y a re,uta(le (onding
evidence su(mitted (y t.e ,arties. <.e affidavits of witnesses in suc. case may taDe t.e ,lace of direct testimony.C
N!tC* L!%2# R *!ti2"4 C2??i44i2" (2001)
com,any duly accredited (y t.e Commission in t.e amount eEuivalent to t.e monetary award in
t.e :udgment a,,ealed from.C ANOT0ER SUGGESTE7 ANSWER' <.e 'L!C may still entertain t.e a,,eal.
Some disgruntled mem(ers of $antay La(or# Union filed wit. t.e !egional 9ffice of t.e ;9L& a written com,laint against t.eir union officers for
mismanagement of union funds. <.e !egional
It is true t.at t.e La(or Code (in Art. //3 ,rovides t.at a,,eal is ,erfected only u,on t.e ,osting of a cas. or surety (ond. $ut if Com,any A filed a motion for t.e reduction of t.e (ond# and said motion was only acted u,on after t.e reglementary
,eriod# a,,eal. O6 #4 !4 E?-*2&? "t: C*!i?: T2#t4 (2004) t.en# t.e 'L!C# in t.e interest of
;irector did not rule in t.e com,lainantsP favor. 'ot

satisfied# t.e com,lainants elevated t.e !egional
su(stantial :ustice# may still taDe cogniGance of t.e
;irectorPs decision to t.e 'L!C. <.e union officers

moved to dismiss on t.e ground of lacD of Jurisdiction. Are t.e union officers correctK @.yK
(3M . SUGGESTE7 ANSWER' Ies# t.e union officers are correct in claiming t.at
t.e 'L!C .as no :urisdiction over t.e a,,ealed ruling of t.e !egional ;irector. In $arles vs.
A. Under a seaman>s contract of em,loyment wit.

a local manning agent of a foreign s.i,,ing
com,any# Ca,t. <!9I em(arDed on an oceangoing vessel in good .ealt.. 9ne stormy nig.t at
sea# .e was drenc.ed wit. rainwater. <.e
Page
( of 108
following morning# .e contracted fever w.ic. lasted for days. Fe suffered loose (owel movement# lost .is a,,etite# and eventually .e died (efore a sc.eduled airlift to t.e nearest ,ort. Su(seEuently# t.e widow of Ca,t. <!9I com,lained against t.e local manning agent and its foreign ,rinci,al (efore t.e !egional Ar(itration $ranc. of ;9L&# for actual and exem,lary damages and attorney>s fees. S.e invoDed t.e La(or Code ,rovision w.ic. reEuires t.e em,loyer to ,rovide all necessary assistance to ensure t.e adeEuate and necessary medical attendance and treatment of t.e in:ured or sicD em,loyee in case of emergency. !es,ondents moved to dismiss t.e com,laint on t.e ground t.at t.e La(or Ar(iter .as no :urisdiction over t.e com,laint for damages arising from illness and deat. of Ca,t. <!9I a(road. !esolve t.e motion wit. reasons. (4M
overseas em,loyment and in cases of su(seEuent
SUGGESTE7 ANSWER'
In <olosa v. 'L!C# (%.!. )6*42+# A,ril )0#/003 # t.e Su,reme Court .eld t.at w.at we .ave in t.is case is a claim arising from tort or Euasi-delict. In suc. a situation# t.e seaman w.o died on 'ovem(er )+# )**/# cannot sue (efore t.e La(or Ar(iter. $ut t.is will not a,,ly now# as under Sec. )0# !.A. +06/# Leffective June 2# )**4N# w.at we .ave is a claim Carising out of an em,loyerem,loyee relations.i, or (y virtue of any law or contract involving ?ili,ino worDers for overseas de,loyment including claims for actual# moral# exem,lary and ot.er forms of damagesC# cogniGa(le (y t.e CLa(or Ar(iters of t.e 'ational La(or !elations CommissionC ('L!C w.o .ave t.e original and exclusive :urisdiction t.ereon.
O6 #4 !4 E?-*2&? "t: M!"d!t2#& R ?itt!"; : 12# i$" ED;<!"$ (2006) Can an overseas worDer refuse to remit .is earnings to .is de,endents and de,osit t.e same in t.e country w.ere .e worDs to gain more interestsK &x,lain. (4M SUGGESTE7 ANSWER'
'9. Art. // of t.e La(or Code ,rovides t.at it s.all (e mandatory for all ?ili,ino worDers a(road to remit a ,ortion of t.eir foreign exc.ange earnings to t.eir families# de,endents# and7or (eneficiaries in accordance wit. t.e rules and regulations ,rescri(ed (y t.e Secretary of La(or and &m,loyment. &xecutive 9rder 'o. +42 ,rescri(es t.e ,ercentage of foreign exc.ange remittance from 40M to +0M of t.e (asic salary# de,ending on t.e worDerPs Dind of :o(. Fence# an overseas worDer cannot refuse to remit .is earnings. 9t.erwise# .e s.all (e sus,ended or excluded from t.e list of eligi(le worDers for
violations- .e s.all (e re,atriated at .is own ex,ense or at t.e ex,ense of .is em,loyer as t.e case may (e.
R ;26 #& 23 W!$ 4 (1994)

<ina AEuino# a domestic .el,er in t.e .ouse.old of ?idel Aldeguer# filed an action In t.e !egional 9ffice of t.e ;e,artment of La(or and &m,loyment (;9L& for recovery of un,aid wages amounting to P3#400.00 and P)#6**.00 as moral damages. AEuino claimed t.at t.e amount of P3#400.00 is eEuivalent to t.e P400.00 a mont. s.e failed to receive for t.e last seven mont.s of .er em,loyment wit. Aldeguer# (ased on t.eir agreed P/#400#00 mont.ly salary. Aldeguer moved to .ave AEuinoPs com,laint dismissed# alleging t.at as a domestic .el,er 8s. AEuino s.ould .ave first (roug.t t.e matter to t.e Lu,ong $arangay.
involving monetary em,loyee .ouse.old does not
t.e recovery of wages and ot.er claims and (enefits owing to an or ,erson em,loyed in domestic or service# ,rovided t.at t.e money claim exceed P4.999.99. (8ontoya vs
.&scayo# %.!. 'os# +//))-)/# 8arc. /). )*+*
R ? di 4: i** $!* di4?i44!* (1999)

<.e La(or Ar(iter dismissed t.e com,laint for illegal dismissal filed (y %enevieve CruG against $ulag 9,tical Inc. ($9I w.ic. denied .er ,rayer for reinstatement (ut awarded financial assistance in .er favor. $9I a,,ealed t.e decision of t.e La(or Ar(iter to t.e 'L!C wit.in t.e reglementary ,eriod. %enevieve filed an o,,osition to t.e a,,eal. <.e 'L!C affirmed in toto t.e decision of t.e La(or Ar(iter. $ot. t.e $9I and %enevieve are not satisfied wit. t.e decision of t.e 'L!C# ). @.at is t.e remedy# if any# of $9I and (efore w.at forumK &x,lain (riefly. (3M
If you were t.e !egional ;irector# .ow would you resolve t.e matterK SUGGESTE7 ANSWER'
As !egional ;irector# I will assume Jurisdiction. <.e ,rovisions of P.;. 'o. )40+ reEuiring t.e su(mission of dis,utes (efore t.e $arangay Lu,ong <aga,aya,a ,rior to t.eir filing wit. t.e court or ot.er government offices are not a,,lica(le to la(or cases. Article )/* of t.e La(or Code em,owers t.e !egional ;irector to .ear and decide any matter
SUGGESTE7 ANSWER' $9I can file a 8otion for !econsideration wit. t.e 'L!C after ten ()0 calendar days from recei,t of t.e decision.
If t.e 'L!C denies t.e 8otion for !econsideration# $9I can file a ,etition for certiorari wit. t.e Court of A,,eals under !ule 14 of t.e !ules of Court since t.e decision of t.e 'L!C is final and executory.
Page ") of 108
/. Can %enevieve CruG avail .erself of t.e same remedy as t.at of $9IK @.yK (/M SUGGESTE7 ANSWER' %enevieve CruG can avail .erself of t.e same remedy as t.at of t.e $9I. <.e remedies descri(ed for t.e $9I are also t.e same remedies availa(le to %enevieve CruG as a ,arty to t.e case# ,ursuant to t.e La(or Code (Article //3 and t.e !ules of Court (!ule 14 . Panel5 $ut t.e facts of t.e case indicates t.at %enevieve did not a,,eal. S.e t.erefore cannot avail of t.e remedy.
one .undred ()00 worDers# en:oined t.e em,loyer from im,lementing t.eir termination. Fas t.e
S ;# t!#& 23 L!%2#: A)t<2#it& (1995) An airline w.ic. flies (ot. t.e international and domestic routes reEuested t.e Secretary of La(or and &m,loyment to a,,rove t.e ,olicy t.at all female flig.t attendants u,on reac.ing age forty (60 wit. at least fifteen ()4 years of service s.all (e com,ulsorily retired- .owever# flig.t attendants w.o .ave reac.ed age forty (60 (ut .ave not worDed for fifteen ()4 years will (e allowed to continue worDing in order to Eualify for retirement (enefits# (ut in no case will t.e extension exceed four (6 years.
;oes t.e Secretary of La(or and &m,loyment .ave t.e aut.ority to a,,rove t.e ,olicyK L4MS
SUGGESTE7 ANSWER' Ies# t.e Secretary of La(or and &m,loyment .as t.e aut.ority to a,,rove a ,olicy dealing wit. t.e retirement of flig.t attendants of airlines. Article )3/ (d of t.e La(or Code ,rovides t.at t.e Secretary of La(or and &m,loyment s.all esta(lis. standards t.at will ensure t.e safety and .ealt. of women em,loyees# including t.e aut.ority to determine a,,ro,riate minimum age and ot.er standards for retirement or termination in s,ecial occu,ations suc. as t.ose of flig.t attendants and t.e liDe. CA*EAT+ It !o' d %e arg'ed that Arti! e 110 7d8 "a$ %e 'n!onstit'tiona %e!a'se this "a$ !onstit'te dis!ri"ination in (io ation of the s&irit of +e!tion 12 of Arti! e 9III of the Constit'tion whi!h &ro(ides that the +tate sha &rote!t working wo"en %$ &ro(iding safe and hea thf' working !onditions* taking into a!!o'nt their "aterna f'n!tions* and s'!h fa!i ities and o&&ort'nities that wi enhan!e their we fare and ena% e the" to rea i:e their f' &otentia in the ser(i!e of the nation#
S ;# t!#& 23 L!%2#: 7i4?i44!* 23 E?-*2& (1995)
<.e Secretary of La(or and &m,loyment# after recei,t of a 'otice to <erminate &m,loyment of
Secretary of La(or and &m,loyment t.e aut.ority to en:oin t.e em,loyer from terminating t.e em,loyment of t.e worDersK If so# on w.at groundsK L4M) SUGGESTE7 ANSWER' <.e Secretary of La(or and &m,loyment .as t.e aut.ority to en:oin an em,loyer from terminating t.e em,loyment of worDers.
<.e La(or Code (in Article 322(( ,rovides t.at t.e Secretary of La(or and &m,loyment may sus,end t.e effectivity of t.e termination of worDers ,ending t.e resolution of a la(or dis,ute in t.e event of a ,rima facie finding of an a,,ro,riate official of t.e ;e,artment of La(or and &m,loyment (efore w.om suc. dis,ute is ,ending t.at t.e termination may cause a serious la(or dis,ute or is in im,lementation of a mass lay off.
com,any ,ersonnel ,olicies. LArt. /1)

U,on agreement of ,arties# a voluntary ar(itrator or ,anel of voluntary ar(itrators may also .ear and decide all ot.er la(or dis,utes including unfair la(or ,ractices and (argaining deadlocD. (Art. /1/
92*)"t!#& A#%it#!t2# (200>)

<.e em,loyer com,any# in a directive to t.e union ,resident# ordered t.e transfer of some of its em,loyees# including a num(er of union officials# to its ,lant offices. <.e order was o,,osed (y t.e union. Ultimately# t.e union filed an unfair la(or ,ractice against t.e com,any alleging t.at t.e ,ur,orted transfer of its union officials was un:ust and in violation of t.e Collective $argaining Agreement (C$A # Pursuant to t.e terms of t.e C$A# t.e dis,ute was referred to a voluntary ar(itrator w.o later ruled on t.e issues raised (y t.e ,arties. Could it later (e validly asserted t.at t.e CdecisionC of t.e voluntary ar(itrator would .ave no Ccom,ulsoryC effect on t.e ,artiesK &x,lain.
92*)"t!#& A#%it#!t2# (199.) State t.e cases w.en a la(or dis,ute would fall under t.e Jurisdiction of voluntary ar(itrators or ,anel of voluntary ar(itrators. SUGGESTE7 ANSWER' A la(or dis,ute falls under t.e :urisdiction of a voluntary ar(itrator or a ,anel of voluntary ar(itrator if a la(or dis,utes arises from an unresolved grievance w.ic. in turn arises from t.e inter,retation or im,lementation of a Collective $argaining Agreement or of
SUGGESTE7 ANSWER'
'o. A voluntary ar(itrator c.osen under t.e %rievance 8ac.inery of a C$A can exercise :urisdiction not only on dis,utes involving inter,retation7im,lementation of a C$A and7or com,any rules# ,ersonnel ,olicies (Art. /1)# La(or Code (ut also# u,on agreement of t.e ,arties# Call
Page "
of 108
ot.er la(or dis,utes including unfair la(or ,racticeP (Art. /1/# La(or Code . As no o(:ection was raised (y any of t.e ,arties w.en Pt.e dis,ute was referred to a voluntary ar(itrator w.o later ruled on t.e issues raised (y t.e ,artiesC# it follows t.at w.at we .ave is voluntary ar(itration agreed u,on (y t.e ,arties. Fis decision is (inding u,on t.e ,arties and may (e enforced t.roug. any of t.e s.eriffs# including t.ose of t.e 'L!C# .e may de,utiGe. ANOT0ER SUGGESTE7 ANSWER' 'o. <.e award of voluntary ar(itrators acting wit.in t.e sco,e of t.eir aut.ority determines t.e rig.ts of t.e ,arties# and t.eir decisions .ave t.e same legal effects as a :udgment of t.e Court. Suc. decisions on matters of fact or law are conclusive# and all matters in t.e award are t.encefort. res judicata on t.e t.eory t.at t.e matter .as (een ad:udged (y t.e tri(unal w.ic. t.e ,arties .ave agreed to maDe final as tri(unal of last resort. LAolDsc.el La(or Union v. 'L!C. *+ SC!A 3)6 ()*+0 .
La(or Code (Art. /1/T t.at states t.at a
LABOR RELATIONS
CBA: A--#2-#i!t B!#$!i"i"$ U"it (1995) @.at is an a,,ro,riate (argaining unit for ,ur,oses of collective (argainingK L4MN SUGGESTE7 ANSWER'
An APP!9P!IA<& $A!%AI'I'% U'I< is a grou, of em,loyees of a given em,loyer com,rised of all or less t.an all of t.e entire (ody of em,loyees# w.ic. t.e collective interest of all t.e em,loyees# consistent wit. t.e interest of t.e em,loyer# indicate to (e t.e (est suited to serve reci,rocal rig.ts and duties of t.e ,arties under t.e collective (argaining ,rovisions of t.e law. (See# e.g.# University of t.e P.ili,,ines v. ?errer-Calle:a# /)) SC!A 64) ()**/ .
CBA: A#%it#!* A8!#d: R t#2!;ti6 E33 ;t (2001) Com,any A and Union $ .ad a 3-year C$A t.at ex,ired on June )/# )**0. 'egotiations ,roved futile so t.e unresolved issues were referred to an Ar(iter w.o rendered a decision on 8arc. )4# )**/ retroactive to ;ecem(er )6# )**0. Is t.e Ar(iterPs decision ,roviding for retroactivity tena(le or notK @.yK (4M SUGGESTE7 ANSWER' <.e referral of t.e unresolved issues of t.e collective (argaining negotiations to an Ar(iter is not wit.in t.e :urisdiction of t.e Ar(iter.
$ut assuming t.at t.e unresolved issues in t.e collective (argaining negotiations were ,ro,erly referred to t.e Ar(iter ,ursuant to t.e ,rovision of t.e
Aoluntary Ar(itrator may .ear and decide any la(or dis,ute# including (argaining deadlocDs# t.e Ar(iterPs decision ,roviding for retroactivity is tena(le. &xercising .is com,ulsory ar(itration ,ower# t.e Ar(iter could decide t.e issue of retroactivity in any way w.ic. is not contrary to law# morals# good customs# ,u(lic order or ,u(lic ,olicy.
$ut in a case (8anila &lectric Co vs. Secretary of La(or Leonardo Juisum(ing# %.!. 'o. )/24*+# ?e(ruary //# /000 # t.e Su,reme Court said t.at an ar(itral award s.all retroact to t.e first day after t.e six-mont. ,eriod following t.e ex,iration of t.e last day of t.e C$A t.at was (eing re-negotiated.
ANOT0ER SUGGESTE7 ANSWER'

<.e retroactive 9rder of t.e La(or Ar(iter is void for want of :urisdiction. Jurisdiction is conferred (y law. 'ow.ere in t.e La(or Code# more s,ecifically# Article /)2# is t.e La(or Ar(iter given :urisdiction over unresolved issues in collective (argaining# including determining t.e ,eriod or duration of a Collective $argaining Agreement.
La(or assumed Jurisdiction over t.e dis,ute and certified t.e same to t.e 'L!C for ,ro,er dis,osition. Proceedings (efore t.e 'L!C ended on 'ovem(er 30. )**0 and a decision was rendered on ;ecem(er )4# )**0# <.e said decision made retroactive to 8arc. )4# )**0 t.e new C$A containing t.e issues resolved (y t.e 'L!C# as well as t.ose concluded and agreed u,on (y t.e ,arties ,rior to t.eir arriving at a deadlocD in t.eir negotiations. Com,any O Euestioned t.e retroactivity of t.e C$A alleging t.at t.e same contravenes Art. /43-A of t.e La(or Code# w.ic. ,rovides for t.e automatic retroactivity of t.e renewed C$A only if t.e same is entered into wit.in six (1 mont.s from its ex,iry date# and# if not# t.e ,arties must agree on t.e duration of retroactivity.
) Is Com,any OPs ,osition correctK / @ould your answer (e different if t.e assum,tion of :urisdiction (y t.e Secretary of La(or was at t.e reEuest or instance of Com,any OK SUGGESTE7 ANSWER'
) <.e Com,anyPs ,osition is not correct. In t.e a(sence of a s,ecific ,rovision of law ,ro.i(iting retroactivity of t.e effectivity of ar(itral awards issued (y t.e Secretary of La(or# t.e same is deemed vested wit. ,lenary and discretionary ,owers to determine t.e effectivity t.ereof# (St LuDePs 8edical Center# Inc. vs. Fon. !u(en 9.
CBA: A#%it#!* A8!#d4: E33 ;ti6it& (1994)

Com,any O# a trans,ortation com,any# and Union I were in t.e ,rocess of negotiating a new Collective $argaining Agreement (C$A to re,lace t.e one w.ic. ex,ired on 8arc. )4. )**0. <.e negotiations reac.ed an im,asse on economic issues on June 30# )**0. <.e Secretary of
Page 22 of 108
<orres# etal#-%.!. 'o. **3*4# /* June )**3# J. 8elo. /// SC!A 22* / 'o. !egardless of w.ic. ,arty soug.t t.e
assum,tion (y t.e La(or Secretary# t.e effect
t.e ,arties# t.ey are duly (ound to Dee, t.e
status Euo and to continue in full force and

effect t.e terms and conditions of t.e existing agreement. <.e law does not ,rovide for any
exce,tion or Eualification as to w.ic. of t.e

economic ,rovisions of t.e existing agreement
would (e t.e same. An assum,tion case gives t.e

La(or Secretary t.e ,lenary ar(itration ,owers to
are to retain force and effect# t.erefore# it must

(e understood as encom,assing all t.e terms and conditions in t.e said agreement.C ANOT0ER SUGGESTE7 ANSWER'
rule on t.e issues ,resented for resolution#

including t.e retroactivity of t.e new C$A.
CBA: A)t2?!ti; R " 8!* C*!)4 (1999)

@.at is t.e Cautomatic renewal clauseC in a
@it. Art. /43 of t.e La(or Code as (asis# t.e

disgruntled em,loyees s.ould (e ,aid t.e annual
collective (argaining agreementK (/M

SUGGESTE7 ANSWER'
salary
increases
and
ot.er
related
annual
<.e CAU<98A<IC !&'&@AL CLAUS&C in a C$A

refers to t.at ,rovision of t.e La(or Code (Article
increases ,rovided in t.e )**0-)**/ C$A even after t.e ex,iration of said C$A as long as said
C$A did not ,rovide t.at said increases were to (e

,aid only for certain s,ecific years. CBA: B!#$!i"i"$ R -# 4 "t!ti6 (2000) <.e Ang Sara, Uainan @orDers Union a,,ointed Juan Javier# a law student# as (argaining re,resentative. 8r. Javier is neit.er an em,loyee of Ang Sara, Uainan Com,any nor a mem(er of t.e union. Is t.e a,,ointment of 8r. Javier as a (argaining re,resentative in accord wit. lawK &x,lain# (3M SUGGESTE7 ANSWER' Ies# t.e law does not reEuire t.at t.e (argaining
/43 w.ic. states t.at CIt s.all (e t.e duty of (ot.

,arties (to a C$A to Dee, t.e status Euo and to
continue in full force and effect t.e terms and conditions of t.e existing agreement during t.e 10day (freedom ,eriod and7or until a new agreement
is reac.ed (y t.e ,arties.C
CBA: A)t2?!ti; R " 8!* C*!)4 (2001)

Com,any CAC and Union C$C negotiated t.e last
two years of t.eir five-year C$A on A,ril )# )**0 to ex,ire on 8arc. 3)# )**/. Considering t.e amica(le relations (etween t.e ,arties# neit.er one
moved for t.e extension or termination of t.e
re,resentative (e an em,loyee of t.e com,any nor

an officer or mem(er of t.e union. VArt /)/ (: # La(or CodeT. CBA: C #ti3i;!ti2" E* ;ti2" (200,)
agreement.
Sometime in )**4. some disgruntled em,loyees
filed a com,laint demanding t.at t.ey (e ,aid t.e

annual salary increases and ot.er related annual
As Fuman !esources ;e,artment (F!; manager

of &Q Com,onents# an unorganiGed manufacturer of electric and electronic com,onents for .ouse.old a,,liances# you are suddenly
increases s,ecified in t.e C$A of A,ril )**0# citing

t.e ,rovision in Art. /43 of t.e La(or Code w.ic. reEuires t.e ,arties to Cxxx Dee, t.e status Euo and to continue in full force and effect t.e terms and conditions of t.e existing agreement during
confronted wit. demands for recognition and

collective (argaining negotiations from two
t.e 10 day ,eriod and7or until a new agreement is

reac.ed (y t.e ,artiesC. A# .owever# maintained t.at t.e annual salary
com,eting la(or unions. <.ey (ot. claim to re,resent all t.e ranD-and-file em,loyees. Union A is led (y a moderate faction# w.ile Union $ is
affiliated wit. a militant federation identified wit. leftist ideology. @.ic. of t.e following courses of action s.ould you
increases and related (enefits s,ecifically ,rovided for in t.e C$A were# ,ursuant to contract and law# effective only for t.e term s,ecified t.erein# namely# until 8arc. 3)# )**/ only. @.o is correctK State t.e reason(s for your answer. (4M SUGGESTE7 ANSWER'
<.e disgruntled em,loyees are correct in t.eir claim t.at t.e ex,ired C$A remains in full force
taDe to (est ,rotect t.e interests of your com,any

and em,loyeesK
(a. ((. (c. (d.
!ecogniGe Union A as t.e rig.tful (argaining

re,resentative (ecause reasona(le to deal wit.it will (e more
and effect until a new C$A is signed in accordance wit. Article /43 of t.e La(or Code.
<.e SC ruled in 'ew Pacific <im(er and Su,,ly Co# Inc. us. 'L!C# %! 'o. )/6//6. 8arc. )2# /0005 CArticle /43 of t.e La(or Code ex,licitly ,rovided t.at until a new Collective $argaining
!ecogniGe Union $ (ecause you do not want

to antagoniGe its leftist connections and foment inter-union conflicts-
Ignore t.e demands of eit.er union since you

cannot (e com,elled legally to deal wit. t.em at t.is stage- or Petition t.e $ureau of La(or !elations to conduct a certification election to determine
Agreement .as (een executed (y and (etween
Page "# of 108
LABOR LAW Bar Q & A (as arranged by Topics) 19942006 w.ic. union really re,resents t.e ma:ority
of
t.e em,loyees in t.e (argaining unit. ()0M $ut to .ave t.e a(ove-mentioned effect# t.e C$A
ALTERNATI9E ANSWER'
(d Petition t.e $ureau of La(or !elations to
s.ould .ave (een filed and registered wit. t.e ;e,artment of La(or and &m,loyment (See Article
/3)# /43-A and /41
conduct a certification election to determine w.ic.

union really re,resents t.e ma:ority of t.e em,loyees in t.e (argaining unit. (Faw at $uDlod
ng 8anggagaiva LI$8N v. Calle:a# %.!. 'o. +61+4# ?e(ruary /3#)**0 ALTERNATI9E ANSWER'
(c Ignore t.e demands of eit.er union since you cannot (e com,elled legally to deal wit. t.em at
<.us# a C$A t.at .as not (een filed and registered wit. t.e ;e,artment of La(or and &m,loyment cannot (e a (ar to a certification election and suc. election can (e .eld outside of t.e freedom ,eriod
of suc. C$A. ALTERNATI9E ANSWER'
t.is stage.
CBA: C #ti3i;!ti2" E* ;ti2": EN2BU"i2"F Wi"

(2006) Can a Cno-unionC win in a certification electionK
A ,etition for certification election may (e filed outside t.e freedom ,eriod of a current C$A if
suc. C$A is a new C$A t.at .as (een ,rematurely entered into# meaning# it was entered into (efore t.e ex,iry date of t.e old C$A. <.e filing of t.e
(/.4M SUGGESTE7 ANSWER' I&S. Sec. /0# !ule *# $ooD A ,rovides t.at w.ere
t.e votes cast results in Cno unionC o(taining t.e
,etition for certification election s.all (e wit.in t.e freedom ,eriod of t.e old C$A w.ic. is outside of t.e freedom ,eriod of t.e new C$A t.at .ad (een
,rematurely entered into. CBA: C #ti3i;!ti2" E* ;ti2": /#2%!ti2"!#& E?-*2& 4 (1999)
ma:ority# t.e med ar(iter s.all declare suc. fact in

t.e order. Fence# t.e em,loyees may c.oose not
to (e re,resented (y anyone (!eyes-<ra:ano v. <ra:ano# %.!. 'o +6633# June /# )**/ .
/. Are ,ro(ationary em,loyees entitled to vote in a
CBA: C #ti3i;!ti2" E* ;ti2": C2"4 "t E* ;ti2": R)"BO33 E* ;ti2" (2000) ;istinguis. (etween CCertification &lectionC# CConsent &lection#C and C!un-off &lectionC# (1M SUGGESTE7 ANSWER' C&!<I?ICA<I9' &L&C<I9' reEuires a ,etition for
a Certification &lection filed (y a union or
certification electionK @.yK (/M . SUGGESTE7 ANSWER' In a certification election# all ranD-and-file em,loyees in t.e a,,ro,riate (argaining unit are entitled to vote. <.is ,rinci,le is clearly stated in
Article /44 of t.e La(or Code w.ic. states t.at t.e

Cla(or organiGation designated or selected (y t.e
em,loyer. A 8ed-Ar(iter grants t.e ,etition and an

election officer is designated (y t.e regional director to su,ervise t.e election. (Art. /41# /42#
ma:ority of t.e em,loyees in suc. unit s.all (e t.e exclusive re,resentative of t.e em,loyees in suc.
unit for t.e ,ur,ose of collective (argaining.C Collective (argaining covers all as,ects of t.e em,loyment relation and t.e resultant C$A negotiated (y t.e certified union (inds all
/4+# La(or Code . C9'S&'< &L&C<I9' is .eld (y agreement of t.e unions wit. or wit.out ,artici,ation of t.e medar(iter. L@arren 8anufacturing @orDers Union v. $ureau of La(or !elations# )4* SC!A 3+2 ()*++ N
em,loyees in t.e (argaining unit. Fence# all ranDand-file em,loyees# ,ro(ationary or ,ermanent# .ave a su(stantial interest in t.e selection of t.e
!U'-9?? &L&C<I9' taDes ,lace (etween t.e

unions w.o received t.e two .ig.est num(er of votes w.ere not one of t.e unions o(tained t.e ma:ority of t.e valid votes cast# ,rovided t.at t.e
(argaining re,resentative. <.e Code maDes no
distinction as to t.eir em,loyment status as (asis for eligi(ility to vote in t.e ,etition for certification election. <.e law refers to CallC t.e em,loyees in
t.e (argaining unit. All t.ey need to (e eligi(le to vote is to (elong to t.e C(argaining unit#C (Airtime
total union votes is at least 40M of t.e votes cast.

(Art. /41# La(or Code .
CBA: C #ti3i;!ti2" E* ;ti2": 1#
d2? / #i2d
(1999) ). In w.at instance may a ,etition for certification election (e filed outside t.e freedom ,eriod of a current collective (argaining agreementK (3M .
S,ecialists# Inc. v. ?errer-Calle:a# IS9 SC!A 26* ALTERNATI9E ANSWER' P!9$A<I9'A!I &8PL9I&&S may not (e
SUGGESTE7 ANSWER' As a general rule# in an esta(lis.ment w.ere t.ere

is in force and effect a C$A# a ,etition for certification election may (e filed only during t.e
entitled to vote in a certification election w.ere only regular em,loyees (elong to a (argaining unit and ,ro(ationary em,loyees do not (elong to suc. (argaining unit. It is t.e (elonging to a (argaining
unit t.at entitles an em,loyee to vote in a certification election. ANOT0ER ALTERNATI9E ANSWER'
freedom ,eriod of suc. C$A.
Page ", of 108
I&S. Any em,loyee# w.et.er em,loyed for a definite ,eriod or not# s.all# (eginning on .is first
Constitution and $y-laws of t.e A@9L# t.en it was

lawful for L<C to terminate 8agallona.
Panel: The termination is unla ful (!errer "# $%&')#
day of service# (e considered an em,loyee for

,ur,oses of mem(ers.i, in any la(or union (Art.
/22(c .
CBA: C*24 d S<2- /#26i4i2": W< " "2t !--*i;!%* (1999) ?AC<S5 In a certification election conducted (y t.e
;e,artment 8ontanyo# of won La(or# over Associated PangDat @orDers ng mga
9rganiGation in Laguna (A@9L .eaded (y Cesar 8anggagawa sa Laguna (P8L # .eaded (y &ddie %raciaa. Fence# A@9L was certified as t.e
exclusive (argaining agent of t.e ranD-and-file
CBA: C*24 d S<2- 64= A$ ";& S<2- (199.) (a ;escri(e a Cclosed s.o, agreement# does it differ from an Cagency s.o, agreement.C (( Are t.e a(ove agreements legalK SUGGESTE7 ANSWER' (a A CCL9S&; SF9P A%!&&8&'<C is t.at agreement em(odied in a collective (argaining agreement (C$A w.ere(y t.e em,loyer (inds itself not to .ire any ,erson unless .e is first a union mem(er of t.e collective (argaining re,resentative.
em,loyees of t.e Laguna <rans,ortation Com,any (L<C .

S.ortly# t.ereafter# a Collective $argaining
An CA%&'CI SF9P A%!&&8&'<C is different

from a closed s.o, agreement in t.at under t.e
Agreement was concluded (y L<C and A@9L

w.ic. ,rovided for a closed s.o,. ConseEuently# A@9L# demanded t.at &ddie %raciaa and all t.e
former# t.e em,loyer does not (ind itself not to .ire a ,erson unless .e is first a union mem(er of t.e collective (argaining re,resentative. Instead# t.e
em,loyer (inds itself to c.ecD off from t.ose w.o
P8L mem(ers (e reEuired to (ecome mem(ers of

A@9L as a condition for t.eir continued
are not union mem(ers of t.e collective (argaining

re,resentative a reasona(le fee eEuivalent to t.e
em,loyment5 ot.erwise# t.ey s.all (e dismissed ,ursuant to t.e closed s.o, ,rovision of t.e C$A.
<.e union security clause of t.e C$A also ,rovided for t.e dismissal of em,loyees w.o .ave not
dues and ot.er fees ,aid (y union mem(ers if t.e

non-union mem(ers acce,t t.e (enefits of t.e C$A. (( <.e a(ove agreements are legal or t.ey are ex,ressly allowed (y t.e La(or Code. CBA: C2"t#!;t B!# R)* 64= 7 !d*2;G B!# R)* (1999) ;istinguis. (etween Ccontract (ar ruleC and CdeadlocD (ar ruleC. (3M SUGGESTE7 ANSWER' Under t.e CC9'<!AC< $A! !UL&#C a certification
election cannot (e .eld if t.ere is in force and in
maintained t.eir mem(ers.i, in t.e union. ?or one

reason or anot.er# ?rancis 8agallona# a mem(er of A@9L# was ex,elled from t.e union
mem(ers.i, for acts inimical to t.e interest of t.e

union. U,on recei,t of t.e notice t.at ?rancis
8agallona failed to maintain .is mem(ers.i, in

good standing wit. A@9L# L<C dismissed .im from em,loyment. summarily
).
Can &ddie %raciaa and all t.e P8L mem(ers (e reEuired to (ecome mem(ers of t.e A@9L
,ursuant to t.e closed s.o, ,rovision of t.e
effect a collective (argaining agreement t.at .as
C$AK @.yK (3M SUGGESTE7 ANSWER' &ddie %racla and all t.e P8L mem(ers can not (e
reEuired to (ecome mem(ers of A@9L ,ursuant to
(een duly registered wit. t.e ;e,artment of La(or and &m,loyment exce,t during t.e freedom ,eriod of suc. C$A w.ic. is t.e 10-day ,eriod ,rior to t.e ex,iry date of said C$A. (See Articles /3)# /43-A
and /41
t.e closed s.o, ,rovision of t.e C$A. According to t.e La(or Code (Article /6+(e # a closed s.o,
,rovision cannot (e a,,lied to t.ose em,loyees
w.o are already mem(ers of anot.er union at t.e

time of t.e signing of t.e C$A.
Under t.e C;&A;L9CU $A! !UL&C a certification election can not (e .eld if a (argaining deadlocD to w.ic. an incum(ent or certified (argaining agent is
a ,arty .ad (een su(mitted to conciliation or mediation or .ad (ecome t.e su(:ect of a valid
/.
Is t.e termination from em,loyment of ?rancis

8agallona (y L<C lawfulK @.yK (/M
notice of striDe or locDout. (See Section 3# !ule OI#

$ooD A of t.e Im,lementing !ules and !egulations of t.e La(or Code CBA: C26 #!$ : N2"BU"i2" M ?% #4: R *i$i2)4 S ;t (200,)
SUGGESTE7 ANSWER' Pursuant to t.e closed s.o, ,rovision of t.e C$A

entered into (y A@9L wit. L<C# mem(ers.i, in A@9L .as (ecome a condition of em,loyment in L<C. As long as t.e ex,ulsion of ?rancis 8agallona from A@9L was done in accordance wit. a,,lica(le ,rovisions of law and wit. t.e
A grou, of em,loyees in OIQ ?actory (elonging to

a religious sect# in conformity wit. t.e teac.ings and dictates of t.eir religion# refused to :oin t.e la(or union in t.e factory. <.e la(or union was
Page "$ of 108
a(le to negotiate a su(stantial wage increase in its collective (argaining agreement wit. management. A ,rovision t.erein stated t.at t.e wage increase would (e ,aid to t.e mem(ers of t.e union only in view of a Cclosed s.o,C union security clause in t.e new agreement. <.e mem(ers of t.e sect ,rotested and demanded t.at t.e wage increase (e extended to t.em. <.e officers of t.e union countered (y demanding t.eir termination from t.e com,any ,ursuant to t.e Cclosed s.o,C ,rovision in t.e :ust-concluded C$A. (1M
actual overtime worDH sim,ly means after
(a) Is the CBA provision valid SUGGESTE7 ANSWER' 'o# t.e C$A ,rovision is not valid. <.e (enefits of a C$A are extendi(le to all em,loyees regardless of t.eir mem(ers.i, in t.e union (ecause to wit..old t.e same from non-union mem(ers would (e to discriminate against t.em. ('ational $rewery = Allied Industries La(or Union of t.e P.ili,,ines v. San 8iguel $rewery# Inc.# %.!. 'o. L-)+)20# August 3)#)*13 (!) "ho#ld the $o%pan& $o%pl& 'ith the #nion(s de%and o) ter%inatin* the %e%!ers o) the reli*io#s se$t SUGGESTE7 ANSWER'
'o. <.e rig.t to :oin includes t.e rig.t not to :oin (y reason of religious (eliefs. 8em(ers of said religious sect cannot (e com,elled or coerced to :oin t.e la(or union even w.en t.e union .as a closed s.o, agreement wit. t.e em,loyer- t.at in s,ite of any closed s.o, agreement# mem(ers of said religious sect cannot (e refused em,loyment or dismissed from t.eir :o(s on t.e sole ground t.at t.ey are not mem(ers of t.e collective (argaining union. (Aictoriano v. &liGalde !o,e @orDersP Union# %.!. 'o. L-/4/61# Se,tem(er )/#)*26
CBA: i"t #-# t!ti2" (2004)

$. <.e C$A (etween t.e Com,any and t.e ranDand-file Union contained t.e following ,rovision5
BSection 3. 8&AL ALL9@A'C&. <.e Com,any agrees to grant a 8&AL ALL9@A'C& of <&' P&S9S (P)0.00 to all em,loyees w.o render at least <@9 (/ .ours or more of actual overtime worD on a worDday# and ?!&& 8&ALS# as ,resently ,racticed# not exceeding <@&'<I ?IA& P&S9S (P/4.00 after <F!&& (3 .ours of actual overtime worD.H ;is,ute in t.e inter,retation of t.e a(ove ,rovision arose as t.e Com,any asserts t.at t.e ,.rase Bafter t.ree (3 .ours of actual overtime worDH does not mean after exactly t.ree (3 .ours of actual overtime worD- it means after more t.an t.ree (3 .ours of actual overtime worD. <.e Union# on t.e ot.er .and# maintained t.at Bafter t.ree (3 .ours of
rendering exactly# or no less t.an# t.ree (3 .ours of actual overtime worD. @.ic. inter,retation do you t.inD s.ould ,revailK @.yK (4M
CBA: ()#i4di;ti2"!* /# BC2"diti2"4 (1996) / @.at :urisdictional ,re-conditions must (e ,resent to set in motion t.e mec.anics of a collective (argainingK SUGGESTE7 ANSWER'
<o set in motion t.e mec.anics of collective (argaining# t.ese :urisdictional ,reconditions must (e ,resent# namely5 ). <.e em,loyees in a (argaining unit s.ould form a la(or organiGation/. <.e la(or organiGation s.ould (e a legitimate la(or organiGation3. As suc. legitimate la(or organiGation# it s.ould (e recogniGed or certified as t.e collective (argaining re,resentative of t.e em,loyees of t.e (argaining unit- and
6. <.e la(or organiGation as t.e collective (argaining re,resentative s.ould reEuest t.e em,loyer to (argain collectively. (See Arts. /63# /36# /44 and /40 of t.e La(or Code
,reconditions are met5 () ,ossession of t.e status of ma:ority re,resentation of t.e em,loyeesP re,resentative in accordance wit. any of t.e means of selection or designation ,rovided for (y t.e La(or Code(/ ,roof of ma:ority of re,resentation- and (3 a demand to (argain under Art. /4)(g # of t.e La(or Code. (UioD Loy v. 'L!C. )6) SC!A )2* L)*+1N
CBA: L2;GB2)t 64= C*24 d S<2- (2004) ;istinguis. clearly (ut (riefly (etween LocD-out and Closed S.o,. SUGGESTE7 ANSWERS' L9CU9U< refers to t.e tem,orary refusal of an em,loyer to furnis. worD as a result of a la(or or industrial dis,ute. CL9S&; SF9P# on t.e ot.er .and# refers to a union security clause in a collective (argaining agreement w.ere(y t.e em,loyer agrees not to em,loy any ,erson w.o is not a mem(er of t.e exclusive collective (argaining re,resentative of t.e em,loyees in a (argaining unit. CBA: M!"d!t2#& S)%A ;t4 23 B!#$!i"i"$ (1996) ) @.at matters are considered mandatory su(:ects of collective (argainingK SUGGESTE7 ANSWER' Page "% of 108
ALTERNATI9E ANSWER' <.e mec.anics of collective (argaining are set in motion only w.en t.e following Jurisdictional
@ages# .ours of worD and all ot.er terms and

conditions of em,loyment including ,ro,osals for
<.e em,loyees received t.eir res,ective se,aration ,ay under ,rotest and t.ereafter filed
ad:usting any grievances or Euestions arising from

t.e collective (argaining agreement are considered mandatory su(:ects of collective
an action against C!P and Lyra 8usic Cor,oration for unfair la(or ,ractice (ULP . <.e Ar(iter ruled in
favor of t.e worDers and ordered Lyra 8usic Cor,oration to a(sor( t.e former worDers of C!P. @as t.e La(or Ar(iter correct in .is decisionK SUGGESTE7 ANSWER'
(argaining. (See Art. /4/ of t.e La(or Code

CBA: R $i4t#!ti2" R H)i# ? "t: C2"t#!;t B!#BR)* (2000) A Collective $argaining Agreement was signed
'o. <.e La(or Ar(iter is not correct. As .eld in t.e
(etween t.e Ang Sara, Uainan Com,any and t.e

Ang Sara, Uainan @orDers Union. S.ould t.e Collective $argaining Agreement (e registered wit. t.e $ureau of La(or !elationsK If so# w.yK (3M
case of San ?eli,e 'eri Sc.ool of 8andaluyong vs. 'L!C# w.en t.ere is a legitimate sale of a com,anyPs assets# t.e (uyer in good fait. cannot (e legally com,elled to a(sor( t.e em,loyees of t.e seller in good fait.. In t.e case at (ar# t.e
em,loyees of t.e C!P were validly terminated

(ased on Article /+6# e.g. closure of o,erations t.an t.e law.
SUGGESTE7 ANSWER'
So t.at t.e contract-(ar rule may a,,ly t.e C$A
and se,aration ,ay was ,aid at a rate muc. .ig.er ?urt.ermore# t.e case filed (y t.e em,loyees was
U'?AI! LA$9! P!AC<IC&. It is .ig.ly irregular to order a(sor,tion of em,loyees in a ULP case. CBA: S2;i!* S ;)#it& 64= U"i2" S ;)#it& (2004)
s.ould (e registered# assuming it .as (een validly

ratified and contains t.e mandatory ,rovisions. (Art. /3/# La(or Code . CBA: R)"BO33 E* ;ti2" (2006)
@.en does a Crun-offP election occurK (/.4M SUGGESTE7 ANSWER' A run-off election occurs w.en t.e following elements occur5 ). $etween t.ree (3 or more c.oices# and no
c.oice receiving a ma:ority of t.e valid votes cast/. <.e total num(er of votes for all contending unions is at least 40M of t.e num(er of vote
;istinguis. clearly (ut (riefly (etween Social

security and union security SUGGESTE7 ANSWERS' S9CIAL S&CU!I<I is t.e ,rotection given (y social insurance ,rograms suc. as t.e ,rograms of t.e SSS# %SIS and PFIC undertaDen ,ursuant to t.eir res,ective c.arters# including t.e em,loyees com,ensation ,rogram ,rovided for in t.e La(or Code. <.e aforesaid ,rograms ,rovide income (enefits and7or medical care w.en contingencies
liDe sicDness# (also maternity in t.e case of SSS
cast- and 3. $etween t.e la(or unions receiving t.e two .ig.est num(er of votes (Article /41# La(or
Code . CBA: S!* 23 E4t!%*i4<? "t: E33 ;t (1994)
Coronet
!ecords
P.il.
(C!P
manufactures
disa(ility# deat.# or retirement# including in t.e case of t.e %SIS# se,aration and unem,loyment (enefits.
audio7video record ,layers# com,act discs# video
discs# cassettes and t.e liDe. C!Ps s.are.oldings
is 60M foreign and 10M domestic. C!P signed a
9n t.e ot.er .and# U'I9' S&CU!I<I refers to a

clause in a collective (argaining agreement
Collective $argaining Agreement (C$A wit. its

ranD-and-file worDers for t.ree years starting from
w.ere(y t.e em,loyer agrees to em,loy or

continue in em,loyment only worDers w.o are mem(ers of t.e exclusive collective (argaining re,resentative of t.e em,loyees of said em,loyer in a (argaining unit. CBA: S)%4tit)ti2"!#& 72;t#i" (2000) a <.e Sama.an ng 8ga 8anggagawa sa Pids
January )# )**0 and ending on ;ecem(er 3)#

)**3.
$efore t.e ex,iration of t.e C$A# C!P decided to

sell all its assets to Lyra 8usic Cor,oration effective Se,tem(er 30# )**3. In t.is regard# notice was sent on August 30# )**3 to eac.
em,loyee advising t.em of t.e sale of t.e

Com,anyPs assets to Lyra 8usic Cor,oration and t.e closure of t.e com,anyPs o,erations effective Se,tem(er 30# )**3. C!P# liDewise# reEuested
and Co. Inc. lost its ma:ority status in t.e

(argaining unit one year after t.e signing of t.e Agreement. $icDerings Collective $argaining
among all t.e t.ree ot.er unions in t.e (argaining

unit were a daily occurrence# wit. eac. union
t.at eac. em,loyee receive .is se,aration ,ay

eEuivalent to one-and-one-.alf () = )7/ mont.Ps ,ay ,er year of service# exclusive of all unused
asserting ma:ority status. <o resolve t.is ,estering ,ro(lem# t.e Com,any and t.e t.ree ot.er unions
agreed to .old a consent election under t.e su,ervision of t.e $ureau of La(or !elations. In
leaves w.ic. were also converted to cas.# and .is )3t.-mont. ,ay for )**3.
t.e consent election# Pids and Co# @orDerPs Union
Page "& of 108
won# and was accordingly recogniGed (y t.e Com,any t.e (argaining exclusive as re,resentative in t.e (argaining unit. Is t.e Pids and Co. @orDers Union (ound (y t.e Collective $argaining Agreement signed (etween t.e
;oes t.e union security clause sufficiently :ustify t.e demand for dismissal of t.e t.ree em,loyees
or notK 8ay t.e Fotel 8anagement validly refuse

t.e Union>s demandK (4M CBA: U"i2" S ;)#it& C*!)4 : C*24 d S<2/#26i4i2" (199,)
Com,any and t.e Sama.an ng 8ga 8anggagawa

Sa Pids and Co. Inc.K &x,lain. (3M
( S.ortly after t.e consent election# Pids and Co.

Inc. sold t.e %roceries ;ivision to 8etro 8anila %rocery Inc. <.e em,loyees of t.e sold division
!econcile t.e com,ulsory nature of t.e closed

s.o, ,rovision in a Collective $argaining Agreement wit. t.e constitutional guarantee of freedom of association. ;iscuss fully. SUGGESTE7 ANSWER'
formed ,art of t.e (argaining unit descri(ed in t.e

Collective $argaining Agreement# and all were a(sor(ed (y 8etro 8anila %rocery Inc. Is 8etro 8anila %rocery Inc.# as t.e new em,loyer# (ound
(y t.e Collective $argaining Agreement existing at

t.e time of t.e saleK &x,lain. (3M
Among t.e ,olicies of t.e State in t.e field of la(or relations is to ,romote trade unionism and to foster
t.e organiGation of a strong and united la(or movement. U'I9' S&CU!I<I CLAUS&S# liDe a closed s.o, agreement# is one way of
SUGGESTE7 ANSWER'
a Ies# (ecause t.e Collective $argaining
Agreement is not invalidated (y t.e c.ange of t.e

(argaining agent w.ile t.e C$A is still effective. ($enguet <.e Csu(stitutionary doctrinePP a,,lies.
im,lementing t.e aforementioned la(or relations ,olicy. Im,lementing to some extent t.e conce,t of
freedom of association# an em,loyee w.o is already a mem(er of a union could not (e com,elled to (ecome a mem(er of a (argaining union# even if t.ere is a closed s.o, agreement. ALTERNATI9E ANSWER' Collective $argaining Agreement# (ecause it
Consolidated Inc. v. $CI &m,loyees# /3 SC!A 614

()*1+
( <.ere are no indications t.at t.e sale is 'o. simulated or intended to defeat t.e em,loyeesP rig.t to organiGe. A (ona fide sale terminates t.e
em,loyment relations.i, (etween t.e selling com,any and its em,loyees. <.e C$A does not
It could (e argued t.at a closed s.o, ,rovision in a reEuires t.at a ,erson s.ould first (e a mem(er of t.e (argaining union (efore .e is em,loyed# is violative of t.e rig.t to freedom of association#
(ecause said rig.t su(sumes not only a rig.t to :oin# (ut also a rig.t not to :oin a union. 9n t.e ot.er .and# it could (e argued t.at t.e
(ind t.e ,urc.aser in good fait. (ecause t.e C$A is a ,ersonam contract# unless t.e (uyer agrees to
(e (ound. LSundowner ;ev. Cor,. v. ;rilon# )+0 SC!A )6 ()*+* - Associated La(or Union v.
'L!C# /06 SC!A *)3 ()**3 N.

CBA: U"i2" S ;)#it& C*!)4 (2004) A. 8PF La(or Union is t.e duly certified (argaining
exercise of t.e freedom of association means t.at

worDers s.ould :oin unions. A closed s.o, agreement# as a union security clause# encourages t.e :oining of unions. CBA: U"i2": R -# 4 "t!ti2" I44) (1999) ?AC<S5 Jenson = Jenson (J = J is a domestic
re,resentative of t.e ranD-and-file em,loyees of

88 ParD Fotel since t.e )*20>s. <.e collective (argaining agreement contained union s.o, security ,rovisions. After t.e signing of t.e /000W
/004 C$A# t.e Union demanded t.e dismissal of 3 em,loyees# OO# II and QQ# ,ursuant to t.e union security clause in t.e C$A.
<.e Fotel 8anagement re,lied t.at it was legally im,ossi(le to com,ly wit. t.e demand of t.e Union. It mig.t even (e construed as unfair la(or
cor,oration engaged in t.e manufacturing of

consumer ,roducts. Its ranD-and-file worDers organiGed t.e Jenson &m,loyees Union (J&U # a
duty registered local union affiliated wit. PA?LU# a

national union. After .aving (een certified as t.e exclusive (argaining agent of t.e a,,ro,riate (argaining unit# J&U-PA?LU su(mitted its ,ro,osals for a Collective $argaining Agreement wit. t.e com,any.
,ractice. ?or it a,,eared t.at OO# II and QQ .ad

(een recently ,romoted as su,ervisors and
resigned from t.e Union. $ut according to t.e Union# t.e t.ree su(mitted t.eir resignations
outside t.e freedom ,eriod after t.e )**1W/000
In t.e meantime# a ,ower struggle occurred wit.in t.e national union PA?LU (etween its 'ational
President# 8anny PaDyao# and its 'ational 8iro. Secretary %eneral# %a(riel <.e re,resentation issue wit.in PA?LU is ,ending
C$A ex,ired on June 30# /000. <.e Union argued

t.at t.e Fotel 8anagement could not sDirt its o(ligation to res,ect and im,lement t.e union
security clause (y ,romoting t.e t.ree em,loyees. <.at could (e viewed as rewarding em,loyees for
t.eir disloyalty to t.e union# said t.e union officers.
resolution (efore t.e 9ffice of t.e Secretary of

La(or.
Page "' of 108
$y reason of t.is intra-union dis,ute wit.in PA?LU# J = J o(stinately and consistently refused to offer any counter,ro,osal and to (argain collectively wit. J&U-PA?LU until t.e re,resentation issue wit.in PA?LU s.all .ave (een resolved wit. finality. J&U-PA?LU filed a 'otice of StriDe. <.e Secretary of La(or su(seEuently assumed :urisdiction over t.e la(or dis,ute.
CBU: C2?-!"& U"i2" 64= U"i2" S<2- (2004)
). @ill t.e re,resentation issue t.at .as arisen involving t.e national union PA?LU# to w.ic. t.e duty registered local union J&U is affiliated# (ar collective (argaining negotiation wit. J = JK &x,lain (riefly. (3M /. Can t.e Secretary of La(or decide t.e la(or dis,ute (y awarding t.e J&U C$A Pro,osals as t.e Collective $argaining Agreement of t.e ,artiesK &x,lain (riefly. (/M SUGGESTE7 ANSWER' ). <.e re,resentation issue t.at .as arisen involving t.e national union PA?LU s.ould not (ar collective (argaining negotiation wit. J and J. It is t.e local union J&U t.at .as t.e rig.t to (argain wit. t.e em,loyer J and J# and not t.e national union PA?LU.
It is immaterial w.et.er t.e re,resentation issue wit.in PA?LU .as (een resolved wit. finality or not. Said sEua((le could not ,ossi(ly serve as a (ar to any collective (argaining since PA?LU is not t.e real ,arty-in-interest to t.e talDs- rat.er# t.e negotiations are confined to t.e cor,oration and t.e local union J&U. 9nly t.e collective (argaining agent# t.e local union J&U# ,ossesses t.e legal standing to negotiate wit. t.e cor,oration. A duly registered local union affiliated wit. a national union or federation does not lose its legal ,ersonality or Inde,endence (Adamson and Adamson# Inc. v. <.e Court of Industrial !elations and Adamson and Adamson Su,ervising Union (??@ # )/2 SC!A /1+ L)*+6N .
/. Ies. It is wit.in assum,tion ,ower.
CBA: W!$ I";# !4 C26 #!$ : N2"BU"i2" E?-*2& 4 (200,)

(( 8ay a ranD-and-file em,loyee# w.o is not a mem(er of t.e union re,resenting .is (argaining unit# avail of t.e wage increases w.ic. t.e union negotiated for its mem(ersK (6M
SUGGESTE7 ANSWER'
Ies# (ecause t.e (argaining re,resentative (union does not act for its mem(ers alone. It re,resents all t.e em,loyees covered (y t.e (argaining unit. (8actan @orDers Union v. A(oitiG# %.!. 'o. L-30/6)# June 30# )*2/ Fowever# nonmem(ers w.o avail of C$A (enefits are reEuired under t.e law to ,ay agency fees.
;istinguis. clearly (ut (riefly (etween Com,any union and union s.o,. SUGGESTE7 ANSWERS'
A C98PA'I U'I9' is a union of em,loyees dominated or under t.e control of t.e em,loyer of said em,loyees. A U'I9' SF9P# on t.e ot.er .and# refers to a union security clause in a collective (argaining agreement w.ere(y t.e em,loyer agrees to terminate t.e em,loyment of an em,loyee w.o .as not (ecome a mem(er of t.e union w.ic. is t.e exclusive collective (argaining re,resentative of t.e em,loyees in a (argaining unit wit.in a certain ,eriod after t.e em,loyment of said em,loyee or .as ceased to (ecome a union mem(er.
ALTERNATI9E ANSWERS'
a Ies# an em,loyer can legally o,,ose t.e inclusion of t.e confidential em,loyees in t.e (argaining unit of ranD-and-file em,loyees (ecause confidential em,loyees are ineligi(le to form# assist or :oin a la(or union. $y t.e nature of t.eir functions# t.ey assist and act in a confidential ca,acity to# or .ave access to confidential matters of# ,ersons w.o exercise managerial functions in t.e field of la(or relations# and t.e union mig.t not (e assured of t.eir loyalty in view of evident conflict of interest. ( An em,loyer can legally o,,ose t.e inclusion of confidential em,loyees in t.e (argaining unit of ranD -and-file em,loyees (ecause confidential em,loyees are considered ,art of management. (P.iltranco vs. $L!# )26 SC!A 3++ .
CBU: C2"3id "ti!* E?-*2& 4 (1994) Can an em,loyer legally o,,ose t.e inclusion of confidential em,loyees in t.e (argaining unit of ranD-and-file em,loyeesK /. @ould your answer (e different if t.e confidential em,loyees are soug.t to (e included in t.e su,ervisory unionK SUGGESTE7 ANSWER' ) Ies# an em,loyer can legally o,,ose t.e inclusion of confidential em,loyees in t.e (argaining unit of t.e ranD-and-file. <.is issue .as (een settled in t.e case of %olden ?arms vs. Calle:a# and reiterated in t.e case of P.ili,s Industrial ;ev. Inc. vs. 'L!C.
).
SUGGESTE7 ANSWER' / <.e answer would (e t.e same if confidential em,loyees are soug.t to (e included in t.e su,ervisory union (ecause confidential em,loyees# (eing a ,art of management would not Eualify to :oin# muc. less form a la(or union. (P.iltranco vs. $L!# )26 SC!A 3++ # ALTERNATI9E ANSWER'
8y answer would remain t.e same# even if t.e confidential em,loyees were soug.t to (e included in t.e su,ervisory union. Confidential em,loyees
Page "( of 108
would .ave t.e same adverse im,act on t.e (argaining unit of su,ervisors5 Confidential em,loyeesP access to .ig.ly sensitive information may (ecome t.e source of undue advantage (y t.e union over t.e em,loyer. (P.ili,s Industrial ;evelo,ment Inc.# vs. 'ational La(or !elations Commission# et. al# %.! 'o. ++*42# /4 June )**/
$ut t.is may (e noted5 <.e $anD officials mentioned in t.e case# .ave control# custody and7or access to confidential matters. <.us# t.ey are confidential em,loyees and in accordance wit. earlier Su,reme Court decisions# as confidential em,loyees# t.e $ranc. 8anager# Cas.ier# Controller are disEualified from :oining or assisting t.e su,ervisorPs union of t.e $anD.
CBU: C2"4 "t E* ;ti2" 64= C #ti3i;!ti2" E* ;ti2" (2004) ;istinguis. clearly (ut (riefly (etween Consent election and certification election. SUGGESTE7 ANSWERS'
A certification election and a consent election are (ot. elections .eld to determine t.roug. secret (allot t.e sole and exclusive re,resentative of t.e em,loyees in an a,,ro,riate (argaining unit for t.e ,ur,ose of collective (argaining or negotiations. <.ere is t.is difference# .owever# a C&!<I?ICA<I9' &L&C<I9' is ordered (y t.e ;e,artment of La(or and &m,loyment w.ile a C9'S&'< &L&C<I9' is voluntarily agreed u,on (y t.e ,arties# wit. or wit.out t.e intervention of t.e ;e,artment of La(or and &m,loyment.
ALTERNATI9E ANSWER' <.e contention of t.e ?anners $anD is ,artially correct. <.e ;e,artment managers and $ranc. managers# if t.ey in fact .ave t.e ,owers im,lied (y t.eir titles# are managerial ,ersonnel. In accordance wit. t.e La(or Code# managerial ,ersonnel are not eligi(le to :oin and form la(or unions. 9n t.e ot.er .and# cas.iers w.o are in c.arge of money received or ex,ended# and com,trollers w.o examine and su,ervise ex,enditures# are not managerial ,ersonnel# and if t.ey su,ervise ,ersonnel# t.ey could (e su,ervisors# and are t.erefore to (e included in t.e (argaining unit of su,ervisors. /. Is t.ere any statutory (asis for t.e ,etition of t.e unionK &x,lain. SUGGESTE7 ANSWER' <.ere is statutory (asis for t.e ,etition of t.e su,ervisorsP union. Under t.e La(or Code# su,ervisors .ave t.e rig.t to form and :oin unions# (ut only unions of su,ervisory em,loyees.
CBU: M!"!$ #i!* E?-*2& E?-*2& 4 (199,)
4: S)- #6i42#&
A su,ervisorPs union filed a ,etition for certification election to determine t.e exclusive (argaining re,resentative of t.e su,ervisory em,loyees of ?armers $anD. Included in t.e list of su,ervisory em,loyees attac.ed to t.e ,etition are t.e ;e,artment 8anagers# $ranc. 8anagers# Cas.iers and Com,trollers. ?armers $anD Euestioned t.is list arguing t.at ;e,artment 8anagers# $ranc. 8anagers# Cas.iers and Com,trollers in.erently ,ossess t.e ,owers enumerated in Art. /)/# ,ar. (m # of t.e La(or Code# i.e.# t.e ,ower and ,rerogative to lay down and execute management ,olicies and7or to .ire# transfer# sus,end# lay-off# recall# disc.arge# assign or disci,line em,loyees.
CBU: M!"!$ #i!* E?-*2& 4: S)- #6i42#& E?-*2& 4 (1999)

?AC<S5 Sama.an ng mga 8anggagawa sa Com,anya ng <a(aco (S8C< filed a Petition for Certification &lection among t.e su,ervisory em,loyees of t.e <a(aco 8anufacturing Com,any (<a(aco (efore t.e 'C! !egional 9ffice of t.e ;e,artment of La(or and &m,loyment. It alleged# among ot.er t.ings# t.at it is a legitimate la(or organiGation# a duly c.artered local of 'A?LU- t.at <a(aco is an organiGed esta(lis.ment- and t.at no certification election .as (een conducted wit.in one year ,rior to t.e filing of its ,etition for certification election.
). Is t.e contention of ?armers $anD correctK ;iscuss fully. SUGGESTE7 ANSWER'

<.e contention of t.e ?armers $anD is not correct# if# on examination of t.e actual ,owers exercised (y t.e ;e,artment 8anagers# $anD 8anagers# Cas.iers and Com,trollers# t.ey are not vested wit. ,owers or ,rerogatives to lay down and execute management ,olicies or to .ire# transfer# sus,end# lay-off# recall# disc.arge# assign or disci,line em,loyees. If t.eir ,owers are to carry out t.eir duties and res,onsi(ilities in accordance wit. t.e ,olicies ,romulgated (y t.e $oard of ;irectors of t.e $anD# or (y external aut.orities# liDe t.e Central $anD# t.en# t.ey are not managerial (ut may (e su,ervisory ,ersonnel.
<.e Petition filed (y S8C< s.owed t.at out of its 40 mem(ers# )4 were ranD-and-filers and two (/ were managers.
<a(aco filed a 8otion to ;ismiss on t.e ground t.at S8C< union is com,osed of su,ervisory and ranD-and-file em,loyees and# t.erefore# cannot act as (argaining agent for t.e ,ro,osed unit. S8C< filed an o,,osition to t.e said 8otion alleging t.at t.e infirmity# if any# in t.e mem(ers.i,
of t.e union can (e remedied in t.e ,re-election
Page #) of 108
conference t.ru t.e exclusioninclusion ,roceedings w.erein t.ose em,loyees w.o are occu,ying ranD-and-file ,ositions will (e excluded from t.e list of eligi(le voters. ). S.ould t.e 8otion to ;ismiss filed (y t.e <a(aco (e granted or deniedK &x,lain. (3M SUGGESTE7 ANSWER'
<.e 8otion to ;ismiss filed (y <a(aco s.ould (e granted. According to t.e La(or Code (in Article /64 # su,ervisory em,loyees s.all not (e eligi(le for mem(ers.i, in a la(or organiGation of ranDand-file em,loyees (ut may :oin or form se,arate la(or organiGations of t.eir own. $ecause of t.e a(ove-mentioned ,rovision of t.e La(or Code# a la(or organiGation com,osed of (ot. ranD-and-file and su,ervisory em,loyees is no la(or organiGation at all. It cannot# for any guise or ,ur,ose# (e a legitimate la(or organiGation. 'ot (eing a legitimate la(or organiGation# it cannot ,ossess t.e reEuisite ,ersonality to file a ,etition for certification election. (See <oyota 8otor P.ili,,ines Cor,. vs. <oyota 8otor P.ili,,ines Cor,. La(or Union# /1+ SC!A 423
(argaining unit w.ere S8C< wis.es to (e t.e exclusive collective (argaining re,resentative.
CBU: M2d 4: 7 t #?i"!ti2" 23 ED;*)4i6 B!#$!i"i"$ A$# ? "t (2006) <.e modes of determining an exclusive (argaining agreement are5 a. voluntary recognition (. certification election c. consent election &x,lain (riefly .ow t.ey differ from one anot.er. (4M SUGGESTE7 ANSWER' (a. 9OLUNTARI RECOGNITION R is t.e voluntary recognition (y t.e em,loyer of t.e status of t.e union as t.e (argaining re,resentative of t.e em,loyees LSection l(((( # !ule I# $ooD A# !ules to Im,lement t.e La(or Code# as amended (y ;e,artment 9rder 'o. 60-03# Series of /003 ()2 ?e(ruary /003 N.
((. CERTI1ICATION ELECTION is t.e ,rocess of determining t.e sole and exclusive (argaining agent of t.e em,loyees in an a,,ro,riate (argaining unit LSection l(. # !ule I# $ooD A# !ules to Im,lement t.e La(or Code# as amended (y ;e,artment 9rder 'o. 60-03# Series of /003 ()2 ?e(ruary /003 N.
CONSENT ELECTION is an agreed election# conducted wit. or wit.out t.e intervention of t.e ;9L& to determine t.e issue of ma:ority re,resentation of all t.e worDers in t.e a,,ro,riate (argaining unit (Algire v. ;e 8esa# %.!. 'o. *21//# 9cto(er )*# )**6 .
ALTERNATI9E ANSWER'
<.e 8otion to ;ismiss s.ould (e denied. In t.e first ,lace# t.e general rule is t.at in a certification election t.e em,loyer is a mere (ystander. An em,loyer .as no legal standing to Euestion a certification election as it is t.e sole concern of t.e worDers. <.e exce,tions to t.e general rule of w.ic. are ) w.en t.e existence of an em,loyerem,loyee relations.i, is denied- and / w.en t.e em,loyer Euestions t.e legal ,ersonality of t.e union (ecause of irregularities in its registration are not ,resent in t.is case.
(c.
7) /#2; 44: 7i4;i-*i"!#& C!4 4 (199,)

). %ary# a salesman of Astro C.emical Com,any (AS<!9 # was re,orted to .ave committed some serious anomalies in .is sale and distri(ution of com,any ,roducts. AS<!9 designated its C.ief Legal 9fficer to investigate %ary. Instead of su(mitting to t.e investigation# %ary filed a ,etition to en:oin t.e investigation on t.e ground t.at AS<!9 would a,,ear to (e .is accuser# ,rosecutor and :udge at t.e same time. @ill t.e ,etition to en:oin t.e investigation ,ros,erK ;iscuss fully.
/. Can t.e two (/ 8anagers (e ,art of t.e (argaining unitK @.yK (/M SUGGESTE7 ANSWER'
'o# t.e two (/ 8anagers cannot (e ,art of t.e (argaining unit com,osed of su,ervisory em,loyees. A (argaining unit must effect a grou,ing of em,loyees w.o .ave su(stantial# mutual interests in wages# .ours# worDing conditions and ot.er su(:ects of collective (argaining. (San 8iguel Cor,. Su,ervisors and &xem,t &m,loyees Union v. Laguesma# //2 SC!A 329
SUGGESTE7 ANSWER'
<.e ,etition to en:oin t.e investigation will not ,ros,er. It is inevita(le t.at in disci,linary cases# t.e em,loyer would a,,ear to (e accuser# ,rosecutor# and :udge at t.e same time since it is t.e em,loyer w.o c.arges an em,loyee for t.e commission of an offense- .e is also t.e ,erson w.o directs t.e investigation to determine w.et.er t.e c.arge against t.e em,loyee is true or not and .e is t.e one w.o will :udge if t.e em,loyee is to (e ,enaliGed or not. $ut if t.e em,loyee is given am,le o,,ortunity to defend .imself# .e could not
<.e La(or Code (in Article /64 ,rovides t.at managerial em,loyees are not eligi(le to :oin# assist or form any la(or organiGation.
<.e a(ove ,rovision s.ows t.at managerial em,loyees do not .ave t.e same interests as t.e su,ervisory em,loyees w.ic. com,ose t.e
Page 31 of 108
validly claim t.at .e was de,rived of .is rig.t to due ,rocess of law.
ALTERNATI9E ANSWER' 'o. <.e em,loyer is merely com,lying wit. t.e legal mandate to afford t.e em,loyee due ,rocess (y giving .im t.e rig.t to (e .eard and t.e c.ance to answer t.e c.arges against .im and accordingly to defend .imself (efore dismissal is effected.
;istinguis. managerial su,ervisory em,loyees# (3M SUGGESTE7 ANSWER'
em,loyees
from
A 8A'A%&!IAL &8PL9I&& is one w.o is vested

wit. ,owers or ,rerogatives to lay down and
execute management ,olicies and7or to .ire# transfer# sus,end# lay-off# recall# disc.arge# assign or disci,line em,loyees. SUP&!AIS9!I &8PL9I&&S# on t.e ot.er .and# are t.ose w.o in
t.e interest of t.e em,loyer# effectively recommend suc. managerial actions# if t.e exercise of suc. aut.ority is not merely routinary or clerical in nature
E?-*2& 4: $#2)-4 23 ?-*2& 4 (1996) ) @.o are t.e managerial# su,ervisory and ranDand-file em,loyeesK SUGGESTE7 ANSWER' C8A'A%&!IAL &8PL9I&&C is one w.o is vested
wit. ,owers or ,rerogatives to lay down and execute management ,olicies or to .ire# transfer# sus,end# layoff# recall# disc.arge# assign or disci,line em,loyees. SUP&!AIS9!I &8PL9I&&S are t.ose w.o# in t.e interest of t.e em,loyer# effectively recommend suc. managerial actions if t.e exercise of suc. aut.ority is not merely routinary or clerical in nature (ut reEuires t.e use of inde,endent :udgment. All em,loyees w.o are neit.er managerial or su,ervisory em,loyees are considered !A'U-
(ut reEuires t.e use of inde,endent :udgment LArt.

/)/ (m # La(or CodeN
In a case# t.e Su,reme Court said5 CIn t.e ,etition (efore us# a t.oroug. dissection of t.e :o(
descri,tion of t.e concerned su,ervisory em,loyees and section .eads indis,uta(ly s.ow
t.at t.ey are not actually managerial (ut only
su,ervisory em,loyees since t.ey do not lay down

com,any ,olicies. PIC9PPs contention t.at t.e
su(:ect section .eads and unit managers exercise t.e aut.ority to .ire and fire is am(iguous and
Euite misleading for t.e reason t.at any aut.ority t.ey exercise is not su,reme (ut merely advisory
in c.aracter. <.eirs is not a final determination of
A';-?IL& &8PL9I&&S. (Art. /)/(m of t.e La(or

Code
t.e com,any ,olicies Inasmuc. as any action taDen (y t.em on matters relative to .iring#
,romotion# transfer# sus,ension and termination of
E?-*2& 4: M!"!$ #i!* E?-*2& M!"!$ #i!* St!33 (1994)
64=
;istinguis. t.e rig.ts of managerial em,loyees
from mem(ers of a managerial staff. SUGGESTE7 ANSWER' 8A'A%&!IAL &8PL9I&&S .ave no collective (argaining rig.ts (ecause# t.ey cannot :oin or form any ot.er la(or organiGation w.ile officers of a managerial staff are not ,ro.i(ited from :oining#
assisting or forming or arresting a su,ervisorPs union- .ence# t.ey can (argain collectively. (Art.
em,loyees is still su(:ect a,,roval (y t.eir res,ective Lit.ogra,.ic Services# Inc. SC!A )/# )2 ()**/ N <.us#
to confirmation and su,erior. LSee Atlas v. Laguesma# /04 w.ere suc. ,ower#
w.ic. is in effect recommendatory in c.aracter# is su(:ect to evaluation# review and final action (y t.e de,artment .eads and .ig.er executives of t.e
com,any# t.e same# alt.oug. ,resent# is not effective and not an exercise of inde,endent
:udgment as reEuired (y law. LP.ili,,ine A,,liance

Cor,. v. Laguesma# //* SC!A 230# 232 ()**3
/64# La(or Code- 'ational Sugar !efineries Cor,.

vs. 'L!C# //0 SC!A 64/ . ALTERNATI9E ANSWER5
citing ?ranDlin $aDer Com,any of t.e P.ili,,ines v. <ra:ano# )42 SC!A 6)1# 6//-633 ()*++ N.C (Pa,er Industries Cor,. of t.e P.ili,,ines v. $ienvenido &.
Laguesma 330 SC!A /*4# (/000 N E?-*2& 4: M!"!$ #i!* 64= S)- #6i42#& 64= 4 (200>) R!"GB!"dB1i* E?-*2&
8A'A%&!IAL &8PL9I&&S# under Article /)/(m of t.e La(or Code are vested wit. t.e ,rerogatives to lay down and execute management ,olicies
and7or to .ire# fire# transfer# ,romote# lay-off and
disci,line em,loyees. <.ey are not eligi(le for t.e rig.t to self-organiGation for ,ur,oses of collective (argaining.
U,on t.e ot.er .and# mem(ers of 8A'A%&!IAL S<A??# under Article +/ of t.e La(or Code# are not vested wit. t.e a(ove-cited ,rerogatives. <.ey
<.e La(or Code treats differently in various as,ects t.e em,loyment of (i managerial em,loyees# (ii su,ervisory em,loyees# and (iii
ranD-and-file em,loyees. State t.e (asic distinguis.ing features of eac. ty,e of em,loyment. SUGGESTE7 ANSWER' Under $ooD <.ree of t.e La(or Code# a 8A'A%&!IAL &8PL9I&& refers to one w.ose ,rimary duty consists of t.e management of t.e
are not entitled to overtime ,ay and ot.er (enefits under $ooD III# <itle ) of t.e Code.
E?-*2& 4: ?!"!$ #i!* ?-*2& 4 (2002) 4 64=
4)- #6i42#& ?-*2&
esta(lis.ment in w.ic. .e is em,loyed or of a de,artment or su(division t.ereof# and to ot.er
Page #" of 108
officers or mem(ers of t.e managerial staff. A su,ervisor and a ranD and file em,loyee can (e considered as mem(ers of t.e managerial staff# and t.erefore# a managerial em,loyee if t.eir ,rimary duty consists of worD directly related to management ,olicies- if t.ey customarily and regularly exercise discretion and inde,endent :udgment- regularly and directly assist a ,ro,rietor or a managerial em,loyee w.ose ,rimary duty consists of t.e management of t.e esta(lis.ment in w.ic. t.ey are em,loyed or a su(division t.ereof- or execute under general su,ervision worD along s,ecialiGed or tec.nical lines reEuiring s,ecial training# ex,erience# or Dnowledge- or execute under general su,ervision s,ecial assignments and tasDs- and w.o do not devote more t.an /0 ,ercent of t.eir .ours worDed in a worD-weeD to activities w.ic. are not directly and closely related to t.e ,erformance of t.e worD descri(ed a(ove. All ot.ers are ranD and file em,loyees under said $ooD (Art. +/# La(or Code# Sec. / (c # !ule I# $D. III# 9mni(us !ules Im,lementing t.e La(or Code . Under $ooD ?ive of t.e La(or Code# C8A'A%&!IAL &8PL9I&&C is one w.o is vested wit. ,owers or ,rerogatives to lay down# and execute management ,olicies and7or to .ire# transfer# sus,end# lay-off# recall# disc.arge# assign or disci,line em,loyees. A SUP&!AIS9!I &8PL9I&& is one w.o# in t.e interest of t.e em,loyer# effectively recommends suc. managerial actions if t.e exercise of suc. aut.ority is not merely routinary or clerical in nature (ut reEuires t.e use of inde,endent :udgment. All em,loyees not falling wit.in any of t.e a(ove definitions are considered ranD-and-file em,loyees for ,ur,oses of t.is $ooD (Art. /)/ (8 # La(or Code .
region# ,rovince# or city or munici,ality go on a
9n t.e matter of rig.t to self-organiGation# a managerial em,loyee cannot exercise suc. rig.t- w.ile a su,ervisor and a ranD and file em,loyee can (Arts. /64# /63# La(or Code .
Ri$<t t2 St#iG ' S&?-!t<& 64= G " #!* St#iG (2004) ;istinguis. clearly (ut (riefly (etween5 Sym,at.y striDe and general striDe. SUGGESTE7 ANSWERS'
In (ot. a sym,at.y striDe and in a general striDe# t.ere is a sto,,age of worD (y t.e concerted action of em,loyees. In (ot. Dinds of striDe# t.e striDe is not t.e result of a la(or or industrial dis,ute. As t.e name im,lies# worDers go on a SI8PA<FI S<!IU& to s.ow t.eir sym,at.y for certain worDers w.o are on striDe. 9n t.e ot.er .and# in a %&'&!AL S<!IU&# worDers in t.e country or in a
striDe to ,u(licly ,rotest a certain ,olicy or action taDen (y t.e government. <.us# for instance# a general striDe may (e declared (y worDers to ,u(licly ,rotest t.e stand of President Arroyo t.at s.e is against an increase of t.e minimum wage at t.is time.
wit. J&U-PA?LU until t.e re,resentation issue wit.in PA?LU s.all .ave (een resolved wit. finality. J&U-PA?LU filed a 'otice of StriDe. <.e Secretary of La(or su(seEuently assumed :urisdiction over t.e la(or dis,ute.
Ri$<t t2 St#iG : A44)?-ti2" /28 #

?AC<S5 Jenson = Jenson (J = J is a domestic cor,oration engaged in t.e manufacturing of consumer ,roducts. Its ranD-and-flle worDers organiGed t.e Jenson &m,loyees Union (J&U # a duty registered local union affiliated wit. PA?LU# a national union. After .aving (een certified as t.e exclusive (argaining agent of t.e a,,ro,riate (argaining unit# J&U-PA?LU su(mitted its ,ro,osals for a Collective $argaining Agreement wit. t.e com,any. /
@ill t.e re,resentation issue t.at .as arisen involving t.e national union PA?LU# to w.ic. t.e duty registered local union J&U is affiliated# (ar collective (argaining negotiation wit. J = JK &x,lain (riefly. (3M
Can t.e Secretary of La(or decide t.e la(or dis,ute (y awarding t.e J&U C$A Pro,osals as t.e Collective $argaining Agreement of t.e ,artiesK &x,lain (riefly. (/M
SUGGESTE7 ANSWER' ). !e,resentation issue in t.is case is not a (ar...

/. Ies. <.e Secretary of La(or can decide t.e la(or dis,ute (y awarding t.e J&U C$A ,ro,osals as t.e Collective $argaining Agreement of t.e ,arties (ecause w.en t.e Secretary of La(or (under Article /13LgN assumes :urisdiction over a la(or dis,ute causing or liDely to cause a striDe or locDout in an industry indis,ensa(le to t.e national interest# t.e Secretary of La(or exercises t.e ,ower of com,ulsory ar(itration over t.e la(or dis,ute# meaning# t.at as an exce,tion to t.e general rule# t.e Secretary of La(or now .as t.e ,ower to set or fix wages# rates of ,ay# .ours of worD or terms and conditions of em,loyment (y
In t.e meantime# a ,ower struggle occurred wit.in t.e national union PA?LU (etween its 'ational President# 8anny PaDyao# and its 'ational Secretary %eneral# %a(riel 8iro. <.e re,resentation issue wit.in PA?LU is ,ending resolution (efore t.e 9ffice of t.e Secretary of La(or.
$y reason of t.is intra-union dis,ute wit.in PA?LU# J = J o(stinately and consistently refused to offer any counter,ro,osal and to (argain collectively
Page ## of 108
determining w.at s.ould (e t.e C$A of t.e ,arties. (See ;ivine @ord University vs. Secretary of La(or# /)3 SC!A 24* ALTERNATI9E ANSWER'
@.at is involved in t.e case in t.e Euestion is a cor,oration engaged in t.e manufacturing of consumer ,roducts. If t.e consumer ,roducts t.at are (eing manufactured are not suc. t.at a striDe against t.e com,any cannot (e considered a striDe in an Industry indis,ensa(le for t.e national interest# t.en t.e assum,tion of Jurisdiction (y t.e Secretary of La(or is not ,ro,er. <.erefore# .e cannot legally exercise t.e ,owers of com,ulsory ar(itration in t.e la(or dis,ute.
officer and did not commit any illegal act may (e entitled to reinstatement.
Ri$<t t2 St#iG : E33 ;t4: i** $!* 4t#iG (199,) If t.e striDe is declared illegal# will t.e striDers (e entitled to t.eir wages for t.e duration for t.e striDeK &x,lain# SUGGESTE7 ANSWER'5 '9. <.e a,,lica(le doctrine will (e5 'o worD# no ,ay# unless t.ere is an agreement to ,ay striDe duration ,ay. Ri$<t t2 St#iG : E33 ;t4: i** $!* 4t#iG (2000)
A division manager of a com,any taunted a union officer two days after t.e union su(mitted to t.e ;e,artment of La(or and &m,loyment (;9L& t.e result of t.e striDe vote. <.e division manager said5 <.e union t.reat of an unfair la(or ,ractice striDe is ,.ony or a (luff. 'ot even ten ,ercent ()0M of your mem(ers will :oin t.e striDe.C <o ,rove union mem(er su,,ort for t.e striDe# t.e union officer immediately instructed its mem(ers to cease worDing and walD out. <wo .ours after t.e walDout# t.e worDers voluntarily returned to worD.
Ri$<t t2 St#iG : C2?-)*42#& A#%it#!ti2": C #ti3i;!ti2" t2 NLRC (199,)

@.at are t.e o(:ectives of t.e Secretary of La(or and &m,loyment in certifying a la(or dis,ute to t.e 'L!C for com,ulsory ar(itrationK &x,lain.
SUGGESTE7 ANSWER' <.e o(:ectives of t.e Secretary of La(or and &m,loyment in certifying a la(or dis,ute to t.e 'L!C for com,ulsory ar(itration is to ,revent a worD sto,,age t.at may adversely affect t.e national interest and to see to it t.at a la(or dis,ute is ex,editiously settled.
A. @as t.e walDout a striDeK And if so# was it a valid activityK (3M
$. Can t.e union officer w.o led t.e s.ort walDout# (ut w.o liDewise voluntarily led t.e worDers (acD to worD# (e disci,lined (y t.e
Ri$<t t2 St#iG : E33 ;t4: 0i# d R -*!; ? "t4 (2006) If due to t.e ,rolonged striDe# !9S& Cor,oration .ired re,lacements# can it refuse to admit t.e re,laced striDersK SUGGESTE7 ANSWER'
'o. @.ile ,resent law recogniGes t.e rig.t of t.e em,loyer to continue .is (usiness in t.e course of an economic striDe# it assures t.e rig.t of t.e striDers to return to t.eir former ,ositions at t.e ex,ense of t.e re,lacements. Art. /16(a of t.e La(or Code ,rovides t.at mere ,artici,ation of a worDer in a lawful striDe s.all not constitute sufficient ground for termination of .is em,loyment# even if a re,lacement .ad (een .ired (y t.e em,loyer during suc. lawful striDe (P<=< v. 'L!C# %.!. 'o. )0*/+)# ;ecem(er 2# )**4- ;iwa ng PagDaDaisa v. ?iltex International Cor,oration# 'os. L-/3*10 = L/3*1)# ?e(ruary /1# )*1+ .
em,loyerK (3M SUGGESTE7 ANSWERS' a Ies# it was a striDe (ecause t.ere was a worD sto,,age (y concerted action and t.ere is an existing la(or dis,ute. It was not a valid activity (ecause t.e reEuisites for a valid striDe were not o(served# (Art. /)/# (o # (l La(or Code . ( Ies# t.e em,loyer may disci,line t.e union officer. An illegal striDe is a cause for t.e union officer to (e declared to .ave lost .is em,loyment status. LArt /13 (c # (d #(e # (f - Art /16 (a # La(or CodeN.
Ri$<t t2 St#iG : E33 ;t4: i** $!* 4t#iG (199,) Are t.e striDers in an illegal striDe entitled to reinstatement under t.e La(or CodeK &x,lain. SUGGESTE7 ANSWER'
'9. Union officers and mem(ers w.o commit illegal acts lose t.eir em,loyment status. Any union officer w.o Dnowingly ,artici,ates in an illegal striDe# and any worDer or union officer w.o Dnowingly ,artici,ates in t.e commission of illegal acts during a striDe may (e declared to .ave lost .is em,loyment status. Partici,ants (not a union
Ri$<t t2 St#iG : E33 ;t4: St#iG #4C i** $!* A;t4 (2006) Assuming t.e com,any admits all t.e striDers# can it later on dismiss t.ose em,loyees w.o committed illegal actsK SUGGESTE7 ANSWER' 'o# w.en t.e com,any admits all t.e striDers# it is deemed to .ave waived t.e issue and condoned t.e striDers w.o committed illegal acts (CitiGenPs La(or Union v. Standard Aacuum 9il Co.# %.!. 'o. L-262+# 8ay 1#)*44- <ASLIALU v. CA# %.!. 'o. )646/+# July 2# /006 . Ri$<t t2 St#iG : i** $!* di4?i44!* (200>)
8agdalo# a la(or union in 9aDwood# a furniture manufacturing firm# after failing in its negotiations
wit. 9aDwood. filed wit. t.e ;e,artment of La(or
Page #, of 108
and &m,loyment (;9L& a notice of striDe. <.e ;9L& summoned 8agdalo and 9aDwood for conciliation .earings to resolve t.e deadlocD. Una(le to agree des,ite efforts of t.e ;9L&# 8agdalo called a striDe ,artici,ated in (y its officers and union mem(ers including Cesar <rinio# a ranD-and-file em,loyee# w.o led t.e CwalD out.C 9aDwood filed a ,etition to declare illegal t.e striDe w.ic. 8agdalo staged wit.out o(serving t.e seven-day (an under t.e La(or Code. 9aDwood claimed t.at t.e striDe (eing illegal# all t.ose w.o ,artici,ated t.erein# including Cesar <rinio# could (e dismissed as# in fact# t.ey were so dismissed (y 9aDwood. ;ecide t.e case.
to continue wit. a striDe t.at t.ey .ave started.
SUGGESTE7 ANSWER' @.en 9aDwood dismissed all t.e officers and mem(ers of t.e union w.o ,artici,ated in t.e striDe w.ic. was declared illegal (ecause it was staged wit.out o(serving t.e seven-day (an under t.e La(or Code.
9aDwood illegally dismissed t.e union mem(ers# including Cesar <rinio. <.e La(or Code ,rovides t.at a union officer w.o Dnowingly ,artici,ates in an illegal striDe loses .is em,loyment status. <.us# t.e union officers were legally dismissed. $ut for a union mem(er to lose .is em,loyment status# .e s.ould .ave committed illegal acts during t.e striDe# liDe acts of violence# coercion or intimidation or o(struction of ingress to or egress from t.e em,loyerPs ,remises for lawful ,ur,oses or o(struction of ,u(lic t.oroug.fares. <.e union mem(ers# including Cesar <rino# did not commit any of t.ese acts. <.us# it would (e illegal to dismiss t.em.
Ri$<t t2 St#iG : i** $!* *2;G2)t (199,)

?ifty ,ercent (40M of t.e em,loyees of %randeur Com,any went on striDe after negotiations for a collective (argaining agreement ended in a deadlocD. %randeur Com,any# (eing a ,u(lic utility# immediately ,etitioned t.e Secretary of La(or and &m,loyment to assume :urisdiction and certify t.e case to t.e 'L!C. 9n t.e fourt. day of t.e striDe and (efore t.e ;9L& Secretary could assume :urisdiction or certify t.e case to t.e 'L!C# t.e striDers communicated in writing t.eir offer to return to worD. %randeur Com,any refused to acce,t t.e offer of t.e striDers (ecause it realiGed t.at t.ey were not at all ca,a(le of ,aralyGing t.e o,erations of t.e com,any. <.e striDers accused %randeur Com,any of illegal locDout.
Fas %randeur Com,any committed t.e act c.arged (y refusing to acce,t t.e offer of t.e striDers to return to worDK ;iscuss fully. SUGGESTE7 ANSWER' <.ere is no law t.at ,ro.i(its striDers to decide not
(y t.e em,loyer to .ave lost t.eir em,loyment
<.us# t.e com,any committed an illegal locDout in refusing to acce,t t.e offer of t.e striDers to return to worD. Under t.e set of facts in t.e Euestion# t.e Com,any did not give t.e reEuired notice to locDout# muc. less did it o(serve t.e necessary waiting ,eriod# nor did it taDe a needed vote on t.e locDout. <.us# t.e locDout is illegal.
status .ave# if anyK SUGGESTE7 ANSWER'

) '9. <.e striDe is not legal. <.e La(or Code ,rovides t.at no la(or organiGation s.all declare a striDe wit.out first .aving (argained collectively in accordance wit. its <itle AII of $ooD A# w.ic. in turn ,rovides t.at during conciliation ,roceedings at t.e 'C8$# t.e ,arties are ,ro.i(ited from doing any act t.at may disru,t or im,ede t.e early settlement of t.e dis,ute. (Arts. /16(a # also /40(d - La(or Code
Ri$<t t2 St#iG : i** $!* 4t#iG : L244 23 E?-*2&? "t (1994)

Union A filed a 'otice of StriDe wit. t.e 'ational Conciliation and 8ediation $oard ('C8$ of t.e ;e,artment of La(or and &m,loyment. U,on a motion to dismiss (y t.e Com,any on t.e ground t.at t.e acts com,lained of in t.e notice of striDe are non-striDea(le. <.e 'C8$ dismissed t.e 'otice of StriDe (ut continued to mediate t.e issues contained t.erein to ,revent t.e escalation of t.e dis,ute (etween t.e ,arties. @.ile t.e 'C8$ was conducting mediation ,roceedings# t.e Union ,roceeded to conduct a striDe vote as ,rovided for under t.e La(or Code. After o(servance of t.e ,rocedural ,rocesses reEuired under t.e Code# t.e Union declared a striDe.
ALTERNATI9E ANSWER'
a <.e striDe is not legal# considering t.at it was declared after t.e 'C8$ dismissed t.e 'otice of StriDe. Fence# it is as if# no notice of striDe was filed. A striDe declared wit.out a notice of striDe is illegal# (%9P-CCP vs. CI!# *3 SC!A ))+ .
( 'o. <.e striDe is illegal. It is already settled in t.e case of PAL vs. Secretary of La(or (;rilon t.at t.e ,endency of a mediation ,roceedings is a (ar to t.e staging of a striDe even if all t.e ,rocedural reEuirements were com,lied wit.. SUGGESTE7 ANSWER'
/ <.e em,loyer may unilaterally declare t.ose w.o ,artici,ated in t.e striDe as .aving lost t.eir em,loyment status (ut suc. unilateral declaration does not necessarily mean t.at t.ere(y t.e striDers
). /.
3.
Is t.e striDe legalK Can t.e em,loyer unilaterally declare t.ose w.o ,artici,ated in t.e striDe as .aving lost t.eir em,loyment statusK
@.at recourse do t.ese em,loyees (declared
Page 35 of 108
are legally dismissed. <.e striDers could still file a case of illegal dismissal and ,rove# if t.ey can# t.at t.ere was no :ust cause for t.eir dismissal. ALTERNATI9E ANSWER'
a <.e em,loyer cannot unilaterally declare t.ose
Certification of la(or dis,ute for immediate assum,tion of :urisdiction (y t.e Secretary of t.e ;e,artment of La(or and &m,loyment# as
indis,ensa(le to national interest. (Art. /13 LgN#

La(or Code . ). $ulletin ;aily 'ews,a,er. Access to information# e.g.# local# foreign# or ot.erwise are reEuirements for an informed citiGenry.
w.o ,artici,ated in t.e Illegal striDe as .aving lost

t.eir em,loyment status. 9nly t.e union officers w.o Dnowingly ,artici,ated In t.e striDe and
worDers w.o Dnowingly ,artici,ated in t.e commission of illegal acts. If any# may (e declared
to .ave lost t.eir em,loyment status. (Art. /16 . ( <.e em,loyer .as two o,tions5 ). It may declare t.e striDers as .aving lost t.eir em,loyment status ,ursuant to Art. /16 of t.e La(or Code# or
/. S.i,,ing and ,ort services in Ce(u and 8anila.

<.e country needs domestic sea trans,ort due to
our to,ogra,.y and for t.e smoot. flow of

(usiness and government o,erations. 3. L$C# ;FL# ?&;&x Centers. Couriers are essential to foreign and domestic (usiness and government o,erations. Ri$<t t2 St#iG : I"d)4t#i 4 9it!* t2 N!ti2"!* I"t # 4t: R t)#" t2 W2#G O#d # (1996) A deadlocD in t.e negotiations for t.e collective
/.
It may file a case (efore t.e La(or Ar(iter# under Art# /)2# to .ave t.e striDe declared
illegal and after t.at ,roceed to terminate
t.e striDers. SUGGESTE7 ANSWER'

3 <.ey could file a case of illegal dismissal. <.e
(argaining agreement (etween O College and t.e
striDers w.o are union officers may contend t.at
t.e striDe is not illegal. <.e striDers w.o are mere union mem(ers may contend t.at t.ey did not commit any Illegal acts during t.e striDe. (Art# /16# La(or Code ALTERNATI9E ANSWER' a <.e em,loyees w.o were declared to .ave lost
t.eir em,loyment status can file a com,laint for illegal dismissal wit. t.e 'L!C# or seeD t.e
Union ,rom,ted t.e latter# after duly notifying t.e ;9L&# to declare a striDe on 'ovem(er 4 w.ic. totally ,aralyGed t.e o,erations of t.e sc.ool. <.e La(or Secretary immediately assumed
Jurisdiction over t.e dis,ute and issued on t.e

same day ('ovem(er 4 a return to worD order. U,on recei,t of t.e order# t.e striDing union officers and mem(ers on 'ovem(er 2# filed a motion for reconsideration t.ereof Euestioning t.e La(or SecretaryPs assum,tion of :urisdiction# and continued wit. t.e striDe during t.e ,endency of t.eir motion. 9n 'ovem(er 30# t.e La(or Secretary denied
assistance of t.e 'C8$ for conciliation7 mediation. ( <.e recourse of t.e worDers w.ose em,loyment
status are declared to .ave (een lost is to file a
case of illegal dismissal under Art. /)2 of t.e Code# and to ,ray for t.e sus,ension of t.e effects
of termination under Article /22(( of t.e said Code (ecause t.is involves a mass lay-off.
reconsideration of .is return to worD order and

furt.er noting t.e striDerPs failure to immediately return to worD terminated t.eir em,loyment.
In assailing t.e La(or SecretaryPs decision# t.e

Union contends t.at5 ). t.e La(or Secretary erroneously assumed :urisdiction over t.e dis,ute since O College could not (e considered an industry indis,ensa(le to national interest-
Ri$<t t2 St#iG : I"d)4t#i 4 9it!* t2 N!ti2"!*

I"t # 4t (2004) @.ic. of t.e following may (e considered among industries most vital to national interest as to (e
t.e su(:ect of immediate assum,tion of :urisdiction (y t.e Secretary of La(or and &m,loyment or
certification for com,ulsory ar(itration in case of striDe or worD sto,,age arising from a la(or
/.
t.e striDers were under no o(ligation to

immediately com,ly wit. t.e 'ovem(er 4
return to worD order (ecause of t.eir t.en

3. ,ending motion for reconsideration of suc. order5 and t.e striDe (eing legal# t.e em,loyment of t.e
dis,uteK () $ulletin news,a,er daily ,u(lis.ing com,any. (/ Local franc.ise of Jolli(ee and Star(ucDs.
(3 S.i,,ing and ,ort services in Ce(u and 8anila. (6 &nc.anted Uingdom# &le,.ant Island and
striDing Union officers and mem(ers cannot (e

terminated. !ule on t.ese contention. &x,lain. SUGGESTE7 ANSWERS' )T <.e Su,reme Court .as already ruled t.at educational institutions are in an industry indis,ensa(le to t.e national interest# considering
$oracay !esort. (4 L$C# ;FL and ?ed&x centers. Justify your answer or c.oice. (4M SUGGESTE7 ANSWER'
Page #% of 108
t.e grave adverse effects t.at t.eir closure entails on t.eir students and teac.ers. / <.e striDing worDers must immediately com,ly wit. a Ret#rn to Wor+ Order even ,ending t.eir motion for reconsideration. Com,liance is a duty im,osed (y law# and a !eturn to @orD 9rder is immediately executory in c.aracter. <.e nature of a !eturn to @orD 9rder# was c.aracteriGed (y t.e Su,reme Court in Sarmiento v. Juico# )1/ SC!A 121 ()*++ as5
It is also im,ortant to em,.asiGe t.at t.e return to worD order not so muc. confers a rig.t as it im,oses a duty. It must (e disc.arged as a duty even against t.e worDersP will. !eturning to worD in t.is situation is not a matter of o,tions or voluntariness (ut of o(ligation.
a lawful striDe s.ould not constitute sufficient
In $aguio Colleges ?oundation v. 'L!C# /// SC!A 106 ()**3 t.e Court ruled5 Assum,tion and certification orders are executory in c.aracter and are to (e strictly com,lied wit. (y t.e ,arties even during t.e ,endency of any ,etition Euestioning t.eir validity. 3 <.e continuing striDe is illegal (ecause it is in defiance of a return to worD order of t.e Secretary of La(or and &m,loyment# .ence# termination of em,loyment of all t.ose w.o ,artici,ated w.et.er officer or mem(er# is legal. In Sta. Sc.olasticaPs College v. <orres. /)0 SC!A 414 ()**/ # t.e Court ruled5 Any worDer or union officer w.o Dnowingly ,artici,ates in a striDe defying a return to worD order may# conseEuently# (e declared to .ave lost .is em,loyment status in accordance wit. Art. /61 of t.e La(or Code.
Ri$<t t2 St#iG : L!83)* St#iG : E33 ;t 2" /!#ti;i-!"t4 (199.) A striDe was staged in 8ella Cor,oration (ecause of a deadlocD in C$A negotiations over certain economic ,rovisions. ;uring t.e striDe# 8ella Cor,oration .ired re,lacements for t.e worDers w.o went on striDe. <.ereafter# t.e striDers decided to resume t.eir em,loyment. Can 8ella Cor,oration (e o(liged to reinstate t.e returning worDers to t.eir ,revious ,ositionsK SUGGESTE7 ANSWER'
I&S. 8ella Cor,oration can (e o(ligated to reinstate t.e returning worDers to t.eir ,revious ,ositions. @orDers w.o go on striDe do not lose t.eir em,loyment status exce,t w.en# w.ile on striDe# t.ey Dnowingly ,artici,ated in t.e commission of illegal acts. <.e La(or Code ex,ressly ,rovides5 8ere ,artici,ation of a worDer in
ground for termination of .is em,loyment# even if a re,lacement .ad (een .ired (y t.e em,loyer during suc. lawful striDe.
Confessor# %.!. 'o. )013)1# 8ay 4#)**2La,anday @orDersP Union v. 'L!C# %.!. 'os. *46*6-*2# Se,tem(er 2# )**4- Art. /16# La(or Code .
Ri$<t t2 St#iG : L!83)*: Ri$<t t2 R i"B 4t!t ? "t (2006)

As a result of (argaining deadlocD (etween !9S& Cor,oration and !9S& &m,loyees Union# its mem(ers staged a striDe. ;uring t.e striDe# several em,loyees committed illegal acts. <.e com,any refused to give in to t.e unionPs demands. &ventually# its mem(ers informed t.e com,any of t.eir intention to return to worD. ()0M
Ri$<t t2 St#iG : Li?it!ti2"4 (2000)

A. @.at is t.e rationale for t.e State regulation of striDe activity and w.at are t.e interests involved t.at t.e State must (alance and reconcileK (3M $. Cite two (/ exam,les on .ow t.e law regulates t.e use of t.e striDe as a form of concerted activity. (/M SUGGESTE7 ANSWER' a <.e first rationale is t.e constitutional ,rovision t.at t.e rig.t to striDe is to (e exercised Cin accordance wit. lawC. Anot.er rationale is t.e Civil Code ,rovision t.at t.e relations (etween em,loyer and em,loyee are im(ued wit. ,u(lic interest and are su(:ect to t.e ,rovisions of s,ecial law. A t.ird rationale is t.e ,olice ,ower of t.e state.
<.e interests to (e (alanced are t.e rig.ts of t.e worDers# as ,rimary socio-economic force# to ,rotection of t.e law# to security of tenure# to concerted activities# etc. <.ese s.ould (e (alanced wit. t.e rig.t of t.e em,loyer to reasona(le return on investment and to ex,ansion and growt.. %eneral welfare or t.e general ,eace
). Can !9S& Cor,oration refuse to admit all t.e striDersK SUGGESTE7 ANSWER'
!ose Cor,oration cannot refuse to admit all t.e striDers. Partici,ants in a lawful striDe generally .ave t.e rig.t to reinstatement to t.eir ,ositions u,on t.e termination of t.e striDe (Insular Life Assurance Co. &m,loyees Assn. v. Insular Life Assurance Co.# %.!. 'o. L-/4/*)# January 30# )*2*- Consolidated La(or Assn. of t.e P.il. v. 8arsman = Co.# Inc.# %.!. 'o. L-)203+# July 3)# )*16 . Fowever# t.e La(or Code ,rovides t.at any worDer or union officer w.o Dnowingly ,artici,ates in t.e commission of illegal acts during a striDe may (e deemed to .ave lost .is em,loyment status ($ascon v. CA# %.!. 'o. )66+**# ?e(ruary 4# /006- ?irst City InterlinD <rans. Co.# Inv. v.
Page #& of 108
and ,rogress of society s.ould also (e considered. <.is is w.y assum,tion of Jurisdiction and certification to 'L!C are allowed in Cnational interestC cases. VArt. /13# La(or Code- !aw at $uDlod ng 8anggagawa v. 'L!C# )*+ SC!A 4+1 ()**) - La,anday @orDers Union v. 'L!C# /6+ SC!A *1 ()**4 T
EXAM/LES' () ,rocedural reEuirements s.ould (e o(served# namely# filing of notice of striDe# o(servance of cooling-off ,eriod# taDing of striDe note# and re,ort of t.e striDe vote- (/ use of violence# intimidation or coercion and (locDade of ingress-egress are not allowed. (Art /13 (( (c (f (g # La(or Code .
La(or Union# )00 P.il 2+* ()*42 5 CruG v. Cinema Stage# etc.# )0) P.il )/4* ()*42TN ALTERNATI9E ANSWER'
'o# t.e ,icDeting activity itself cannot (e curtailed. @.at can (e curtailed are t.e Illegal acts (eing done in t.e course of t.e ,icDet. Fowever# if t.is is a Cnational InterestC case under Art /13(g # t.e striDe or worD sto,,age may (e sto,,ed (y t.e ,ower of assum,tion of Jurisdiction or certification of t.e case to t.e 'ational La(or !elations Commission. V'agDaDaisang 8angagawa sa Cuison Fotel v. Li(ron# )/6 SC!A 66+ ()*+3 ?ree <ele,.one @orDers Union v. PL;<# ))3 SC!A 11/ ()*+/ N.
Ri$<t t2 St#iG : N!ti2"!* I"t # 4t: 7OLE S ;= i"t #6 "ti2" (2004)

&m,loyees of A$C declared a striDe after filing a 'otice of StriDe wit. t.e ;9L&. <.ey (arricaded com,any gates and damaged ve.icles entering com,any ,remises. 9n t.e second day of t.e striDe# A$C filed a ,etition wit. t.e ;9L& Secretary to intervene t.roug. t.e issuance of an assum,tion of :urisdiction order t.at t.e Secretary may issue w.en a striDe or locD-out will adversely affect national interest. A$C furnis.ed t.e Secretary wit. evidence to s.ow t.at com,any ve.icles .ad (een damaged- t.at electric ,ower .ad (een cut off- and eEui,ment and materials were damaged (ecause electric ,ower was not immediately restored. A$C forecast t.at t.e country>s su,,ly of c.lorine for water treatment (w.ic. t.e com,any ,roduces would (e affected adversely if A$C>s o,erations were closed down (y t.e striDers.
Ri$<t t2 St#iG : /i;G ti"$ A;ti6it&: i** $!* di4?i44!* (2004)

$. President ?O# .ead of a newly formed la(or union com,osed of )73 of t.e total num(er of ranDand-file em,loyees in Su,er Stores# Inc.# agitated .is fellow em,loyees to demand from management ,ay increases and overtime ,ay. Fis su,ervisor summoned .im to ex,lain .is tardiness and refusal to o(ey regulations. ?eeling t.reatened# .e gat.ered /0 of .is mem(ers and staged a /-day ,icDet in front of t.e s.o,,ing mall. Security staff arrived and dismantled t.e ,lacards and (arricades (locDing t.e em,loyees> entry to t.e mall. In retaliation# ?O t.rew stones at t.e guards# (ut t.e ot.er striDing worDers :ust stood (y watc.ing .im. Seven days after t.e ,icDet# ?O w.o .ad gone a(sent wit.out leave returned to t.e mall and announced t.at .e .ad filed a com,laint for illegal dismissal and unfair la(or ,ractice against SSI.
SSI learned t.at ?O>s grou, was not registered. 'o striDe vote and striDe notice were filed ,rior to t.e ,icDet. <.e guards were told not to allow ?O entry to t.e com,any ,remises as management considered .im effectively terminated. 9t.er union mem(ers were acce,ted (acD to worD (y SSI.
Could t.e ;9L& Secretary intervene# assume :urisdiction and issue a <!9 (<em,orary !estraining 9rder K $riefly :ustify your answer. (4M
Ri$<t t2 St#iG : /i;G ti"$ A;ti6it& (2000) <.e worDers engaged in ,icDeting activity in t.e course of a striDe. a @ill ,icDeting (e legal if non-em,loyees of t.e striDe-(ound em,loyer ,artici,ate in t.e activityK (3M ( Can ,icDeting activity (e curtailed w.en illegal acts are committed (y t.e ,icDeting worDers in t.e course of t.e activityK (3M SUGGESTE7 ANSWER'
Ies# t.e ,icDeting is legal even t.oug. nonem,loyees :oin it. PicDeting is a form of t.e exercise of freedom of s,eec.. PicDeting# ,rovided it is .eld ,eacefully# is a constitutional rig.t. <.e dis,utants in a legal dis,ute need not (e em,loyerem,loyee of eac. ot.er. L;e Leon v. 'ational
@as t.e dismissal of ?O for a valid causeK @as due ,rocess o(servedK (4M SUGGESTE7 ANSWER' <.ere is a valid cause for t.e dismissal of ?O# (ut due ,rocess was not o(served.
Peaceful ,icDeting is ,art of t.e constitutional freedom of s,eec.. <.e rig.t to free s,eec.# .owever# .as its limits# and ,icDeting as a concerted activity is su(:ect to t.e same limitations as a striDe# ,articularly as to lawful ,ur,ose and lawful means. $ut it does not .ave to com,ly wit. t.e ,rocedural reEuirements for a lawful striDe# liDe t.e notice of striDe or t.e striDe vote.
Fowever# in t.e ,ro(lem given# ,icDeting (ecame illegal (ecause of unlawful means# as (arricades
(locDed t.e em,loyeesP entry to t.e mall# and
Page #' of 108
violence# ensued w.en ?O t.rew stones at t.e guards. <.ere was t.us# valid cause for t.e dismissal of ?O# .owever# due ,rocess was not o(served (ecause SSI did not com,ly wit. t.e twin reEuirements of notice and .earing.
w.o ,artici,ated in t.e striDe dismissed from em,loyment. (a @as t.e act of 8anila AirlinesP management in dismissing t.e ,artici,ants in t.e striDe validK (( @.at are t.e effects of an assum,tion of :urisdiction (y t.e Secretary of La(or u,on t.e striDing em,loyees and 8anila AirlinesK SUGGESTE7 ANSWER' (a Ies. <.e act of 8anila AirlinesP management in dismissing t.e ,artici,ants in t.e striDe is valid# in a num(er of Su,reme Court decisions# it .as ruled t.at t.e defiance (y worDers of a return to worD order of t.e Secretary of La(or issued w.en .e assumes :urisdiction over a la(or dis,ute is an illegal act and could (e t.e (asis of a legal dismissal. <.e return to worD order im,oses a duty- it must (e disc.arged as a duty even against t.e worDersP will.
(( @.en t.e Secretary of La(or assumes :urisdiction over a striDe# all striDing em,loyees s.all immediately return to worD and t.e em,loyer s.all immediately resume o,erations and readmit all worDers under t.e same terms and conditions ,revailing (efore t.e striDe. LArt. /13(E N.
Ri$<t t2 St#iG : R t)#" t2 W2#G O#d # (1994) <.e Secretary of La(or assumed :urisdiction over a striDe under Art. /13(g of t.e La(or Code and issued a return-to-worD order. <.e Union defied t.e return-to-worD order and continued t.e striDe. <.e Com,any ,roceeded to declare all t.ose w.o ,artici,ated in t.e striDe as .aving lost t.eir em,loyment status. ) @as t.e Com,anyPs action validK / @as t.e Com,any still duty (ound to o(serve t.e reEuirements of due ,rocess (efore declaring t.ose w.o ,artici,ated in t.e striDe as .aving lost t.eir em,loyment statusK SUGGESTE7 ANSWER' ) <.e Com,anyPs action is valid. Any declaration of a striDe after t.e Secretary of La(or .as assumed :urisdiction over a la(or dis,ute is considered an illegal act# and any worDer or union officer w.o Dnowingly ,artici,ates in a striDe defying a return-toworD order may conseEuently (e declared to .ave lost .is em,loyment status and forfeited .is rig.t to (e readmitted# .aving a(andoned .is ,osition# and so could (e validly re,laced.
?or t.e moment a worDer defies a return-to-worD order# .e is deemed to .ave a(andoned .is :o(# as it is already in itself Dnowingly ,artici,ating in an illegal act# ot.erwise t.e worDer will sim,ly refuse to return to .is worD and cause a standstill in com,any o,erations w.ile returning t.e ,osition .e refuses to disc.arge or allow management to fill. (St. Sc.olasticaPs College vs. Fon. !u(en <orres# Secretary of La(or# etal.# %.!. 'o. )00)4+. /* June )**/.
Ri$<t t2 St#iG : R t)#" t2 W2#G O#d # (1995) <.e Secretary of La(or and &m,loyment# after assum,tion of :urisdiction over a la(or dis,ute in an airline issued a !eturn to @orD 9rder. <.e airline filed a 8otion for !econsideration of t.e 9rder and ,ending resolution of t.e motion# deferred t.e im,lementation of t.e 9rder. Can t.e airline defer t.e im,lementation of t.e !eturn to @orD 9rder ,ending resolution of t.e motion for reconsiderationK L4MN SUGGESTE7 ANSWER'
<.e airline cannot defer t.e im,lementation of t.e !eturn to @orD 9rder on t.e (asis of t.ere (eing a ,ending 8otion for !econsideration re5 t.e assum,tion of :urisdiction (y t.e Secretary of La(or and &m,loyment of a la(or dis,ute. According to t.e Su,reme Court# t.e !eturn to @orD 9rder issued (y t.e Secretary of La(or and &m,loyment u,on .is assum,tion of :urisdiction over a la(or dis,ute in an industry indis,ensa(le for t.e national interest is immediately executory.
SUGGESTE7 ANSWER' / Considering t.at t.e worDers w.o defied t.e return-to-worD order are deemed to .ave a(andoned t.eir em,loyment# t.e only o(ligation reEuired of an em,loyer is to serve notices declaring t.em to .ave lost t.eir em,loyment status at t.e worDerPs last Dnown address. (Sec. / !ule OIA# $ooD A# !ules Im,lementing t.e La(or Code
Ri$<t t2 St#iG : R t)#" t2 W2#G O#d # (199.)

<.e Secretary of La(or assumed Jurisdiction over a striDe in 8anila Airlines and eventually issued a return-to-worD. <.e 8anila Airlines &m,loyees Union defied t.e return-to-worD order and continued wit. t.eir striDe. <.e management of 8anila Airlines t.en declared all t.e em,loyees
ANOT0ER SUGGESTE7 ANSWER' 'o# t.e airline cannot defer t.e im,lementation of a return to worD order ,ending resolution of a 8otion for !econsideration. <.e La(or Code reads W
Art. /13. StriDes# ,icDeting# and locDouts. - xxx (g @.en# in .is o,inion# t.ere exists a la(or dis,ute causing or liDely to cause a striDe or locDout in an industry indis,ensa(le to t.e national interest# t.e Secretary of La(or and &m,loyment may assume :urisdiction over t.e
dis,ute and decide it or certify t.e same to t.e
Page 39 of 108
Commission for com,ulsory ar(itration. Suc.
).
@.at are t.e statutory reEuisites for a valid
assum,tion or certification s.all .ave t.e effect

of automatically en:oining t.e intended or im,ending striDe... as s,ecified in t.e
striDe (y t.e worDersK S.ould t.ese reEuisites

(e com,lied wit. su(stantially or strictlyK SUGGESTE7 ANSWERS' <.e S<A<U<9!I !&JUISI<&S for a valid striDe are t.e following5 ). A striDe may (e declared only in cases of
assum,tion or certification order. If one .as already taDen ,lace at t.e time of assum,tion
or certification# all striDing em,loyees ...s.all
immediately return to worD# (underscoring su,,lied

<.e Su,reme Court# in $aguio Colleges
(argaining deadlocDs or unfair la(or ,ractices.

Aiolations of Collective (argaining agreements# exce,t flagrant and7or malicious refusal to com,ly wit. its economic ,rovisions# s.all not (e considered unfair la(or ,ractice and s.all
?oundation A 'L!C. /// SC!A 106 ()**4 # ruled xxx assum,tion and certification orders are executory in c.aracter and are to (e strictly com,lied wit. (y t.e ,arties even during t.e ,endency of any ,etition Euestioning t.eir validity. $eing executory in c.aracter# t.ere was /.
not (e striDea(le. 'o striDe or locDout may (e

declared on grounds involving inter-union and intra-union dis,utes.
'o striDe may (e declared wit.out first .aving filed a notice of striDe or wit.out t.e necessary striDe vote .aving (een o(tained and re,orted
to t.e 'ational Conciliation and 8ediation $oard. A striDe may actually taDe ,lace only after a 30-day waiting ,eriod after notice was
filed for a striDe arising from a (argaining
not.ing for t.e ,arties to do (ut im,lement t.e same# (underscoring su,,lied
Ri$<t t2 St#iG : R t)#" t2 W2#G O#d #:
deadlocD or after = )4-day waiting ,eriod for an unfair la(or ,ractice striDe. 'otice a(out a
A44)?-ti2" O#d # (200>)

In a la(or dis,ute# t.e Secretary of La(or issued
striDe vote s.ould (e given seven days (efore

t.e intended striDe. 3.
an CAssum,tion 9rderC. %ive t.e legal im,lications

of suc. an order.
'o striDe can (e declared after assum,tion of

:urisdiction (y t.e Secretary of La(or and &m,loyment or after certification or su(mission of t.e dis,ute to com,ulsory or voluntary
SUGGESTE7 ANSWER' Under Art. /13(g of t.e La(or Code# suc.

assum,tion s.all .ave t.e effect of automatically en:oining t.e intended or im,ending striDe or
ar(itration or during t.e ,endency of cases

involving t.e same grounds for t.e striDe or locDout. <.e a(ove reEuisites are to (e com,lied wit. strictly. <.us# t.e Su,reme Court .as ruled t.at
locDout as s,ecified in t.e assum,tion order. If one .ad already taDen ,lace at t.e time of assum,tion# all striDing or locDout em,loyees s.all immediately return to worD and t.e em,loyer s.all immediately resume o,erations and re-admit all worDers under
t.e same terms and conditions ,revailing (efore
non-com,liance of t.e reEuirements of notice or a striDe vote or of t.e waiting ,eriods maDes a striDe
an illegal striDe. ANOT0ER SUGGESTE7 ANSWER' S<A<U<9!I !&JUI!&8&'<S for a Aalid StriDe A. S<A<US 9? S<!IUI'% U'I9' ?or a ULP striDe or (argaining deadlocD striDe# only a duly-certified or -recogniGed (argaining re,resentative may declare suc. striDe. $. P!9C&;U!AL !&JUI!&8&'<S () 'otice of Intent. ?iling of 'otice of Intent to StriDe wit. t.e 'C8$. (/ Cooling-off Period.9(servance of Cooling-off Period.
t.e striDe or locDout. <.e Secretary of La(or and &m,loyment may seeD t.e assistance of law enforcement agencies to
ensure com,liance wit. t.is ,rovision as well as wit. suc. orders as .e may issue to enforce t.e same.
<.e mere issuance of an assum,tion order (y t.e

Secretary of La(or automatically carries wit. it a
return-to-worD order# even if t.e directive to return

to worD is not ex,ressly stated in t.e assum,tion order. <.ose w.o violate t.e foregoing s.all (e su(:ect to disci,linary action or even criminal
,rosecution. Under Art. /16 of t.e La(or Code# no

striDe or locDout s.all (e declared after t.e
(a ((
(3
assum,tion of :urisdiction (y t.e Secretary.

Ri$<t t2 St#iG : St!t)t2#& R H)i4it 4: /#2; d)#!* R H)i# ? "t4 (2004)
ULP - )4 days (efore intended date of striDe $argaining ;eadlocD - 30 days (efore
intended date of striDe.
StriDe Aote and ?iling of t.e same wit. t.e

'C8$ and t.e o(servance of t.e seven (2 days striDe (an. LArt. /13 (c-f # La(or CodeN.
&numerate and discuss (riefly5
Page ,) of 108
C. CAUS& <.e cause of a striDe must (e a la(or or industrial dis,ute. LArt. /)/fo . La(or Code. Com,liance wit. all legal reEuirements are meant to (e and s.ould (e mandatory. ('ational ?ederation of Sugar @orDers v. 9va:era# ))6 SC!A 346 L)*+/N .
,roduction of com,uter c.i,s for ex,ort# declined
Ri$<t t2 St#iG : T ?-2#!#& St2--!$ (2002)

&aglestar Com,any reEuired a /6-.our o,eration and em(odied t.is reEuirement in t.e em,loyment contracts of its em,loyees. <.e em,loyees agreed to worD on Sundays and Folidays if t.eir worD sc.edule reEuired t.em to do so for w.ic. t.ey would (e ,aid additional com,ensation as ,rovided (y law. Last 8arc. /000# t.e union filed a notice of striDe. U,on &aglestarPs ,etition# t.e Secretary of La(or certified t.e la(or dis,ute to t.e 'L!C for com,ulsory ar(itration. 9n A,ril /0# /000 (8aundy <.ursday # w.ile conciliation meetings were ,ending# t.e union officers and mem(ers w.o were su,,osed to (e on duty did not re,ort for worD. 'eit.er did t.ey re,ort for worD on A,ril /) (%ood ?riday and on A,ril // ($lacD Saturday # disru,ting t.e factoryPs o,erations and causing it .uge losses. <.e union denied it .ad gone on a striDe (ecause t.e days w.en its officers and mem(ers were a(sent from worD were legal .olidays. Is t.e contention of t.e union correctK &x,lain (riefly. (4M
SUGGESTE7 ANSWER'
<.e contention of t.e union is '9< correct. In t.e case# it is clear t.at t.e em,loyees agreed to worD on Sundays and Folidays if t.eir worD sc.edule reEuired t.em to do so for w.ic. t.ey would (e ,aid additional com,ensation as ,rovided (y law. <.e a(ove-mentioned agreement t.at t.e em,loyees voluntarily entered into is valid. It is not contrary to law. It is ,rovided in t.e agreement t.at if t.ey will worD Sundays or Folidays t.at t.ey will (e ,aid additional com,ensation as ,rovided (y law. 'eit.er is t.e agreement contrary to morals# good customs# ,u(lic order or ,u(lic ,olicy.
<.us# w.en t.e worDers did not re,ort for worD w.en (y agreement t.ey were su,,osed to (e on duty# t.ere was a tem,orary sto,,age of worD (y t.e concerted action of t.e em,loyees as a result of an Industrial or la(or dis,ute (ecause t.ey were on striDe. LSee Inter,.il La(oratories &m,loyees Union-??@ v. Inter,.il La(oratories Inc.# %! 'o. )6/+/6# ;ecem(er )*# /00)T
Ri$<t t2 St#iG : Wi*d;!t St#iG (199.)

<.e Uilusang Ua(isig# a newly-formed la(or union claiming to re,resent a ma:ority of t.e worDers in t.e 8icroc.i, Cor,oration# ,roceeded to ,resent a list of demands to t.e management for ,ur,oses of collective (argaining. <.e 8icroc.i,s Cor,oration# a multinational cor,oration engaged in t.e
to talD wit. t.e union leaders# alleging t.at t.ey .ad not as yet ,resented any ,roof of ma:ority status.
<.e Uilusang Ua(isig t.en c.ained 8icroc.i, Cor,oration wit. unfair la(or ,ractice# and declared a CwildcatC striDe w.erein means of ingress and egress were (locDed and remote and isolated acts of destruction and violence were committed.
a (
@as t.e striDe legalK @as t.e com,any guilty of an unfair la(or ,ractice w.en it refused to negotiate wit. t.e Uilusang Ua(isigK SUGGESTE7 ANSWERS'
(a $ecause w.at was declared is a CwildcatC striDe# t.e striDe is illegal. A CwildcatC striDe is one t.at is one declared (y a grou, of worDers wit.out formal union a,,roval. <.us# it is illegal (ecause t.e La(or Code reEuires t.at for a striDe to (e legal# among ot.ers# t.e decision to declare a striDe must (e a,,roved (y a ma:ority of t.e total union mem(ers.i, in t.e (argaining unit concerned# o(tained (y a secret (allot in meetings or referenda called for t.at ,ur,ose.
/ <.e striDe is not illegal. ?or t.e striDe to (e illegal (ecause of violence# it s.ould (e c.aracteriGed (y ,ervasive violence. Fere# t.ere were only remote and violated acts of destruction and violence. $ut even if t.e striDe is not illegal# t.ose striDers w.o committed illegal acts# namely# t.ose w.o (locDed t.e means of ingress and egress and w.o committed acts of destruction and violence# t.ese striDers can (e legally dismissed.
Ri$<t t2 St#iG : W2#G S*28d28" (1995) <.e day following t.e worDersP voluntary return to worD# t.e Com,any Production 8anager discovered an unusual and s.ar, dro, in worDersP out,ut. It was evidently clear t.at t.e worDers are engaged in a worD slowdown activity. Is t.e worD slowdown a valid form of striDe activityK L4MN SUGGESTE7 ANSWER'
A @9!U SL9@;9@' is not a valid form of striDe activity. If worDers are to striDe# t.ere s.ould (e tem,orary sto,,age of worD (y t.e concerted action of em,loyees as a result of an industrial or la(or dis,ute (See Article /l/(o of t.e La(or Code
a.l <.e striDe is illegal. <.e La(or Code recogniGes only one of two (/ grounds for a striDe to (e legal5 (argaining deadlocD or unfair la(or ,ractice. A striDe to com,el an em,loyer to recogniGe a union is not allowed (y law.

'o# a slowdown is not a valid form of striDe activity. <.e Su,reme Court in Ilaw at $uDlod ng 8anggagawa v. 'L!C )*+ SC!A 4+1 ()**) ruled <.e Court is in su(stantial agreement wit. t.e
Page ,
of 108
,etitionerPs conce,t of a slowdown as a CstriDe on t.e installment ,lanC# as a willful reduction in t.e rate of worD (y conceited action of worDers for t.e ,ur,ose of restricting t.e out,ut of t.e em,loyer# in relation to a la(or dis,ute# as an activity (y w.ic. worDers# wit.out a com,lete sto,,age of worD retard ,roduction or t.eir ,erformance of t.eir duties... <.e Court also agrees t.at suc. slowdown is generally condemned as in.erently illicit and un:ustifia(le# (ecause w.ile t.e em,loyees Ccontinue to worD and remain at t.eir ,ositions# and acce,t wages ,aid to t.emC# t.ey at t.e same time select w.at ,art of t.eir alloted tasDs t.ey care to ,erform of t.eir own volition or refuse o,enly# or secretly# to t.e em,loyers damage# to do ot.er worD- in ot.er words# t.ey worD on t.eir own terms. LiDewise# a slowdown is not a valid form of concerted activity# a(sent a la(or dis,ute (etween t.e ,arties. <.e La(or Code reads - Art. /)/. . W xxx Co CStriDeC means any tem,orary sto,,age of worD (y t.e concerted action of em,loyees as a result of an industrial or la(or dis,ute.
@.en t.e law ,rovides t.at a Cla(or organiGation xxx s.all acEuire legal ,ersonality xxx u,on issuance of t.e certificate of registrationC# t.e date a,,earing t.erein is legally ,resumed - under t.e rule on ,resum,tion of regularity - to (e its date of issuance. Actual issuance is a contentious evidentiary issue t.at can .ardly (e resolved# not to mention t.at t.e law does not s,eaD of CactualC issuance. S *3 O#$!"iJ!ti2": A--#2-#i!t B!#$!i"i"$ U"it: C2"3id "ti!* E?-*2& 4 (2002)
8alou is t.e &xecutive Secretary of t.e Senior Aice-,resident of a (anD w.ile Ana is t.e Legal Secretary of t.e (anDPs lawyer. <.ey and ot.er executive secretaries would liDe to :oin t.e union of ranD and file em,loyees of t.e (anD. Are t.ey eligi(le to :oin t.e unionK @.yK &x,lain (riefly. (3M SUGGESTE7 ANSWER' <.e following rules will govern t.e rig.t of self- organiGation of 8alou# Ana# and t.e ot.er &xecutive Secretaries). 'o !ig.t to Self-9rganiGation R Confidential em,loyees w.o act in a confidential ca,acity to ,ersons w.o formulate# determine# and effectuate management ,olicies in t.e field of la(ormanagement relation. <.e two criteria are cumulative and (ot. must (e met LSan 8iguel Cor,oration Union v. Laguesma# /22 SC!A 320 ()**2 N
ANOT0ER SUGGESTE7 ANSWER' 'o. It is a ,ro.i(ited activity. It can (e said to (e a violation of t.e duty to (argain collectively. <.e union is guilty of (ad fait.. <.e worDers s.ould resume o,erations under t.e same terms and conditions ,revailing ,rior to t.e striDe.
S *3 O#$!"iJ!ti2": A;H)i4iti2" 23 L $!* / #42"!*it& (200>) At w.at ,articular ,oint does a la(or organiGation acEuire a legal ,ersonalityK a 9n t.e date t.e agreement to organiGe t.e union is signed (y t.e ma:ority of all its mem(ers- or ( 9n t.e date t.e a,,lication for registration is duly filed wit. t.e ;e,artment of La(or or c 9n t.e date a,,earing on t.e Certificate of !egistration- or d 9n t.e date t.e Certificate of !egistration is actually issued- or e 'one of t.e a(ove# C.oose t.e correct answer. SUGGESTE7 ANSWER' d. 9n t.e date t.e Certificate of !egistration is actually issued.
Any a,,licant la(or organiGation# association or grou, of unions or worDers s.all acEuire legal ,ersonality and s.all (e entitled to t.e rig.ts and ,rivileges granted (y law to legitimate la(or organiGations u,on issuance of t.e certificate of registration. ANOT0ER SUGGESTE7 ANSWER' (c C9n t.e date a,,earing on t.e Certificate of !egistration.C
/. @it. !ig.t to Self-9rganiGation R @.en t.e em,loyee does not .ave access to confidential la(or relations information# t.ere is no legal ,ro.i(ition against confidential em,loyees from forming# assisting# or :oining a la(or organiGation. LSug(uanon !ural $anD# Inc. v. Laguesma# 3/6 SC!A 6/4 (/000 N
3. 'o rig.t of self-organiGation for Legal Secretaries R Legal Secretaries fall under t.e category of confidential em,loyees wit. no rig.t to serf-organiGation. LPier = Arrastre Stevedoring Services# Inc. v# Confesser# /6) SC!A /*6 ()**4 N S *3 O#$!"iJ!ti2": BLR C #ti3i;!ti2": C #ti3i;!ti2" E* ;ti2" (1995)
Can t.e $ureau of La(or !elations certify a union as t.e exclusive (argaining re,resentative after s.owing ,roof of ma:ority re,resentation t.ru union mem(ers.i, cards wit.out conducting an electionK L4MN SUGGESTE7 ANSWER'
<.e $ureau of La(or !elations CA''9< certify a union as t.e exclusive collective (argaining re,resentative after s.owing of ,roof of ma:ority re,resentation t.ru union mem(ers.i, cards wit.out conducting a certification election.
Page 42 of 108
<.e La(or Code (In Arts. /41# /42 and /4+T
,rovides only for a certification election as t.e

mode for determining t.e exclusive collective (argaining re,resentative if t.ere is a Euestion of re,resentation in an a,,ro,riate (argaining unit.
o(stacles s.ould (e ,laced on t.e .olding of a certification election# (Sama.ang ng 8anggagawa sa Pacific Plastic vs. Laguesma /12 SC!A /03#
()**2 and t.at t.e law is indis,uta(ly ,artial to t.e .olding of a certification election. (@estern Agusan
vs. <ra:ano# )*1 SC!A 1// ()**) . At any rate# U'I;A; com,leted all t.e reEuirements for union registration on July )6#
ANOT0ER SUGGESTE7 ANSWER' 'o# t.e $ureau of La(or !elations cannot certify a
union as t.e exclusive (argaining re,resentative
wit.out conducting a certification election. <.e Su,reme Court# in Colgate Palmolive

P.ili,,ines Inc. v. 9,le. )13 SC!A 3/3 ()*++ #
/00)# and legitimate union status was accorded on July )4# /000# or at least ten ()0 days (efore t.e
sc.eduled &lection. date for .olding t.e Certification
ruled <.e ,rocedure for a re,resentation case is
outlined Lin t.eN La(or Code ... t.e main ,ur,ose

of w.ic. is to aid in ascertaining ma:ority
re,resentation. <.e reEuirements under t.e law

... are all calculated to ensure t.at t.e certified
(argaining re,resentative is t.e true c.oice of
t.e em,loyees against all contenders. xxx @.en an ... official (y-,asses t.e law on t.e ,retext of retaining a lauda(le o(:ective# t.e intendment or
,ur,ose of t.e law will lose its meaning as t.e
S *3 O#$!"iJ!ti2": C #ti3i;!ti2" E* ;ti2": B&4t!"d # R)* (1996) P< = < Su,ervisory &m,loyees Union filed a ,etition for t.e .olding of a certification election among t.e su,ervisory em,loyees of t.e P< = <
Com,any. <.e com,any moved to dismiss t.e

,etition on t.e ground t.at Union mem(ers were ,erforming managerial functions and were not
law itself is disregarded. @.en t.e L$ureau of
La(or !elationsN directly LcertifiesN a union# .e in fact disregarded t.is ,rocedure and its legal
reEuirements. <.ere was t.erefore failure to
merely su,ervisory em,loyees. <.e com,any also

alleged t.at a certified (argaining unit existed among its ranD and file em,loyees w.ic. (arred t.e filing of t.e ,etition. ). ;oes t.e com,any .ave t.e standing to file t.e motion to dismissK &x,lain. /. If you were t.e 8ed-Ar(iter# .ow would you resolve t.e ,etition.
3. @.at is t.e ,ro,er remedy of an em,loyer to
determine wit. legal certainty w.et.er t.e union

indeed en:oyed ma:ority re,resentation. S *3 O#$!"iJ!ti2": C #ti3i;!ti2" E* ;ti2" (2001)
U'I;A;# a la(or organiGation claiming to re,resent t.e ma:ority of t.e ranD and file worDers of $A%SAU <oyo 8anufacturing Cor,. ($8<C #
filed a ,etition for certification election during t.e
ensure t.at t.e em,loyees are Eualified to .old a certification electionK SUGGESTE7 ANSWER' ) 'o# t.e com,any .as no standing to file t.e
freedom ,eriod o(taining in said cor,oration. ;es,ite t.e o,,osition t.ereto (y SI%A@
?ederation on t.e ground t.at U'I;A; was not
8otion to ;ismiss as t.e em,loyer .as no rig.t to

interfere in a ,urely union matter or concern.
(P.ili,,ine ?ruits and Aegeta(le Industries# Inc.. vs

<orres# /)) SC!A *4 ()**/
,ossessed wit. all t.e attri(utes of a duly registered union# t.e 8ed-Ar(iter issued an 9rder calling for a certification election on July /4# /00).
<.is 9rder was ,romulgated and served on t.e ,arties on July )/# /00). 9n July )6# /00)# U'I;A; su(mitted and served t.e reEuired documents for its registration as an inde,endent
<.e Court would wis. to stress once more t.e rule

w.ic. It .as consistently ,ronounced in many
earlier cases t.at a certification election is t.e sole

concern of t.e worDers and t.e em,loyer is regarded as not.ing more t.an a (ystander wit. no rig.t to interfere at all in t.e election. / As t.e 8&; A!$I<&! I will5
union# w.ic. documents were a,,roved (y t.e

;9L& on July )4# /00). ;uring t.e elections# U'I;A; won over SI%A@.
a SI%A@ Euestioned U'I;A;Ps victory on t.e ground t.at U'I;A; was not a duly registered
union w.en it filed t.e ,etition for a certification
em,loyerPs 8otion to dismiss t.e UnionPs Petition for Certification &lection.

;eny# for lacD of merit# t.e
Proceed to .ear t.e merits of t.e ,etition#

es,ecially5 ). t.e a,,ro,riation of t.e claimed (argaining unit/. inclusion and exclusion of voters# or t.e ,ro,osed voter list- and 3. if t.e ,etition is in order# to set t.e date# time and ,lace of t.e election.
election. S.all SI%A@s case ,ros,er or notK @.yK (4M . SUGGESTE7 ANSWER' 'o# SI%A@Ps case will not ,ros,er. <.e a,,lication
of tec.nicalities of ,rocedural reEuirements in certification election dis,utes will serve no lawful
o(:ective or ,ur,ose. It is a statutory ,olicy t.at no
Page ,# of 108
3 <.e em,loyer .as no remedy. <.e ,etition for certification election was initiated (y t.e Union.ence# t.e em,loyer is a total stranger or a (ystander in t.e election ,rocess. (P.ili,,ine ?ruits and Aegeta(le Industries# Inc. v. <orres# /)) SC!A *4 L)**/N . <o allow an em,loyer to assert a remedy is an act of interference in a matter w.ic. is ,urely a concern of t.e Union.
w.ere t.ere is no certified (argaining agent# a
ALTERNATI9E ANSWER5
) <.e com,any does not .ave t.e standing to file a motion to dismiss t.e ,etition for certification election# (ut it could move for t.e exclusion of t.e em,loyees it alleged to (e managerial em,loyees from t.e (argaining unit for w.ic. a ,etition for certification election .as (een filed. As a general rule# an em,loyer .as no standing in a ,etition for certification election (ecause t.e ,ur,ose of a certification election is to determine w.o s.ould (e t.e collective (argaining re,resentative of t.e em,loyees. <.us# a certification election is t.e concern of t.e em,loyees and not of t.e em,loyer. $ut in t.e case at (ar# t.e em,loyer may .ave a standing (ecause t.e ,etition for certification election involves ,ersonnel w.ic. t.e em,loyer alleges to (e managerial em,loyees. And managerial em,loyees under t.e La(or Code are not eligi(le to form# assist or Join la(or organiGations# im,lying t.at t.ey cannot (e ,art of t.e (argaining unit for w.ic. a ,etition for certification election .as (een filed. / As t.e 8&;-A!$I<&!# I will order t.e .olding of t.e certification election. <.e fact t.at t.ere is already a certified collective (argaining re,resentative of t.e ranD and file em,loyees of t.e Com,any is not a (ar to t.e .olding of a certification election for t.e determination of t.e collective (argaining re,resentative of t.e su,ervisory em,loyees. $ut I will exclude t.ose em,loyees found to (e managerial from ,artici,ating in t.e certification election.
3 <.e ,ro,er remedy of an em,loyer to ensure t.at only t.e em,loyees are Eualified to .old a certification election is to move for t.e exclusion of t.ose w.om .e alleges to (e managerial ,ersonnel.
S *3 O#$!"iJ!ti2": C #ti3i;!ti2" E* ;ti2": U"2#$!"iJ d E4t!%*i4<? "t (200>) <.ere are instances w.en a certification election is mandatory. @.at is t.e rationale for suc. a legal mandateK SUGGESTE7 ANSWER' According to t.e La(or Code# in any esta(lis.ment
certification election s.all automatically (e conducted (y t.e 8ed-Ar(iter u,on t.e filing of a ,etition (y a legitimate la(or organiGation. In t.e a(ove-descri(ed situation# a certification election is made mandatory (ecause if t.ere is no certified (argaining agent as determined (y a certification election# t.ere could (e no collective (argaining in t.e said unorganiGed esta(lis.ment S *3 O#$!"iJ!ti2": EBE R *!ti2"4<i-: C #ti3i;!ti2" E* ;ti2" (1995) Is it reEuired t.at an em,loyer-em,loyee relations.i, exists (etween an em,loyer and t.e em,loyees in t.e a,,ro,riate (argaining unit (efore a certification election can (e orderedK If so. w.yK L4MN
Ies. t.e Su,reme Court .as ruled t.at t.e existence of an em,loyer-em,loyee relations.i, is reEuired (efore a certification election can (e .eld. <.e Su,reme Court in Allied ?orce @aters Union v. Cam,ania 8aritime )* SC!A /1+ ()*12 . ruled xxx <.ere (eing no em,loyer-em,loyee relations.i, (etween t.e ,arties dis,utants# t.ere is neit.er Ca duty to (argain collectivelyC to s,eaD of. And t.ere (eing no suc. duty# to .old certification elections would (e ,ointless. <.ere is no reason to select a re,resentative to negotiate w.en t.ere can (e no negotiations in t.e first ,lace. @.ere t.ere is no duty to (argain collectively# it is not ,ro,er to .old certification elections in connection t.erewit..
SUGGESTE7 ANSWER'
Ies. it is reEuired t.at an em,loyer-em,loyee relations.i, is existing (etween t.e em,loyer and t.e em,loyees in t.e a,,ro,riate (argaining unit (efore a certification election can (e ordered for t.e sim,le reason t.at a certification election is .eld for t.e ,ur,ose of determining w.ic. la(or organiGation s.all (e t.e exclusive collective (argaining re,resentative of t.e em,loyees in an a,,ro,riate (argaining unit. <.ere could (e no collective (argaining (etween ,ersons w.o do not .ave any em,loyer-em,loyee relations.i,.
S *3 O#$!"iJ!ti2": G26Ct E?-*2& 4 (2004) $. $ecause of alleged Bunfair la(or ,racticesH (y t.e management of %?I System# a government- owned and controlled financial cor,oration# its em,loyees walDed out from t.eir :o(s and refused to return to worD until t.e management would grant t.eir union official recognition and start negotiations wit. t.em.
<.e leaders of t.e walD-out were dismissed# and t.e ot.er ,artici,ants were sus,ended for sixty days. In arguing t.eir case (efore t.e Civil Service Commission# t.ey cited t.e ,rinci,le of social :ustice for worDers and t.e rig.t to self-organiGation
Page ,, of 108
and collective action# including t.e rig.t to striDe. <.ey claimed t.at t.e Constitution s.ielded t.em from any ,enalty (ecause t.eir walD-out was a concerted action ,ursuant to t.eir rig.ts guaranteed (y t.e (asic law.
Is t.e ,osition taDen (y t.e walD-out leaders and ,artici,ants legally correctK !eason (riefly. (4M
(8actan @orDers Union v. A(oitiG# 64 SC!A
SUGGESTE7 ANSWER'
<.e ,osition taDen (y t.e walD-out leaders and ,artici,ants is not legally correct. <.ey are government em,loyees# and as suc.# t.ey do not .ave t.e rig.t to striDe. According to t.e actual wording of Section 3 of Article OIII of t.e Constitution# t.e State Cs.all guarantee t.e rig.ts of all worDers to self-organiGation# collective (argaining and negotiations# and ,eaceful concerted activities including t.e rig.t to striDe in accordance wit. law.C
422 ()*2/S It is t.e instrumentality t.roug. w.ic. an individual la(orer w.o is .el,less as against a ,owerful em,loyer may# t.roug. concerted effort and activity# ac.ieve t.e goal of economic well-(eing. (%ullarno v. CI!# 3/ SC!A 302 L)**3N .
S *3 O#$!"iJ!ti2": M ?% #4<i- /2*i;& (1995) A la(or union lawyer o,ined A. t.at a la(or organiGation is a ,rivate and voluntary organiGation.ence# a union can deny mem(ers.i, to any and all a,,licants. Is t.e o,inion of counsel in accord wit. lawK L4MN SUGGESTE7 ANSWER'
'9# t.e o,inion of counsel is not in accord wit. law. <.e La(or Code (in Article /6* (a and ( ,rovides t.at a la(or organiGation .as t.e rig.t to ,rescri(e its own rules for t.e acEuisition or retention of mem(ers.i,# (ut it is an unfair la(or ,ractice act for a la(or organiGation to restrain or coerce em,loyees in t.e exercise of t.eir rig.t to self-organiGation. <.us# a la(or organiGation cannot discriminate against any em,loyee (y denying suc. em,loyee mem(ers.i, in t.e la(or organiGation on any ground ot.er t.an t.e usual terms and conditions under w.ic. mem(ers.i, or continuation of union mem(ers.i, is made availa(le to ot.er mem(ers.
<.us# t.e last clause of t.e a(ove-Euoted ,rovision of t.e Constitution maDes it very clear5 t.e rig.t to striDe is not constitutional# it is statutory (ecause t.e rig.t s.ould (e Cin accordance wit. lawC. And t.ere is as yet no law giving government em,loyees t.e rig.t to striDe. ANOT0ER SUGGESTE7 ANSWER' '9. @.at Art. OIA# Sec. 3 of t.e )*+2 Constitution guarantees is Ct.e rig.t to striDe in accordance wit. law.C Assuming t.at w.at we .ave is a c.artered government-owned and controlled cor,oration# t.ey cannot# under &9 )+0 and related :uris,rudence# stage suc. walD-out w.ic. is (asically a case of striDe.
&ven if %?I was organiGed under t.e cor,oration law# still no suc. walD-out is allowed wit.out t.e em,loyeesP com,lying wit. t.e reEuirements of a valid striDe# among w.ic. is t.at said striDe or walDout s.ould (e validly grounded on a (a deadlocD in collective (argaining# or (( unfair la(or ,ractice# eit.er of w.ic. is not ,resent .ere.
ANOT0ER SUGGESTE7 ANSWER' Ies# t.e legal o,inion of counsel# on t.e nature of a la(or union and its admission ,olicy is in accord wit. law# (ut must (e Eualified. <.e Su,reme Court ruled in Salunga v. CI!# /) SC!A /)1 ()*12 as follows5
%enerally# a state may not com,el ordinary voluntary association to admit t.ereto any given individual# (ecause mem(ers.i, t.erein may(e accorded or wit..eld as a matter of ,rivilege.
S *3 O#$!"iJ!ti2": I?-2#t!"; (1996) ) @.at is t.e im,ortance of la(or organiGationsK SUGGESTE7 ANSWER'
A la(or organiGation exists in w.ole or in ,art for t.e ,ur,ose of collective (argaining or of dealing wit. em,loyers concerning terms and conditions of em,loyment. &m,loyees may form la(or organiGations for t.eir mutual aid and ,rotection. (See Arts. /)/(a and /63 of t.e La(or Code
<.e same case furt.er ruled t.at t.e law can com,el a la(or union to admit an a,,licant for mem(ers.i, w.en t.e union is <.e rule is Eualified in res,ect of la(or unions .olding a mono,oly in t.e su,,ly of la(or# eit.er in a given locality or as regards a ,articular em,loyer wit. w.ic. it .as a closed-s.o, agreement. <.e reason is t.at Lunion security ,rovisionsN cause t.e admission reEuirements of trade unions to (e affected wit. ,u(lic interest. S *3 O#$!"iJ!ti2": Ri$<t t2 7i4!33i*i!t 3#2? t< L2;!* U"i2": i** $!* di4?i44!* (1994) In t.e Collective $argaining Agreement (C$A (etween !oyal ?ilms and its ranD-and-file Union (w.ic. is directly affiliated wit. 8??# a national federation # a ,rovision on t.e maintenance of mem(ers.i, ex,ressly ,rovides t.at t.e Union can
ALTERNATI9E ANSWER' <.e im,ortance of la(or unions are5 a <.e en.ancement of democracy and t.e ,romotion of social :ustice and develo,ment.
( As instrumentalities t.roug. w.ic. worDer welfare may (e ,romoted and fostered#
demand t.e dismissal of any mem(er em,loyee
Page 45 of 108
w.o commits acts of disloyalty to t.e Union as ,rovided for In its Constitution and $y-Laws. <.e
LSan Jose &lectric Service Coo,erative v. 8inistry

of La(or# )23 SC!A 1*2 ()*+* N S *3 O#$!"iJ!ti2": U"i2" 7) 4: A44 44? "t (2002)
same ,rovision contains an undertaDing (y t.e Union (8?? to .old !oyal ?ilms free from any and
all claims of any em,loyee dismissed.
;uring t.e term of t.e C$A# 8?? discovered t.at
certain em,loyee mem(ers were initiating a move to disaffiliate from 8?? and :oin a rival federation# ?A8AS. ?ort.wit.# 8?? soug.t t.e dismissal of its
em,loyee mem(ers initiating t.e disafiliation movement from 8?? to ?A8AS. !oyal ?ilms# relying on t.e ,rovision of t.e aforementioned C$A# com,lied wit. 8??s reEuest and dismissed t.e em,loyees Identified (y 8?? as disloyal to it. () @ill an action for Illegal dismissal against
<.e union deducted P/0.00 from !ogelioPs wages for January. U,on inEuiry .e learned t.at it was for deat. aid (enefits and t.at t.e deduction was
made ,ursuant to a (oard resolution of t.e directors of t.e union. Can !ogelio o(:ect to t.e deductionK &x,lain (riefly. (4M SUGGESTE7 ANSWER' Ies. In order t.at t.e s,ecial assessment (deat.
aid (enefit may (e u,.eld as valid# t.e following
reEuisites must (e com,iled wit.5 () Aut.oriGation

(y a written resolution of t.e ma:ority of all t.e
!oyal ?ilms and 8?? ,ros,er or notK (/ @.at are t.e lia(ilities of !oyal and 8?? to t.e dismissed em,loyees# if anyK SUGGESTE7 ANSWER'
) <.e action for illegal dismissal will ,ros,er. <.e
mem(ers at t.e general mem(ers.i, meeting duly called for t.e ,ur,ose- (/ SecretaryPs record of t.e meeting- and (3 Individual written aut.oriGation for
t.e c.ecD-off duly signed (y t.e em,loyee concerned. LA$S-C$' Su,ervisors &m,loyees Union 8em(ers v. A$S-C$' $roadcasting Cor,# and Union 9fficers# 306 SC!A 6+* ()*** N
rig.t of a local union to disaffiliate from its mot.er

federation is well-settled. A local union# (eing a
se,arate and voluntary association# is free to serve

t.e interest of all its mem(ers including t.e t.is rig.t is consistent wit. t.e constitutional
freedom to disaffiliate w.en circumstances warrant guarantee of freedom of association. <.us# t.e Act of initiating move to disaffiliate is not an act of
disloyalty. (<ro,ical Fut. &m,loyeePs Union-C%@# 'os. L-X36*4-**# January /0. )**0
In t.e ,ro(lem given# none of t.e a(ove reEuisites

were com,lied wit. (y t.e union. Fence# !ogelio
can o(:ect to t.e deduction made (y t.e union for

(eing Invalid. S *3 O#$!"iJ!ti2": U"i2" 7) 4: A44 44? "t4 (199.) Arty. ?acundo Aeloso was retained (y @elga La(or Union to re,resent it in t.e collective (argaining negotiations. It was agreed t.at Atty.
et al. vs. <ro,ical Fut ?ood 8arDet# Inc.# etal# %.!. ALTERNATI9E ANSWER' <.e action for illegal dismissal will ,ros,er.
;isaffiliation cannot (e considered an act of
disloyalty. <.e very essence of self-organiGation is

for t.e worDers to form a grou, for t.e effective en.ancement and ,rotection of common interest.
Aeloso would (e ,aid in t.e sum of P/0#000.00 as

attorneyPs fees for .is assistance in t.e C$A negotiations.
(PIC&@9 v. Peo,le Industrial = Commercial

Cor,.# ))/ SC!A 660
8?? can (e .eld lia(le to ,ay t.e (acDwages

!oyal can (e .eld
After t.e conclusion of t.e negotiations. @elga La(or Union collected from its individual mem(ers t.e sum of P)00.00 eac. to ,ay for Atty. AelosoPs
fees and anot.er sum of Pl00 eac. for services rendered (y t.e union officers. Several mem(ers
of t.e dismissed em,loyees.
:ointly and severally lia(le for (acDwages if it acted

wit. undue .aste in dismissing t.e em,loyees (8anila Cordage Co. v. CI!# 2+ SC!A 3*+ . In
of t.e @elga La(or Union a,,roac.ed you to seeD

advice on t.e following matters. a @.et.er or not t.e collection of t.e amount assessed on t.e individual mem(ers to answer for t.e AttorneyPs fees was valid. ( @.et.er or not t.e assessment of Pl00 from Union for services rendered (y t.e union officers in t.e C$A negotiations was valid. SUGGESTE7 ANSWER' (a <.e assessment of P)00.00 from eac. union
addition# !oyal can (e ordered to reinstate t.e dismissed em,loyees.
S *3 O#$!"iJ!ti2": Ri$<t t2 S *3BO#$!"iJ!ti2"

23 C22- E?-*2& 4 (2002) ;o em,loyees of a coo,erative .ave a rig.t to form a unionK &x,lain (riefly. (/M
t.e individual mem(ers of t.e @elga La(or
SUGGESTE7 ANSWER' &m,loyees w.o are mem(ers of a coo,erative

cannot form a union (ecause# as mem(ers# t.ey are owners and owners cannot (argain wit. t.emselves. Fowever# em,loyees w.o are not
mem(er as attorneyPs fees - for union negotiation#

is not valid. Art. ///(( of t.e La(or Code# reads5 C'o attorneys fees# negotiation fees or similar
mem(ers of t.e coo,erative
can form a union.
c.arges of any Dind arising from any collective (argaining negotiations or conclusion of t.e collective agreement s.all (e im,osed on any
Page ,% of 108
individual mem(er of t.e contracting unionProvided# .owever# t.at attorneys fees may (e c.arged against union funds in an amount to (e agreed u,on (y t.e ,arties. Any contract# agreement or arrangement of any sort to (e contrary s.all (e null and void.C (( <.e assessment of P )00.00 as negotiation fees c.arged to eac. individual union mem(er and ,aya(le to union officers is also not valid# for t.e same reason as stated a(ove. <.e assessment is an act violative of Art. ///(( . ALTERNATI9E ANSWER' (a <.e collection of t.e amount assessed on t.e individual mem(ers to answer for t.e attorneyPs fees would (e valid if it was aut.oriGed (y a written resolution of a ma:ority of all t.e mem(ers in a general mem(ers.i, meeting called for t.e ,ur,ose.
(( <.e assessment of P)00.00 from t.e Individual mem(ers of t.e @elga La(or Union for services rendered (y t.e union officers in t.e C$A negotiations would (e valid if it was aut.oriGed (y a written resolution of a ma:ority of all t.e mem(ers in a general mem(ers.i, meeting duly called for t.e ,ur,ose. (Art. /6)(' N.
S *3 O#$!"iJ!ti2": U"i2"4: 1i"!";i!* R ;2#d4 (1999)

?AC<S5 Polaris ;rug Com,any .ad an existing Collective $argaining Agreement wit. Polaris @orDers Union (P@U w.ic. was due to ex,ire on 8ay 3)# )***. P@U .ad a total mem(ers.i, of one .undred L)00N ranD-and-file em,loyees of t.e com,any. 8iDe $arela# a militant mem(er of t.e union# sus,ected t.at t.e union officers were misa,,ro,riating union funds as no financial re,ort was given to t.e general mem(ers.i, during t.e unionPs general assem(ly. Fence# 8iDe $arela ,re,ared a sworn written com,laint and filed t.e same wit. t.e 9ffice of t.e Secretary of La(or on 8ay )0# )***# ,etitioning for an examination of t.e financial records of P@U.
). Is t.e Secretary of La(or aut.oriGed (y law to examine t.e financial records of t.e unionK If so# w.at ,owerK If not# w.y notK (3M SUGGESTE7 ANSWER'
<.e Secretary of La(or is ex,ressly aut.oriGed (y t.e La(or Code (in Article /26T to examine t.e financial records of t.e unions to determine com,liance or non-com,liance wit. t.e ,ertinent ,rovisions of t.e La(or Code and to ,rosecute any violation of t.e law and t.e union constitution-and(y-laws. $ut t.is aut.ority may (e exercised only u,on t.e filing of a com,laint under oat. and duly su,,orted (y t.e written consent of at least twenty ,ercent (/0M of t.e total mem(ers.i, of t.e la(or organiGation concerned.
S *3 O#$!"iJ!ti2": U"i2"4: A44 44? "t4 (2001) (( @.at reEuisites must a Union com,ly wit. (efore it can validly im,ose s,ecial assessments against its mem(ers for incidental ex,enses# attorneyPs fees# re,resentation ex,enses and t.e liDeK (3M . SUGGESTE7 ANSWER' <.e La(or Code (in Art. /6)(n ,rovides t.at Cno s,ecial assessments or ot.er extraordinary fees may (e levied u,on t.e mem(ers of a la(or organiGation unless aut.oriGed (y a written resolution of a ma:ority of all t.e mem(ers at a general mem(ers.i, meeting duly called for t.e ,ur,ose.C ANOT0ER SUGGESTE7 ANSWER' In t.e case of A$S-C$' &m,loyees Su,ervisors Union vs. A$S-C$' $oardcasting Cor,.# and Union 9fficers# %.!. 'o. )014)+# 8arc. ))#)***# t.e Su,reme Court ruled t.at t.e following are t.e reEuisites5 () Aut.oriGation (y a written resolution of t.e ma:ority of all t.e mem(ers at t.e general mem(ers.i, meeting duly called for t.e ,ur,ose(/ SecretaryPs record of t.e minutes of t.e meeting- and (3 Individual written aut.oriGation for c.ecDoff duly signed (y t.e em,loyee concerned. (See also5 %a(riel vs. Secretary of La(or# %.!. 'o. ))4*6*# 8arc. )1Y /000 .
ALTERNATI9E ANSWER' Among t.e rig.ts and conditions of mem(ers.i, in a la(or organiGation is t.e rig.t im,lied (y t.e ,roviso in t.e La(or Code (Article /6) (m stating t.at t.e (ooDs of accounts and ot.er records of t.e financial activities of any la(or organiGation s.all (e o,en to ins,ection (y any officer or mem(er t.ereof during office .ours. As a union mem(er# 8iDe $arela could file an intra- union case t.at may entail t.e act of t.e Secretary of La(or examining t.e financial records of t.e union. (See La <ondena @orDers Union v. Secretary of La(or and &m,loyment# /3* SC!A ))2 /. Under t.e facts given a(ove# could an examination or audit of t.e financial records of t.e union (e orderedK @.yK (/M SUGGESTE7 ANSWER'
Under t.e facts given in t.e Euestion# an examination or audit of t.e financial records of t.e union can not (e ordered (ecause for suc. examination or audit to taDe ,lace# t.ere s.ould (e a com,laint under oat. and duly su,,orted (y written consent of at least twenty (/0M ,er cent of t.e total mem(ers.i, of t.e la(or organiGation concerned. In t.is case# t.e aforementioned reEuirement was not fulfilled. It was only a sworn
Page ,& of 108
written com,laint (y one union mem(er t.at was filed. Also# t.e La(or Code ,rovides t.at an examination of t.e (ooDs of a union s.all not (e conducted during t.e sixty (10 day freedom ,eriod nor wit.in t.irty (30 days immediately ,receding t.e date of election of union officials.
In t.e case# t.e com,laint was filed on 8ay )0# )*** w.ic. is wit.in t.e freedom ,eriod of t.e current C$A w.ic. was to ex,ire on 8ay 3). )***.
A,,eals# 33/ SC!A 6/2# (/000 # Lim v. 'L!C# 303 SC!A 63/# ()*** N ANOT0ER SUGGESTE7 ANSWER'
Ies. <.e %eneral 8anager may (e .eld :ointly and severally lia(le for (acD wages of an illegally dismissed em,loyee if .e or s.e actually aut.oriGed or ratified t.e wrongful dismissal of t.e em,loyee under t.e rule of respondeat superior. In case of illegal dismissal# cor,orate directors and officers are solidarity lia(le wit. t.e cor,oration w.ere termination of em,loyment are done wit. malice or (ad fait.. L$ogo-8edellin Sugar Planters Assoc.# Inc. v. 'L!C# /*1 SC!A )0+# ()**+ N
S *3 O#$!"iJ!ti2": U"i2"4: 1i"!";i!* R ;2#d4 (2001) (a Under w.at conditions may t.e Secretary of La(or or .is duly aut.oriGed re,resentative inEuire into t.e financial activities or legitimate la(or organiGationsK (/M . SUGGESTE7 ANSWER'
<.e La(or Code (in Art. /26 # t.e Secretary of La(or and &m,loyment or .is duly aut.oriGed re,resentative is em,owered to inEuire into t.e financial activities of legitimate la(or organiGations u,on t.e filing of a com,laint under oat. and duly su,,orted (y t.e written consent of at least twenty (/0M ,ercent of t.e total mem(ers.i, of t.e la(or organiGation concerned and to examine t.eir (ooDs of accounts and ot.er records. S *3 O#$!"iJ!ti2": U"i2"4: M ?% #4<i-: 7i4?i44!* i" B!d 1!it< (2002) A 9n w.at ground or grounds may a union mem(er (e ex,elled from t.e organiGationK (3M
S *3BO#$!"iJ!ti2" (2002)
8ang $ally# owner of a s.oe re,air s.o, wit. only nine (* worDers in .is esta(lis.ment# received ,ro,osals for collective (argaining from t.e $ally S.oe Union. 8ang $ally refused to (argain wit. t.e worDers for several reasons. ?irst# .is s.oe (usiness is :ust a service esta(lis.ment. Second# .is worDers are ,aid on a ,ieceworD (asis (i.e.# ,er s.oe re,aired and not on a time (asis. <.ird# .e .as less t.an ten ()0 em,loyees in t.e esta(lis.ment. @.ic. reason or reasons is7are tena(leK &x,lain (riefly. (/M
SUGGESTE7 ANSWER'
'9'&. ?irst# 8ang $allyPs s.oe (usiness is a commercial enter,rise# al(eit a service esta(lis.ment. Second# t.e mere fact t.at t.e worDers are ,aid on a ,iece-rate (asis does not negate t.eir status as regular em,loyees. Payment (y ,iece is :ust a met.od of com,ensation and does not define t.e essence of t.e relation. LLam(o v. 'L!C# 3)2 SC!A 6/0 ()*** N. <.ird# t.e em,loyeesP rig.t to self organiGation is not delimited (y t.eir num(er.
$. 8ay t.e general manager of a com,any (e .eld :ointly and severally lia(le for (acDwages of an illegally dismissed em,loyeeK (/M SUGGESTE7 ANSWER' A. Union mem(ers may (e ex,elled from t.e la(or organiGation only on valid grounds ,rovided for in t.e Union Constitution# $y-Laws# or conditions for union mem(ers.i,. ANOT0ER SUGGESTE7 ANSWER' @.enever a,,ro,riate for any violation of t.e rig.ts as5 a !efusal to ,ay union dues and s,ecial assessments( ;isloyalty to t.e union- and c Aiolation of t.e constitution and (y-laws of t.e union. SUGGESTE7 ANSWER'
$. Ies. If it is s.own t.at .e acted in (ad fait.# or wit.out or in excess of aut.ority# or was motivated (y ,ersonal ill-will in dismissing t.e em,loyee# t.e general manager may (e .eld :ointly and severally lia(le for t.e (acDwages of an illegally dismissed em,loyee. LA!$ Construction C. v. Court of
<.e rig.t to self-organiGation covers all ,ersons em,loyed in commercial# industrial and agricultural enter,rises and in religious# c.arita(le# medical# or educational Institutions w.et.er o,erating for ,rofit or not VArt. /63# La(or CodeT
S *3BO#$!"iJ!ti2": 7i4?i44!* d) t2 U"i2" A;ti6iti 4 (2004)

A# $# C and ; (treasurer# accountant# elementary de,artment Princi,al# and secretary of t.e ;irector# res,ectively # regular em,loyees of a ,rivate educational institution# were administratively c.arged for t.eir ,artici,ation in a ,icDet .eld in front of t.e cam,us after office .ours. Several faculty mem(ers# non-academic staff and students :oined t.e ,eaceful ,rayer rally organiGed (y disgruntled em,loyees to ,rotest certain alleged a(uses of t.e incum(ent Sc.ool ;irector. Su(seEuently# t.e ranD-and-file em,loyees succeeded in forming t.e first and only union of t.e Sc.ool.
Page 48 of 108
;uring
t.e
investigation#
t.e
administration
of t.e La(or Code and Sec. 3 of &xecutive 9rder
discovered t.at two (/ days ,rior to t.e rally# A# $# C and ; attended t.e meeting of t.e Sc.ool>s
em,loyees> association w.ic. ,lanned t.e ,rotest activity. <wo well-Dnown organiGers7leaders of a national la(or federation were also ,resent. A# $# C and ; were dismissed (y t.e Sc.ool on t.e
'o. )+0 S *3BO#$!"iJ!ti2": Ri$<t t2 (2i" (2000) () ;o worDers .ave a rig.t not to :oin a la(or organiGationK (3M
(/ ;o t.e following worDers .ave t.e rig.t to selfground of violating t.e La(or Code w.ic. ,ro.i(its
managerial em,loyees to B:oin# assist or form any organiGationK !easons7(asis (/M a. &m,loyees of non-stocD# non-,rofit organiGationsK (. Alien em,loyeesK SUGGESTE7 ANSWER' Ies# worDers decide w.et.er t.ey will or will not (ecome mem(ers of a la(or organiGation. <.atPs w.y a unionPs constitution and (y-laws need t.e
la(or organiGationH.
Is t.e contention of t.e Sc.ool tena(leK dismissal of A# $# C and ; validK &x,lain. Is t.e (4M
SUGGESTE7 ANSWER' <.e dismissal of A# $# C and ; on t.e ground t.at

t.ey violated t.e La(or Code ,rovision w.ic.
mem(ersP ado,tion and ratification. 8oreover# if

t.ey are mem(ers of a religious grou, w.ose
states t.at managerial em,loyees Care not eligi(le to :oin# assist or form any la(or organiGationC is not
valid. <.e La(or Code does not ,rovide for any sanction for t.e aforesaid acts. <.ese acts could
doctrine for(ids union mem(ers.i,# t.eir rig.t not to (e com,elled to (ecome union mem(ers .as
(een u,.eld. Fowever# if t.e worDer is not a
Creligious o(:ectorC and t.ere is a union security
not (e considered as :ust cause for t.e termination

of em,loyment# eit.er.
clause# .e may (e reEuired to :oin t.e union if .e

(elongs to t.e (argaining unit. L!eyes v. <ra:ano# /0* SC!A 6+6 ()**/ N.

<.e dismissal of t.e managerial em,loyees is
invalid.
<.e
dismissal
of
t.e
management
( (i
&ven em,loyees of non-stocD non-,rofit
em,loyees (ecause of union activities# no matter
.ow erroneous or tenous may (e t.e (asis of t.e exercise# is a violation of t.e constitutional and
statutory guaranteed rig.ts of self-organiGation# and an act of unfair la(or ,ractice. (Sec. 3# Art. OIII# Constitution- Art. /63# La(or Code. See also Art. /6+ (a # La(or Code .
organiGations .ave t.e rig.t to self-organiGation. <.is is ex,licitly ,rovided for in Art. /63 of t.e La(or Code. A ,ossi(le exce,tion# .owever# are em,loyee-mem(ers of non-stocD non-,rofit coo,eratives.
(ii ALI&' &8PL9I&&S wit. valid worD ,ermits in

!P may exercise t.e rig.t to self-organiGation on
t.e (asis of ,arity or reci,rocity# t.at is# if ?ili,ino worDers in t.e aliensP country are given t.e same
S *3BO#$!"iJ!ti2": G26Ct 64= /#i6!t E?-*2& 4 (1996)

/ Fow does t.e government em,loyees> rig.t to self-organiGation differ from t.at of t.e em,loyees in t.e ,rivate sectorK
rig.t. (Art. /1*# La(or Code . UL/: A8!#d4 23 7!?!$ 4 (2001)
SUGGESTE7 ANSWER'
<.ere is no su(stantial difference of t.e rig.t of
(( CAC# an em,loyee# sued com,any C$C for unfair la(or ,ractice# Illegal dismissal and damages as a
conseEuence t.ereof. <.e Ar(iter granted APs
self-organiGation (etween worDers in t.e ,rivate sector and t.ose in t.e ,u(lic sector. In t.e ,u(lic
sector# &xecutive 9rder 'o. )+0# t.e ,ur,ose of self-organiGation is stated as Cfor t.e furt.erance and ,rotection of t.eir interest.C In t.e ,rivate
sector# Art. /63 of t.e La(or Code states Cfor t.e
,rayer for reinstatement# (acDwages# and included an award for attorneyPs fees. 9n a,,eal to t.e
'L!C# t.e Commission affirmed t.e Ar(iterPs decision (ut deleted t.e award for attorneyPs fees
since fees were not claimed in APs com,laint. @.o

was correct# t.e Ar(iter or t.e 'L!CK @.yK (/M SUGGESTE7 ANSWER' <.e 'L!C was correct in deleting t.e award for
attorneyPs fees if an em,loyee did not include
,ur,ose of collective (argainingC# and Cfor t.e
,ur,ose of en.ancing and defending t.eir Interests

and for t.eir mutual aid and ,rotection.C
ALTERNATI9E ANSWER' In government# managerial em,loyees s.all not (e

eligi(le to :oin t.e organiGation of ranD-and-file em,loyees ,er &xecutive 9rder 'o. )+0 (ut said law does not ,rovide t.at t.ey are not eligi(le to :oin# assist or form any la(or organiGation#
meaning# t.ey could :oin# assist or form any la(or
attorneyPs fees among .is claims and# t.erefore#
did not give any evidence to su,,ort t.e ,ayment

of attorneyPs fees. ANOT0ER SUGGESTE7 ANSWER'
<.e decision of t.e La(or Ar(iter to award

attorneyPs fees even if t.e same is not claimed is
organiGation of t.eir own. In t.e ,rivate sector#

managerial em,loyees are not eligi(le to :oin#
correct. Article //0+ of t.e 'ew Civil Code allows t.e award of attorneyPs fees w.en t.e defendantPs
act or omission .as com,elled t.e ,laintiff to
assist or form any la(or organiGation. (See Art. /63
Page ,( of 108
litigate or incur ex,enses to ,rotect .is interest. AttorneyPs fees may (e considered as a ,art of an eEuita(le relief awarded in t.e conce,t of damages. (c @ould your answer (e different if t.e attorneyPs fees awarded (y t.e Ar(iter was over fifteen ,ercent of t.e total awardK @.yK ()M SUGGESTE7 ANSWER: An award of attorneyPs fees w.ic. is over fifteen ,ercent of t.e total award is not in conformity wit. t.e ,rovision of t.e La(or Code (Art. )))(a t.at in cases of unlawful wit..olding of wages# t.e cul,a(le ,arty may (e assessed attorneyPs fees eEuivalent to ten ,ercent of t.e amount of wages recovered.
em,loyees of t.eir rig.ts to self-organiGation
UL/: C2"t#!;ti"$ O)t L!%2# (2001)

(a Com,any CAC contracts out its clerical and :anitorial services. In t.e negotiations of its C$A# t.e union insisted t.at# .encefort.# t.e com,any may no longer engage in contracting out t.ese ty,es of services# w.ic. services t.e union claims to (e necessary in t.e com,anyPs (usiness# wit.out ,rior consultation. Is t.e unionPs stand valid or notK ?or w.at reason(s K (/M
SUGGESTE7 ANSWER' <.e unionPs stand is not valid. It is ,art of management ,rerogative to contract out any worD# tasD# :o( or ,ro:ect exce,t t.at it is an unfair la(or ,ractice to contract out services or functions ,erformed (y union mem(ers w.en suc. will interfere wit.# restrain or coerce em,loyees in t.e exercise of t.eir rig.ts to selforganiGation. (Art. /6+(c of t.e La(or Code ANOT0ER SUGGESTE7 ANSWER'
<.e unionPs stand t.at t.ere must (e a ,rior consultation (y t.e em,loyer wit. t.e union (efore contracting out can (e effected is valid. Article OIII# Section 3 of t.e Constitution# and Article /44 of t.e La(or Code guarantee t.e rig.t of worDers to ,artici,ate in ,olicy and decision maDing ,rocesses w.ic. affect t.eir rig.ts and (enefits. Jo( contracting will undou(tedly and directly affect t.eir rig.ts# (enefits and welfare. P.ili,,ine Airlines vs. 'L!C# /44 SC!A 30) ()**3 # and 8anila &lectric Com,any us. Juisum(ing# 30/ SC!A )23 ()*** .
UL/: 7 3i"iti2" & ED!?-* 4 23 UL/ (1996) ) ;efine unfair la(or ,ractice# AnswerSUGGESTE7 ANSWER'
U'?AI! LA$9! P!AC<IC& means any unfair la(or ,ractice as ex,ressly defined (y t.e La(or Code (Arts. /6+ and /6* of t.e La(or Code . &ssentially# an unfair la(or ,ractice is any act committed (y an em,loyer or (y a la(or organiGation# its officers# agents or re,resentatives w.ic. .as t.e effect of ,reventing t.e full exercise (y
and collective (argaining. (See Arts /6+ and /6* of t.e La(or Code . / %ive t.ree (3 exam,les of unfair la(or ,ractices on t.e ,art of t.e em,loyer and t.ree (3 exam,les of unfair la(or ,ractices on t.e ,art of t.e la(or union. A'S@&!Any t.ree (3 from t.e following enumeration in t.e La(or Code5 A!<. /6+. Unfair la(or ,ractices of em,loyers. It s.all (e unlawful for an em,loyer to commit any of t.e following unfair la(or ,ractice5 ). <o interfere wit.# restrain or coerce em,loyees in t.e exercise of t.eir rig.t to self- organiGation/. <o reEuire as a condition of em,loyment t.at a ,erson or an em,loyee s.all not :oin a la(or organiGation or s.all wit.draw from one to w.ic. .e (elongs3. <o contract out services or functions (eing ,erformed (y union mem(ers w.en suc. will interfere wit.# restrain or coerce em,loyees in t.e exercise of t.eir rig.ts to self-organiGation-
worD# and ot.er terms and conditions of em,loyment in order to encourage or discourage mem(ers.i, in any la(or organiGation. 'ot.ing in t.is Code or in any ot.er law s.all sto, t.e ,arties from reEuiring mem(ers.i, in a recogniGed collective (argaining agent as a condition for em,loyment# exce,t t.ose em,loyees w.o are already mem(ers of anot.er union at t.e time of t.e signing of t.e collective (argaining agreement. Provided# t.at t.e individual aut.oriGation reEuired under Article /6)# ,aragra,. (o of t.is Code s.all not a,,ly to t.e non-mem(ers of t.e recogniGed collective (argaining agent-
1.
2. +.
6.
<o initiate# dominate# assist or ot.erwise interfere wit. t.e formation or administration of any la(or organiGation# including# t.e giving of financial or ot.er su,,ort to it# or its organiGations# or su,,orters<o discriminate in regard to wages# .ours of
*.
<o dismiss# disc.arge# or ot.erwise ,re:udice or discriminate against an em,loyee for .aving given or (eing a(out to give testimony under t.is Code<o violate t.e duty to (argain collectively as ,rescri(ed (y t.is Code<o ,ay negotiation or attorneyPs fees to t.e union or its officers or agents as ,art of t.e settlement of any issue in collective (argaining or any ot.er dis,ute- or <o violate a collective (argaining agreement.
UL/: ()#i4di;ti2": L!%2# A#%it # (199.)

9n 0) August )**/# Pro-Unit# a cor,oration engaged in t.e manufacture of textile garments#
4.
Page $) of 108
entered into a collective (argaining agreement wit. t.e Uamao Union in re,resentation of t.e ranD and file em,loyees of t.e cor,oration.
<.e C$A was effective u, to /0 June )**4. <.e contract .ad an automatic renewal clause w.ic.
would allow t.e agreement after its ex,iry date to
<.e Uilusang Ua(isig# a newly-formed la(or union

claiming to re,resent a ma:ority of t.e worDers in
t.e 8icroc.i, Cor,oration# ,roceeded to ,resent a list of demands to t.e management for ,ur,oses of
collective (argaining. <.e 8icroc.i,s Cor,oration# a multinational cor,oration engaged in t.e ,roduction of com,uter c.i,s for ex,ort# declined to talD wit. t.e union leaders# alleging t.at t.ey
still a,,ly until (ot. ,arties would .ave (een a(le to execute a new agreement. 9n )0 8ay )**4 Uamao Union su(mitted to Pro-
.ad not as yet ,resented any ,roof of ma:ority

status. <.e Uilusang Ua(isig t.en c.ained 8icroc.i, Cor,oration wit. unfair la(or ,ractice# and declared a CwildcatC striDe w.erein means of ingress and
UnitPs
management
t.eir
,ro,osals
for
t.e
renegotiation of a new C$A. <.e next day# Pro-Unit sus,ended negotiations w.ile Uamao Union since
Pro-Unit .ad entered into a merger wit. &agle

%arments# a cor,oration also engaged in t.e manufacture of textile garments. &agle %arments
egress were (locDed and remote and isolated acts

of destruction and violence were committed.
@as t.e com,any guilty of an unfair la(or

,ractice w.en it refused to negotiate wit. t.e Uilusang Ua(isigK SUGGESTE7 ANSWERS'
'9. It is not an unfair la(or ,ractice (ULP not to
assumed all t.e assets and lia(ilities of Pro-Unit.

Uamao filed a com,laint wit. t.e !egional <rial
Court for s,ecific ,erformance and damages wit. a

,rayer for ,reliminary in:unction against Pro-Unit
(argain wit. a union w.ic. .as not ,resented any

,roof of its ma:ority status. <.e La(or Code im,oses on an em,loyer t.e duty to (argain collectively only wit. a legitimate la(or organiGation designated or selected (y t.e ma:ority of t.e em,loyees in an a,,ro,riate collective (argaining
and &agle %arments. Pro-Unit and &agle %arments filed a 8otion to

;ismiss (ased on lacD of Jurisdiction. Fow would
you rule on t.e 8otion to ;ismissK SUGGESTE7 ANSWER'

I will grant t.e 8otion to ;ismiss. <.e act of Pro-
unit. It is not a ULP for an em,loyer to asD a union

reEuesting to (argain collectively t.at suc. union first s.ow ,roof of its (eing a ma:ority union. UL/: Ri$<t4 & O%*i$!ti2"4: W2#G #4C A442;i!ti2" (2004) A. Around )00 worDers of a mill in a coconut
Dnit sus,ending negotiations wit. Uamao Union

could (e an unfair la(or ,ractice. It could (e a
violation of t.e duty to (argain collectively. As suc.# t.e case is under t.e :urisdiction of a La(or
Ar(iter and not of a regular Court
ALTERNATI9E ANSWER' I will deny t.e UnionPs 8otion to ;ismiss. <.ere is
no la(or dis,ute (etween t.e ,arties- .ence# t.e !egional <rial Court .as Jurisdiction over t.e com,laint. Art. /)/ of t.e La(or Code# reads -
,lantation organiGed t.emselves for t.e ,ur,ose of ,romoting t.eir common interest and welfare. <.e
worDers> association ,re,ared a ,etition for
increasing t.e daily ,ay of its mem(ers in

com,liance wit. minimum wage rates for t.eir sector in t.e region# and for granting (enefits to w.ic. t.ey are entitled under t.e law. Fowever# t.e worDers (ecame restless and
La(or dis,ute Includes any controversy or

matter concerning terms or conditions of
em,loyment or t.e association or re,resentation of ,ersons in negotiating# fixing# maintaining# c.anging or arranging t.e terms and conditions
of em,loyment regardless of w.et.er t.e dis,utants stand in t.e ,roximate relations of
em,loyer and em,loyee.

In addition# t.e Com,any can claim t.at la(or contracts are contracts in ,ersonam and do not
anxious after t.e owner-manager t.reatened t.em wit. mass lay-off if t.e association would ,ress for t.eir demands. 8ost of its mem(ers .ave worDed in t.e mill for )0 to )4 years wit. no im,rovement
in worDing conditions and monetary (enefits. <.e leaders of t.e worDers> association
generally (ind successors in interest exce,t under
s,ecial circumstances. In Sundowner ;evelo,ment Cor,oration v ;rilon# )+0 SC!A )6# t.e Court said5 <.e rule is t.at unless ex,ressly assumed# la(or contracts suc. as xxx collective (argaining agreements are not enforcea(le against a
a,,roac.ed you and asDed5 w.at legal ste,s could t.ey taDe to ,rotect t.eir security of tenureK @.at
advice could you give t.emK (4M SUGGESTE7 ANSWER' I would advise t.em to register t.e worDersP association wit. t.e ;e,artment of La(or and &m,loyment. <.en# .ave t.e worDersP association file a ULP case against t.e em,loyer. ANOT0ER SUGGESTE7 ANSWER'
transferee of an enter,rise# la(or contracts (eing in

,ersonam# t.us (inding only (etween t.e ,arties. UL/: R 3)4!* t2 N $2ti!t (199.)
Page $
of 108
<.e worDers are entitled to t.e constitutional (Art. OIII# Sec. 3# )*+2 Constitution and statutory (Art. /2*# La(or Code guarantees of security of tenure. @.en t.is rig.t to security of tenure is violated# an action for illegal dismissal is an availa(le remedy.
;ismiss contending t.at t.ey are Juridical entitles
If t.ey are dismissed (ecause of union activities# an action for unfair la(or ,ractice can (e filed (Sec. 3# Art. OIII# Constitution- Art. /63# La(or Code. If successful# t.e worDers will (e entitled to full (acDwages# including money value of (enefits# and reinstatement wit.out loss of seniority (Art. /2*# La(or Code .
UL/: S)%A ;t t2 C#i?i"!* /#24 ;)ti2" (200,) Is t.e commission of an unfair la(or ,ractice (y an em,loyer su(:ect to criminal ,rosecutionK Please ex,lain your answer (riefly. (3M SUGGESTE7 ANSWER'
Ies# (ecause unfair la(or ,ractices are not only violations of t.e civil rig.ts of (ot. la(or and management (ut are also criminal offenses against t.e State w.ic. s.all (e su(:ect to ,rosecution and ,unis.ment. (Article /62# La(or Code- See also $.P. $ig. 3+1 as amended (y !.A. 'o. 12)4 . Fowever# t.e criminal as,ect can only (e filed w.en t.e decision of t.e la(or tri(unals# finding t.e existence of unfair la(or ,ractice# s.all .ave (ecome final and executory.
LABOR STAN7AR7S
EBE R *!ti2"4<i-: C2#-2#!ti2" (1999) ?AC<S5 <eofilo Lacson was one of more t.an one .undred ()00 em,loyees w.o were terminated from em,loyment due to t.e closure of L$8 Construction Cor,oration (L$8 .
L$8 was a sister com,any of Lastimoso Construction# Inc. and !L !ealty = ;evelo,ment Cor,oration. All t.ree (3 entities formed w.at came to (e Dnown as t.e Lastimoso %rou, of Com,anies. <.e t.ree (3 cor,orations were owned and controlled (y mem(ers of t.e Lastimoso ?amily- t.eir incor,orators and directors all (elonged to t.e Lastimoso family. <.e t.ree (3 cor,orations were engaged in t.e same line of (usiness# under one management# and used t.e same eEui,ment including man,ower services.
<eofilo Lacson and .is co-em,loyees filed a com,laint wit. t.e La(or Ar(iter against L$8# !L !ealty and Lastimoso Construction to .old t.em :ointly and severally lia(le for (acDwages and se,aration ,ay.
Lastimoso Construction# Inc. and !L !ealty = ;evelo,ment Cor,oration inter,osed a 8otion to
wit. distinct and se,arate ,ersonalities L$8 Construction Cor,oration t.erefore# t.ey cannot (e .eld :ointly severally lia(le for t.e money claims worDers w.o are not t.eir em,loyees. !ule on t.e 8otion to ;ismiss. S.ould (e granted or deniedK @.yK (4M SUGGESTE7 ANSWER'
from and and of it
It is very clear t.at even if L$8 Construction com,any# Lastimoso Construction Com,any# Inc. and !L !ealty = ;evelo,ment Cor,oration all (elong to t.e Lastimoso family and are engaged in t.e same line of (usiness under one management and used t.e same eEui,ment including man,ower services# t.ese cor,orations were se,arate :uridical entities.
cor,oration is an entity se,arate and distinct from its stocD.olders and from ot.er cor,orations to w.ic. it may (e connected. $ut t.is se,arate and distinct ,ersonality of a cor,oration is merely a fiction created (y law for convenience and to ,romote :ustice. So# w.en t.e notion of se,arate :uridical ,ersonality is used to defeat ,u(lic convenience# :ustify wrong# ,rotect fraud or defend crime# or is used as a device to defeat t.e la(or laws# t.is se,arate ,ersonality of t.e cor,oration may(e disregarded or t.e veil of cor,orate fiction ,ierced.
ALTERNATI9E ANSWER'
8otion to ;ismiss s.ould (e denied. In t.e case at (ar# t.e La(or Ar(iter would (e :ustified in ,iercing t.e cor,orate veil and considering t.e t.ree (3 cor,orations as one and t.e same entity as t.e em,loyer of <eofilo Lacson (ecause (ased on t.e facts Ct.e t.ree cor,orations were owned and controlled (y mem(ers of t.e Lstimoso family- t.eir incor,orators and directors all (elonged to t.e Lastimoso family. <.e t.ree (3 cor,orations were engaged in t.e same line of (usiness# under one management and used t.e same eEui,ment including man,ower services.C <.e facts s.ow t.at Ct.e notion of legal entity is used to defeat ,u(lic convenience# :ustify wrong# ,rotect fraud# or defend crime# t.e law will regard t.e cor,oration as an association of ,ersons# or in t.e case of two cor,orations# will merge t.em into one
<.us# only t.e L$8 Construction Cor,oration is t.e em,loyer of <eofllo Lacson. <.e ot.er cor,oration do not .ave any em,loyer-em,loyee relations wit. Lacson. <.e case in Euestion does not include any fact t.at would :ustify ,iercing t.e veil of cor,orate fiction of t.e ot.er cor,orations in order to ,rotect t.e rig.ts of worDers.
In a case (Conce,t $uilders# Inc. v. 'L!C. /42 SC!A )6* # t.e Su,reme Court ruled t.at it is a fundamental ,rinci,le of cor,oration law t.at a
Page 52 of 108
EBE R *!ti2"4<i-: 7 t #?i" d %& 1!;t4 & L!84 (2000) $anco de 8anila and t.e Ang Fusay Janitorial and
Pest Control Agency entered into an Inde,endent Contractor Agreement wit. t.e usual sti,ulations5 s,ecifically# t.e a(sence of em,loyer-em,loyee
generous customers. In time# t.e %!9s formed t.e Solar Ugnayan ng mga Ua(a(ai.ang Inaa,i (SUUI - a la(or union duly registered wit. ;9L&.
relations.i,# and t.e relief from lia(ility clauses. Can t.e $anD# as a client# and t.e Agency# as an inde,endent contractor# sti,ulate t.at no em,loyerem,loyee relations.i, exists (etween t.e $anD
and t.e em,loyees of t.e Agency w.o may (e assigned to worD in t.e $anDK !eason. (4M
Su(seEuently# SUUI filed a ,etition for certification election in order to (e recogniGed as t.e exclusive (argaining agent of its mem(ers. Solar Plexus o,,osed t.e ,etition for certification election on t.e singular ground of a(sence of em,loyer-em,loyee
relations.i, (etween t.e %!9s on one .and and t.e nig.t clu( on t.e ot.er .and.
8ay t.e %!9s form SUUI as a la(or organiGation

for ,ur,oses of collective (argainingK &x,lain (riefly. (4M . SUGGESTE7 ANSWER'
SUGGESTE7 ANSWER'
<.ey can so sti,ulate if t.e relations.i, is indeed Jo( contracting. Iet t.e sti,ulation cannot ,revail
<.e %!9s may form SUUI as a la(or organiGation

for ,ur,oses of collective (argaining. <.ere is an em,loyer-em,loyee relations.i, (etween t.e %!9s and t.e nig.t clu(.
over t.e facts and t.e laws. <.e existence of

em,loyer-em,loyee relations.i, is determined (y
facts and law and not (y sti,ulation of t.e ,arties. (Insular Life Assurance Co.. Ltd. v. 'L!C. /+2 ALTERNATI9E ANSWER'
Ies# t.ey can sti,ulate ,rovided t.at t.e contract of Inde,endent contractor is valid in accordance
SC!A 621 ()**+ <a(as v. California 8anufacturing Co. Inc.# )1* SC!A 6*2 ()*+* N.
<.e La(or Code (in Article )3+ ,rovides t.at any

woman w.o is ,ermitted or suffered to worD# wit.
or wit.out com,ensation# in any nig.tclu(# cocD tail

lounge# massage clinic# (ar or similar esta(lis.ment# under t.e effective control or su,ervision of t.e em,loyer for a su(stantial ,eriod of time as determined (y t.e Secretary of La(or# s.all (e considered as an em,loyee of suc. esta(lis.ment for ,ur,oses of la(or and social legislation.
wit. Art )01 of t.e La(or Code.

EBE R *!ti2"4<i-: E* ? "t4 (1996) ) @.en does an em,loyerrelations.i, existK em,loyee
SUGGESTE7 ANSWER' <.e Su,reme Court# in a long line of decisions .as consistently ruled t.at t.e following are t.e
elements of an em,loyer-em,loyee relations.i,5
In t.e case at (ar# it is clearly stated t.at t.e

women once t.ey enter t.e ,remises of t.e nig.t
clu( would (e under t.e direct su,ervision of t.e
A. Selection and engagement of t.e em,loyee$. Payment of wagesC. Power of disci,line and dismissal- and ;. Power to control t.e em,loyeePs conduct as
manager from +500 ,.m. to 6500 a.m. everyday including Sundays and .olidays. Suc. is indicative of an em,loyer-em,loyee relations.i, since t.e
manager would (e exercising t.e rig.t of control. EBE R *!ti2"4<i-: S ;)#it& G)!#d4: 1*2!ti"$
regards .is em,loyment. ALTERNATI9E ANSWER:

An em,loyer-em,loyee relations.i, exists w.en a ,erson (an em,loyer w.o carries on a (usiness#
trade# Industry# undertaDing# or activity of any Dind uses t.e services of anot.er ,erson (an em,loyee
w.o# receiving com,ensation# is under t.e em,loyerPs orders as regards t.e em,loyment. EBE R *!ti2"4<i-: GROC4 & Ni$<t C*)%4 (1999) ?AC<S5 Solar Plexus $ar and 'ig.t Clu( allowed
(1999) St!t)4 ?AC<S5 Asia Security = Investigation Agency (ASIA executed a one-year contract wit. t.e
$aron Fotel ($A!9' for t.e former to ,rovide t.e latter wit. twenty (/0 security guards to safeguard
t.e ,ersons and (elongings of .otel guests#
among ot.ers. <.e security guards filled u, $aron a,,lication form and su(mitted t.e executed forms
directly to t.e Security ;e,artment of $aron. <.e
(y tolerance fifty (40
%uest !elations 9fficers
(%!9 to worD wit.out com,ensation in its esta(lis.ment under t.e direct su,ervision of its 8anager from +500 ,.m. to 6500 a.m. everyday#
,ay sli,s of t.e security guards (ore $aronPs logo and s.owed t.at $aron deducted t.erefrom t.e for SSS ,remiums# amounts medicare
contri(utions and wit..olding taxes. Assignments of security guards# w.o s.ould (e on duty or on
including Sundays and .olidays. <.e %!9s#

.owever# are free to ,ly t.eir trade elsew.ere at anytime (ut once t.ey enter t.e ,remises of t.e
nig.t clu(# t.ey are reEuired to stay u, to closing
call# ,romotions# sus,ensions# dismissals and

award citations for meritorious services were all done u,on a,,roval (y $aronPs c.ief Security officer.
time. <.e %!9s earned t.eir Dee, exclusively from commissions for food and drinDs# and ti,s from
Page $# of 108
After t.e ex,iration of t.e contract wit. Asia# $aron did not renew t.e same and instead executed anot.er contract for security services wit. anot.er agency. Asia ,laced t.e affected security guards on Cfloating statusC on Cno worD no ,ayC (asis. Faving (een dis,laced from worD# t.e Asia security guards filed a case against t.e $aron Fotel for illegal dismissal# overtime ,ay# minimum wage differentials# vacation leave and sicD leave (enefits# and )3t. mont. ,ay.
(een a registered mem(er-em,loyee.
$aron Fotel denied lia(ility alleging t.at Asia is t.e em,loyer of t.e security guards and t.erefore# t.eir com,laint for illegal dismissal and ,ayment of money claims s.ould (e directed against Asia. 'evert.eless# $aron filed a <.ird Party Com,laint against Asia. ). Is t.ere an em,loyer-em,loyee relations.i, (etween t.e $aron Fotel# on one .and# and t.e Asia security guards# on t.e ot.er .andK &x,lain (riefly# (3M SUGGESTE7 ANSWER' As a general rule# t.e security guards of a ,rivate security guard agency are t.e em,loyees of t.e latter and not of t.e esta(lis.ment t.at .as entered into a contract wit. t.e ,rivate security guard agency for security services. $ut under t.e facts in t.e Euestion# $aron Fotel a,,ear to .ave .ired t.e security guards# to .ave ,aid t.eir wages# to .ave t.e ,ower to ,romote# sus,end or dismiss t.e security guards and t.e ,ower of control over t.em# namely# t.e security guards were under orders of $aron Fotel as regard t.eir em,loyment.
$ecause of t.e a(ove-mentioned circumstances# $aron Fotel is t.e em,loyer of t.e security guards.
/. Assuming t.at ASIA is t.e em,loyer# is t.e act of ASIA in ,lacing t.e security guards on Cfloating statusC lawfulK @.yK (/M SUGGESTE7 ANSWER'
It is lawful for a ,rivate security guard agency to ,lace its security guard on a Cfloating statusC if it .as no assignment to give to said security guards.
$ut if t.e security guards are ,laced on a Cfloating statusC for more t.an six (1 mont.s# t.e security guards may consider t.emselves as .aving (een dismissed.
EBE R *!ti2"4<i-: S *3BE?-*2& d (200>)

Pa(lo was a farm-.and in a ,lantation owned (y A$C = Co.# worDing a,,roximately 1 days a weeD for a good )4 years. U,on Pa(loPs deat.# .is widow filed a claim for (urial grant and ,ension (enefits wit. t.e Social Security System (SSS . <.e claim was denied on t.e ground t.at Pa(lo .ad not
Pa(loPs widow filed a ,etition (efore t.e SSS asDing t.at A$C = Co. (e directed to ,ay t.e ,remium contri(utions of Pa(lo and t.at .is name (e re,orted for SSS coverage. A$C = Co. countered t.at Pa(lo was .ired to ,low# .arrow and (urrow# using .is own cara(ao and ot.er im,lements and following .is own sc.edule of worD .ours# wit.out any su,ervision from t.e com,any. If ,roven# would t.is factual setting advanced (y A$C = Co. (e a valid defense against t.e ,etitionK
SUGGESTE7 ANSWER'
A$C = Co. .as a valid defense. Pa(lo s.ould (e an em,loyee of A$C = Co. to (e under t.e com,ulsory coverage of t.e SSS. <o (e an em,loyee# Pa(lo s.ould (e under t.e control of A$C = Co. as regards .is em,loyment. $ut t.e facts s.ow t.at .e was not under t.e control of A$C = Co. as regards .is em,loyment. Among ot.ers# .e .ad .is own sc.edule of worD .ours# wit.out any su,ervision from t.e com,any. <.us# .e is an inde,endent contractor and not an em,loyee. An inde,endent contractor is not under t.e com,ulsory coverage of t.e SSS. Fe may(e covered as a self-em,loyed ,erson. $ut t.en as suc.# A$C = Co. .as no legal o(ligation to re,ort Pa(lo for coverage under t.e SSS (ecause A$C = Co. is not Pa(loPs em,loyer.
elements of .iring# ,ayment of wages# ,ower to dismiss and ,ower to control are ,resumed from t.e fact t.at Pa(lo is worDing 1 days a weeD# for )4 years now. Pa(loPs use of .is ,low# .arrow# (urrow# cara(ao and ot.er im,lements and .is .aving .is own sc.edule of worD .ours wit.out any su,ervision from t.e com,any do not erase t.e element of control on t.e ,art of A$C = Co. (ecause under t.e Ccontrol testC# it is enoug. t.at t.e em,loyerPs rig.t to control exists. It is not necessary t.at t.e same (e exercised (y t.e em,loyer# it is enoug. t.at suc. rig.t to control exists. (!eligious of t.e Airgin 8ary v. 'L!C. 3)1 SC!A 1)6# 1/* ()***
EBE R *!ti2"4<i-: W2#G #4 -!id %& R 4)*t4 (2004)

$. <!O# a local s.i,,ing firm# maintains a fleet of motoriGed (oats ,lying t.e island (arangays of AP# a coastal town. At day>s end t.e (oat o,erators7crew mem(ers turn over to t.e (oat owner t.eir cas. collections from cargo fees and ,assenger fares# less t.e ex,enses for diesel fuel# food# landing fees and s,are ,arts. ?ifty ,ercent (40M of t.e mont.ly income or earnings derived from t.e o,erations of t.e (oats are given to t.e (oatmen (y way of com,ensation. ;educted from t.e individual s.ares of t.e

It is not a valid defense# for Pa(lo could (e considered an em,loyee of A$C = Co. <.e
Page $, of 108
(oatmen are t.eir cas. advance and ,eso value of t.eir a(sences# if any. Are t.ese (oatmen entitled to overtime ,ay# .oliday ,ay# and )3t. mont. ,ayK (4M SUGGESTE7 ANSWER' If t.e (oatmen are considered em,loyees# liDe :ee,ney drivers ,aid on a (oundary system# t.e (oatmen are not entitled to overtime and .oliday ,ay (ecause t.ey are worDers w.o are ,aid (y results. Said worDers# under t.e La(or Code are not entitled# among ot.ers# to overtime ,ay and .oliday ,ay. In accordance wit. t.e !ules and !egulations im,lementing t.e )3t. mont. ,ay law# .owever# t.e (oatmen are entitled to t.e )3t. mont. ,ay. @orDers w.o are ,aid (y results are to (e ,aid t.eir )3t. mont. ,ay. ANOT0ER SUGGESTE7 ANSWER'
'o. <.e arrangement (etween t.e (oat owner and t.e (oat o,erators7crew mem(ers ,artooD of t.e nature of a :oint venture. <.e (oatmen did not receive fixed com,ensation as t.ey s.ared only in t.e cas. collections from cargo fees and ,assenger fares# less ex,enses for fuel# food# landing fees and s,are ,arts. It a,,ears t.at t.ere was neit.er rig.t of control nor actual exercise of suc. rig.t on t.e ,art of t.e (oat owner over t.e (oatmen. It is clear t.at t.ere was no em,loyer- em,loyee relations.i, (etween t.e (oat owner and t.e (oatmen. As suc.# t.ese (oatmen are not entitled to overtime ,ay# .oliday ,ay and )3t. mont. ,ay.
La(or Code Ct.ere is no em,loyer-em,loyee
EBE R *!ti2"4<i-: W2#Gi"$ St)d "t & S;<22* (199.)

!u(en Padilla entered into a written agreement win %om(urGa College to worD for t.e latter in exc.ange for t.e ,rivilege of studying in said institution. !u(enPs worD was confined to Dee,ing clean t.e lavatory facilities of t.e sc.ool. 9ne sc.ool day# !u(en got into a fist fig.t wit. a classmate# Aictor 8onteverde# as a result of w.ic. t.e latter sustained a fractured arm.
Aictor 8onteverde filed a civil case for damages against !u(en Padilla# im,leading %om(urGa College due to t.e latterPs alleged lia(ility as an em,loyer of !u(en Padilla. Under t.e circumstances# could %om(urGa College (e .eld lia(le (y Aictor 8onteverde as an em,loyer of !u(en PadillaK SUGGESTE7 ANSWER'
%om(urGa College is not lia(le for t.e acts of !u(en Padilla (ecause t.ere is no em,loyerem,loyee relations.i, (etween t.em. As ,rovided in t.e !ules and !egulations Im,lementing t.e
relations.i, (etween students on one .and# and sc.ools# colleges# or universities on t.e ot.er# w.ere students worD wit. t.e latter in exc.ange for t.e ,rivilege to study free of c.arge# ,rovided t.e students are given real o,,ortunity# including suc. facilities as may (e reasona(le and necessary to finis. t.eir c.osen courses under suc. arrangement.C ALTERNATI9E ANSWER%om(urGa College can (e .eld lia(le (y Aictor 8onteverde as an em,loyer of !u(en Padilla. A,,lying t.e control test# t.e College is t.e em,loyer of Padilla (ecause in t.e latterPs worD of Dee,ing clean t.e lavatory facilities of t.e sc.ool# .e is under t.e control of t.e College as regards .is em,loyment. Fowever# !u(en Padilla was not acting wit.in .is assigned tasDs. Art. /)+0. 'ew Civil Code ,rovides5 <.e o(ligation im,osed (y Art. /)21 (Juasi-delicts is demanda(le xxx (also from em,loyers (w.o s.all (e lia(le for t.e damages caused (y t.eir em,loyees xxx acting wit.in t.e sco,e of t.eir assigned tasDs# even t.oug. t.e former are not engaged in any (usiness or industry.C It could (e argued t.at !u(en Padilla was not acting wit.in t.e sco,e of .is assigned tasDs- t.us# .is em,loyer# %om(urGa College is not lia(le.
E?-*2&? "t: A*i "4: R H)i4it 4 (199,)

/. P.il-'orDsgard Com,any# Inc.# a domestic cor,oration engaged in t.e o,tics (usiness# im,orted from Sweden .ig.ly so,.isticated and sensitive instruments for its la(oratory. <o install t.e instruments and o,erate t.em# t.e com,any intends to em,loy $or:a Anders# a Swedis. tec.nician so:ourning as a tourist in t.e P.ili,,ines.
As lawyer of t.e com,any# w.at measures will you taDe to ensure t.e legitimate em,loyment of $or:a Anders and at t.e same time ,rotect P.ili,,ine la(or. ;iscuss fully. SUGGESTE7 ANSWER'
<o ensure t.e legitimate em,loyment of $or:a Anders# a non-resident alien# I will a,,ly at t.e ;e,artment of La(or and &m,loyment for t.e Issuance of an em,loyment ,ermit claiming t.at t.ere is no one in t.e P.ili,,ines w.o can do t.e worD t.at Anders is (eing asDed to do.
At t.e same time# to ,rotect P.ili,,ine la(or# I will see to it t.at Anders will .ave an understudy w.o will learn# (y worDing wit. Anders# .ow to install and o,erate t.e .ig.ly so,.isticated and sensitive instruments from Sweden. ALTERNATI9E ANSWER:
<o ,rotect P.ili,,ine La(or# t.e La(or Code ,rovides t.at t.e alien em,loyee s.all not transfer
Page $$ of 108
to anot.er Jo( or c.ange .is em,loyer wit.out

,rior a,,roval of t.e Secretary of La(or.
E?-*2&? "t: C<i*d# ": B *28 1, &#4 2*d

(2004)
A s,inster sc.ool teac.er tooD ,ity on one of .er
commercial esta(lis.ment. Is t.e claim of t.e driver validK L/MN SUGGESTE7 ANSWER' <.e driver is a .ouse.el,er. A ,erson is a .ouse.el,er or is engaged in domestic or
.ouse.old service if .e7s.e renders services in t.e

em,loyerPs .ome w.ic. are usually necessary or desira(le for t.e maintenance and en:oyment t.ereof and includes ministering to t.e ,ersonal comfort and convenience of t.e mem(ers of t.e em,loyerPs .ouse.old including t.e services of family drivers.
A family driver w.o drives t.e family van to fetc.
,u,ils# a ro(ust and ,recocious )/-year old (oy w.ose ,oor family could (arely afford t.e cost of .is sc.ooling. S.e lives alone at .er .ouse near t.e sc.ool after .er .ousemaid left. In t.e afternoon# s.e lets t.e (oy do various c.ores as cleaning# fetc.ing water and all Dinds of errands
after sc.ool .ours. S.e gives .im rice and P30.00 (efore t.e (oy goes .ome at 2500 every nig.t. <.e sc.ool ,rinci,al learned a(out it and c.arged
.er wit. violating t.e law w.ic. ,ro.i(its t.e
merc.andise from su,,liers and delivers t.e same

to a (outiEue in a mall owned (y t.e family for
em,loyment of c.ildren (elow )4 years of age. In

.er defense# t.e teac.er stated t.at t.e worD ,erformed (y .er ,u,il is not .aGardous# and s.e
w.om .e worDs s.ould (e ,aid t.e minimum daily

wage of a driver in a commercial esta(lis.ment. <.e La(or Code (in Article )63 ,rovides t.at no .ouse.el,er s.all (e assigned to worD in a commercial# industrial or agricultural enter,rise at a
invoDed t.e exce,tion ,rovided in t.e ;e,artment domestic and .ouse.old service.
Is .er defense tena(leK !eason. (4M
9rder of ;9L& for t.e engagement of ,ersons in
wage or salary rate lower t.an t.at ,rovided (y law

for agricultural or non-agricultural worDers. E?-*2&? "t: 0!"di;!-- d E?-*2& (1995)
SUGGESTE7 ANSWER'
'o# .er defense is not tena(le. Under Article )3*
of t.e La(or Code on Cminimum em,loya(le ageC# no c.ild (elow )4 years of age s.all (e em,loyed
exce,t w.en .e worDs directly under t.e sole res,onsi(ility of .is ,arents or guardian# t.e ,rovisions of t.e alleged ;e,artment 9rder of ;9L& to t.e contrary notwit.standing. A mere
A lady worDer was (orn wit. a ,.ysical deformity# s,ecifically# .ard of .earing# s,eec. im,aired# and color (lind. Fowever# t.ese deficiencies do not
im,air .er worDing a(ility. Can t.e em,loyer classify t.e lady worDer as a .andica,,ed worDer so t.at .er daily wage will only (e seventy-five ,ercent (24M of t.e a,,lica(le daily minimum wageK L4MN SUGGESTE7 ANSWER' 'o# t.e em,loyer cannot classify t.e lady worDer as a .andica,,ed worDer (ecause according to t.e
;e,artment 9rder cannot ,revail over t.e ex,ress

,ro.i(itory ,rovisions of t.e La(or Code.
;Note< Se-. #/ RA ("# a ows a !hi d %e ow 13 $ears of age to work for not "ore than 00 ho'rs a week= &ro(ided* that the work sha not %e "ore than fo'r 728 ho'rs at an$
gi(en da$= &ro(ided* f'rther* that he does not work %etween 8 o>! o!k in the e(ening and 4 o>! o!k in the "orning of the fo owing da$= and &ro(ided* fina $* that
facts in t.e Euestion# .er deficiencies do not im,air

.er worDing a(ility. If .er earning ca,acity is t.erefore not also im,aired# t.en s.e cannot (e considered a .andica,,ed worDer.
the work is not ha:ardo's or de eterio's to his hea th or "ora s# T?I+ I+ A RECENT @A, APPROAED ON@Y ON BC@Y 08* 0001* whi!h is %e$ond the !'tDoff &eriod of
the Bar E)a"sE
$ecause of t.e a(ove fact# t.e em,loyer s.all not

,ay .er less t.an t.e a,,lica(le daily minimum wage. (See Article 2+ of t.e La(or Code ANOT0ER SUGGESTE7 ANSWER'
E?-*2&? "t: 7#i6 # !4 02)4 < *- # & i" !

C2?? #;i!* E4t!%*i4<? "t (1995) <.e weeDly worD sc.edule of a driver is as follows5
Ies# t.e em,loyer can classify t.e lady worDer as

a .andica,,ed worDer (ecause .er earning ca,acity may (e im,aired (y .er ,.ysical deficiencies As suc. .andica,,ed worDer# t.e em,loyer may enter into an em,loyment
8onday# @ednesday# ?riday - ;rive t.e family car to (ring and fetc. t.e c.ildren to and from sc.ool. <uesday# <.ursday. Saturday - ;rive t.e family
van to fetc. merc.andise from su,,liers and
agreement wit. .er w.ere(y t.e rate to (e ,aid to .er may (e less t.an t.e a,,lica(le legal minimum
wage (ut not less t.an 24M of suc. wage. E?-*2&? "t: 0!"di;!-- d E?-*2& (2000)
deliver t.e same to a (outiEue in a mall owned (y

t.e family. Is t.e driver a .ouse.el,erK L3MN
<.e same driver claims t.at for worD ,erformed on

<uesday# <.ursday and Saturday# .e s.ould (e
Ana CruG .as a low IJ. S.e .as to (e told at least t.ree times (efore s.e understands .er daily worD
assignment. Fowever# .er worD out,ut is at least
,aid t.e minimum daily wage of a driver of a
Page $% of 108
eEual to t.e out,ut of t.e least efficient worDer in .er worD section. Is 8s# CruG a .andica,,ed worDerK &x,lain. (4M SUGGESTE7 ANSWER'
'o# low IJ or low efficiency does not maDe t.e worDer C.andica,,edC in t.e contem,lation of law. Fandica, means suc. ,.ysical or mental infirmity t.at im,airs ca,acity to worD. <.e deficiency may also (e due to age or in:ury. (Art 2+. La(or Code . E?-*2&? "t: 0!"di;!-- d W2#G #4: C2"t#!;t)!* E?-*2& 4 (2006)
w.atever (eing exercised (y t.e former over t.e latter.C
E?-*2&? "t: 02? 82#G #4 (2000)

( 8rs. Josie Juan is t.e confidential secretary of t.e C.airman of t.e $oard of t.e (anD. S.e is ,resently on maternity leave. In an arrangement w.ere t.e C.airman of t.e $oard can still .ave access to .er services# t.e (anD allows .er to worD in .er residence during .er leave. ?or t.is ,ur,ose# t.e (anD installed a fax mac.ine in .er residence# and gave .er a cell,.one and a (ee,er. Is 8rs. Juan a .omeworDer under t.e lawK &x,lain. (3M
?or .umanitarian reasons# a (anD .ired several .andica,,ed worDers to count and sort out currencies. <.eir em,loyment contract was for six (1 mont.s. <.e (anD terminated t.eir em,loyment on t.e ground t.at t.eir contract .as ex,ired ,rom,ting t.em to file wit. t.e La(or Ar(iter a com,laint for illegal dismissal. @ill t.eir action ,ros,erK (4M ALTERNATI9E ANSWER'
<.eir action will not ,ros,er (ecause t.ey are covered (y t.e fixed term em,loyment contract w.ic. automatically la,sed at t.e end of t.e 1mont. ,eriod ($rent Sc.ool v. Qamora# %.!. 'o. 6+6*6# ?e(ruary 4# )**0- Art. /+0# La(or Code . A contract of em,loyment for a definite ,eriod terminates on its own term at t.e end of its ,eriod. It does not necessarily follow t.at t.e ,arties are for(idden from agreeing on a fixed ,eriod of time for t.e ,erformance of activities usually necessary and desira(le in t.e usual (usiness of t.e em,loyer (Pangilinan v. %en. 8illing# %.!. 'o. )6*3/*# July )/# /006 .
SUGGESTE7 ANSWER' 'o# s.e is actually an office worDer. S.e is not an industrial .omeworDer w.o acce,ts worD to (e fa(ricated or ,rocessed at .ome for a contractor# w.ic. worD# w.en finis.ed# will (e returned to or re,urc.ased (y said contractor. (Art. )44# La(or Code .
E?-*2&? "t: 02)4 < *- #4 (2000)

a 'ova $anDing Cor,oration .as a rest.ouse and recreational facility in t.e .ig.lands of <agaytay City for t.e use of its to, executives and cor,orate clients. <.e rest.ouse staff includes a caretaDer# two cooDs and a laundrywoman. All of t.em are re,orted to t.e Social Security System as domestic or .ouse.old em,loyees of t.e rest.ouse and recreational facility and not of t.e (anD. Can t.e (anD legally consider t.e caretaDer# cooDs and laundrywoman as domestic em,loyees of t.e rest.ouse and not of t.e (anDK (3M
ALTERNATI9E ANSWER' Ies. Undenia(ly# .andica,,ed worDers are never on eEual terms wit. t.e (anD as em,loyer. In P.ili,,ine 'ational 9il Com,any-&nergy ;evelo,ment Cor,oration v. 'L!C# %.!. 'o. *2262# 8arc. 3)# )**3# t.e Su,reme Court set down two criteria under w.ic. fixed contracts of em,loyment do not circumvent security of tenure# to wit5 ). <.e fixed ,eriod of em,loyment was Dnowingly and voluntarily agreed u,on (y t.e ,arties# wit.out any force# duress or im,ro,er ,ressure (eing (roug.t to (ear u,on t.e em,loyee and a(out any ot.er circumstances vitiating .is consent- or /. It satisfactorily a,,ears t.at t.e em,loyer and t.e em,loyee dealt wit. eac. ot.er on more or less eEual terms wit. no moral dominance w.atever (eing exercised (y t.e former on t.e latter.
&ven granting t.at t.e .andica,,ed worDers and t.e (anD agreed to term em,loyment# it could not (e said t.at t.ey Cdealt wit. eac. ot.er on more or less eEual terms wit. no moral dominance
SUGGESTE7 ANSWER' 'o# t.ey are not domestic em,loyees. <.ey are (anD em,loyees (ecause t.e rest.ouse and recreational facility are (usiness facilities as t.ey are for use of t.e to, executives and clients of t.e (anD. LArt. )6)# La(or Code- A,ex 8ining Co.# Inc. v. 'L!C# )*1 SC!A /4) ()**) - <raders !oyal $anD v. 'L!C. %.!. 'o. )/2+16# ;ecem(er //. )***N
E?-*2&? "t: Mi"2#4 (2006)

;etermine w.et.er t.e following minors s.ould (e ,ro.i(ited from (eing .ired and from ,erforming t.eir res,ective duties indicated .ereunder5 (4M
).
A )2-year old (oy worDing as miner at t.e @alwadi 8ining Cor,oration. SUGGESTE7 ANSWER'
It is a(solutely Pro.i(ited for any ,erson (elow )+ years of age to (e em,loyed in .aGardous worD# .armful to .ealt. and safety (Sec. 3# !ule )/# $ooD 3# ties Im,lementing t.e La(or Code # including construction worD# logging# firefig.ting# mining# Euarrying# stevedoring# docD worD# dee, sea fis.ing and mec.aniGed fis.ing (Sec. +L/N# !ule )# $ooD 6# !ules Im,lementing t.e La(or Code .
Page $& of 108
/. An ))-year old (oy w.o is an accom,lis.ed singer and ,erformer in different ,arts of t.e country. SUGGESTE7 ANSWER' Under !A. 21)0# Section )/# as amended (y !A. 'o. */3) states t.at5 &m,loyment of c.ildren R c.ildren (elow )4 years of age s.all not (e em,loyed (Art. )3*# La(or Code exce,t w.en t.e following conditions are met5 (a @.en t.e c.ildPs ,artici,ation in ,u(lic entertainment is essential(( <.ere is a written contract a,,roved (y t.e ;9L& and signed (y t.e c.ildPs ,arents or legal guardians# wit. t.e ex,ress consent of t.e c.ild- and (c t.e em,loyer w.o em,loys t.e c.ild must secure a worD ,ermit from t.e ;9L&. 3. A )4-year old girl worDing as a li(rary assistant in a girlsP .ig. sc.ool. SUGGESTE7 ANSWER' S.e may worD as a li(rary assistant ,rovided5 () <.e em,loyment does not endanger .er life# safety# morals and normal develo,ment(/ S.e is given t.e o,,ortunity for ,rimary or secondary education- and (3 <.e em,loyment does not exceed + .ours a day and 60 .ours a weeD (Sees. )/ = )6# !A. 21)0# as amended (y !A. */3) . 6. A )1-year old girl worDing as model ,romoting alco.olic (everages. SUGGESTE7 ANSWER'
Section )6# Article +# !A. 21)0# as amended (y Section 4# !A. */3) states t.at a c.ild s.all (e ,ro.i(ited to act as a model in any advertisement directly or indirectly ,romoting alco.olic (everages# intoxicating drinDs# to(acco and its (y,roducts# gam(ling or any form of violence or ,ornogra,.y.
$. I will advise t.e ,aint manufacturing com,any t.at ft cannot .ire a ,erson w.o is aged seventeen ()2 . Art )3* (c of t.e La(or Code ,rovides t.at a ,erson (elow eig.teen ()+ years of age s.all not (e allowed to worD in an undertaDing w.ic. is .aGardous or deleterious in nature as determined (y t.e Secretary of La(or. Paint manufacturing .as (een classified (y t.e Secretary of La(or as a .aGardous worD.
E?-*2&? "t: R!di2BT9 S<28 024t: ED-i#!ti2" 23 T #? (200,)

() 8alyn Aartan is a well-Dnown radio-<A s.ow .ost. S.e signed a contract wit. OIQ &ntertainment 'etworD to .ost a one-.our daily talD s.ow w.ere s.e interviews various cele(rities on to,ical su(:ects t.at s.e .erself selects. S.e was ,aid a mont.ly remuneration of P300#000.00. <.e ,rogram .ad (een airing for almost two years w.en s,onsorsP advertising revenues dwindled# constraining t.e networD to cancel t.e s.ow u,on t.e ex,iration of its latest contract wit. 8s. Aartan. <.e talD-s.ow .ost ,rotested t.e discontinuance of .er mont.ly talent fee# claiming t.at it was tantamount to .er illegal dismissal from t.e networD since s.e .as already attained t.e status of a regular em,loyee. (1M
(a) As the net'or+(s le*al $o#nsel, ho' 'o#ld &o# -#sti)& its de$ision to $an$el .s/ 0artan(s pro*ra% 'hi$h in e))e$t ter%inated her servi$es in the pro$ess ALTERNATI9E ANSWER'
As t.e networDPs legal counsel# I will argue t.at 8s. Aartan is under contract on a fixed term em,loyment (asis. <.e networD cancelled t.e s.ow Cu,on t.e ex,iration of its latest contract wit. 8s. Aartan.C Fence# t.is does not involve dismissal (ut an ex,iration of term. (?elix v. $uenaseda# %.!. 'o. )0*206# January )2#)**4- St. <.eresaPs Sc.ool of 'ovalic.es ?oundation v. 'L!C# %.!. 'o. )//*44# A,ril )4# )**+
4. A )2-year old (oy worDing as a dealer in a casino. SUGGESTE7 ANSWER' Section )6# Article +# !A. 21)0# as amended (y Section 4# !A. */3) ,ro.i(its t.e (oy from worDing as a dealer in a casino as t.is ,romotes gam(ling. 8oreover# ;9L& ;e,t. 9rder 'o. 06# series of )***# ex,ressly ,ro.i(its em,loyment of CteenagersC in gam(ling .alls.
ALTERNATI9E ANSWER' As t.e networDPs counsel# t.ere was no termination of .er services# only t.e ex,iration of .er contract# (eing an inde,endent contractor. (SonGa v. A$S- C$'# %.!. 'o. )3+04)# June )0# /006 (!) As $o#nsel )or the tal+-sho' host, ho' 'o#ld &o# ar*#e &o#r $ase ALTERNATI9E ANSWER=
E?-*2&? "t: Mi"2#4: 0!J!#d2)4 W2#G (2002)

$. Iou were asDed (y a ,aint manufacturing com,any regarding t.e ,ossi(le em,loyment as a mixer of a ,erson# aged seventeen ()2 # w.o s.all (e directly under t.e care of t.e section su,ervisor. @.at advice would you giveK &x,lain (riefly. (/M
SUGGESTE7 ANSWER'
As a radio-<A talD s.ow .ost# 8s. Aartan is ,erforming an activity w.ic. is necessary and desira(le in t.e usual trade or (usiness of OIQ &ntertainment 'etworD. Fence# 8s. Aartan is a regular em,loyee and cannot (e terminated exce,t for cause and only after due ,rocess. <.e cancellation of t.e ,rogram is tantamount to closure (ut OIQ &ntertainment 'etworD did not com,ly wit. t.e ,rocedural reEuirements of law#
Page 58 of 108
i.e.# 30 days notice to 8s. Aartan and to ;9L&
,rior to t.e intended date of termination. ALTERNATI9E ANSWER' As counsel for t.e talD s.ow .ost# I will argue t.at s.e is a regular em,loyee. ?irst# s.e ,erforms :o( t.at is necessary and desira(le to t.e nature of t.e (usiness of t.e em,loyer- Second# s.e serves for at least one () year w.ic. is an indication of
regular em,loyment.
t.e remarDs did not give due regard to t.e a,,licantsP feelings and it is a c.auvinistic disdain of .er .onor# :ustifying t.e finding of sexual .arassment LAillarama v. 'L!C# /31 SC!A /+0 ()**6 N E?-*2&? "t: W2? ": A"tiBS D)!* 0!#!44? "t A;t (2004) A. Pedrito 8asculado# a college graduate from
E?-*2&? "t: W2? ": A"tiBS D)!*

0!#!44? "t A;t (2000) A Personnel 8anager# w.ile interviewing an
t.e ,rovince# tried .is lucD in t.e city and landed a :o( as utility7maintenance man at t.e ware.ouse of a (ig s.o,,ing mall. After worDing as a casual em,loyee for six mont.s#
.e signed a contract for ,ro(ationary em,loyment for six mont.s. $eing well-(uilt
attractive female a,,licant for em,loyment# stared

directly at .er for ,rolonged ,eriods# al(eit in a friendly manner. After t.e interview# t.e manager
and ,.ysically attractive# .is su,ervisor# 8r.

Fercules $araD# tooD s,ecial interest to (efriend .im. @.en .is ,ro(ationary ,eriod was a(out to ex,ire# .e was sur,rised w.en one afternoon after worDing .ours# 8r. $araD
accom,anied t.e a,,licant to t.e door# s.ooD .er .and and ,atted .er on t.e s.oulder. Fe also asDed t.e a,,licant if .e could invite .er for dinner
and dancing at some future time. ;id t.e
Personnel 8anager# (y t.e a(ove acts# commit sexual .arassmentK !eason. (3M SUGGESTE7 ANSWER' Ies# (ecause t.e Personnel 8anager# a man# is in a ,osition to grant or not to grant a favor (a :o( to t.e a,,licant. Under t.e circumstances# inviting t.e
a,,licant for dinner or dancing creates a situation .ostile or unfriendly to t.e a,,licantPs c.ances for
followed .im to t.e men>s comfort room. After seeing t.at no one else was around# 8r. $araD ,laced .is arm over Pedrito>s s.oulder and
softly said5 BIou .ave great ,otential to (ecome regular em,loyee and I t.inD I can give you a favora(le recommendation. Can
you come over to my condo unit on Saturday
a :o( if s.e turns down t.e invitation. LSec. 3(a (3 #

!.A. 'o. 2+22# Anti-Sexual Farassment ActN.
evening so we can .ave a little drinDK I>m alone# and I>m sure you want to stay longer wit. t.e com,any.H Is 8r. $araD lia(le for sexual .arassment committed in a worD-related or em,loyment environmentK (4M SUGGESTE7 ANSWER' Ies# t.e elements of sexual .arassment are all
ALTERNATI9E ANSWER' <.ere is no sexual .arassment (ecause t.ere was

no solicitation of sexual favor in exc.ange of em,loyment. 'eit.er was t.ere any intimidating# .ostile or offensive environment for t.e a,,licant.
E?-*2&? "t: W2? ": A"tiBS D)!*

0!#!44? "t A;t (2000) ( In t.e course of an interview# anot.er female a,,licant inEuired from t.e same Personnel
,resent. <.e act of 8r. $araD was committed in a worD,lace. 8r. $araD# as su,ervisor of Pedrito
8asculado# .as aut.ority# influence and moral ascendancy over 8asculado. t.e Euestion liDe 8r. $araD
8anager if s.e .ad t.e ,.ysical attri(utes reEuired for t.e ,osition s.e a,,lied for. <.e Personnel 8anager re,lied5 CIou will (e more attractive if you
will wear micro-mini dresses wit.out t.e
$. %iven t.e s,ecific circumstances mentioned in

following
8asculado to t.e comfort room# etc. 8r. $araD was reEuesting a sexual favor from 8asculado
for a favora(le recommendation regarding t.e latterPs em,loyment.
undergarments t.at ladies normally wear.C ;id t.e Personnel 8anager# (y t.e a(ove re,ly# commit an act of sexual .arassmentK !eason. (3M SUGGESTE7 ANSWER'
'o# t.e Personnel 8anagerPs re,ly to t.e a,,licantPs Euestion w.et.er s.e Eualifies for t.e
It is not im,ossi(le for a male# w.o is a .omosexual# to asD for a sexual favor from anot.er
male. ANOT0ER SUGGESTE7 ANSWER' I do not see any sexual favor (eing solicited. condition for a Cfavora(le recommendation is not
,osition s.e is a,,lying for does not constitute

sexual .arassment. <.e Personnel 8anager did
not asD for or insinuate a reEuest for a sexual favor

in return for a favora(le action on .er a,,lication for a :o(. $ut t.e 8anagerPs statement may (e
Faving a Clittle drinDC in 8r. $araDPs Condo Unit# as one of t.e ,ro.i(ited acts enumerated in Sec. 3 (a of !.A. 2+22# ot.erwise Dnown as t.e Anti-Sexual
Farassment Act of )**4.
offensive if attire or ,.ysical looD is not a criterion

for t.e :o( (eing a,,lied for.
ALTERNATI9E ANSWER'
Ies. <.e remarDs would result in an offensive or .ostile environment for t.e em,loyee. 8oreover#
Page $( of 108
E?-*2&? "t: W2? ": A"tiBS D)!* 0!#!44? "t 64= 7i4;#i?i"!ti2" !$!i"4t W2? " (200>) Can an individual# t.e sole ,ro,rietor of a (usiness enter,rise# (e said to .ave violated t.e Anti-Sexual Farassment Act of )**4 if .e clearly discriminates against women in t.e ado,tion of ,olicy standards for em,loyment and ,romotions in t.e enter,riseK &x,lain. SUGGESTE7 ANSWER'
@.en an em,loyer discriminates against women in t.e ado,tion of ,olicy standards for em,loyment and ,romotion in .is enter,rise# .e is not guilty of sexual .arassment. Instead# t.e em,loyer is guilty of discrimination against women em,loyees w.ic. is declared to (e unlawful (y t.e La(or Code. ?or an em,loyer to commit sexual .arassment# .e as a ,erson of aut.ority# influence or moral ascendancy -s.ould .ave demanded# reEuested or ot.erwise reEuired a sexual favor from .is em,loyee w.et.er t.e demand# reEuest or reEuirement for su(mission is acce,ted (y t.e o(:ect of said act.
)31 # and ,ro.i(ited acts (Art. )32T of t.e La(or Code. STILL ANOT0ER SUGGESTE7 ANSWER'
It may (e noted t.at t.e ,olicy is directed only to married women. <.is may violate t.e s,irit of Article )31 of t.e La(or Code w.ic. ,rovides t.at it s.all (e unlawful for an em,loyer to reEuire as a condition of em,loyment or continuation of em,loyment t.at a woman s.all not get married.
E?-*2&? "t: W2? ": 7i4;#i?i"!ti2" %& # !42" 23 M!##i!$ (199,)

?il-Aire Aviation Com,any (?IL-AI!& is a new airline com,any recruiting flig.t attendants for its domestic flig.ts. It reEuires t.at t.e a,,licant (e single# not more t.an /6 years old# attractive# and familiar wit. t.ree (3 ma:or Aisayan dialects# viG5 Ilongo# Ce(uano and @aray. Lourdes# /3 years old# was acce,ted as s.e ,ossessed all t.e Eualifications. After ,assing t.e ,ro(ationary ,eriod# Lourdes disclosed t.at s.e got married w.en s.e was )+ years old (ut t.e marriage was already in t.e ,rocess of (eing annulled on t.e ground t.at .er .us(and was afflicted wit. a sexually transmissi(le disease at t.e time of t.e cele(ration of t.eir marriage. As a result of t.is revelation# Lourdes was not .ired as a regular flig.t attendant. ConseEuently# s.e filed a com,laint against ?IL-AI!& alleging t.at t.e ,re-em,loyment Eualifications violate relevant ,rovisions of t.e La(or Code and are against ,u(lic ,olicy.
E?-*2&? "t: W2? ": 7i4;#i?i"!ti2" %& # !42" 23 A$ (1995)

At any given time# a,,roximately ninety ,ercent (*0M of t.e ,roduction worDforce of a semiconductor com,any are females. Seventy-five ,ercent (24M of t.e female worDers are married and of c.ild-(earing years. It is im,erative t.at t.e Com,any must o,erate wit. a minimum num(er of a(sences to meet strict delivery sc.edules. In view of t.e very .ig. num(er of lost worDing .ours due to a(sences for family reasons and maternity leaves# t.e Com,any ado,ted a ,olicy t.at it will em,loy married women as ,roduction worDers only if t.ey are at least t.irty-five (34 years of age.
Is t.e contention of Lourdes tena(leK ;iscuss fully. SUGGESTE7 ANSWER' <.e contention of Lourdes is tena(le. @.en s.e was not .ired as a regular flig.t attendant (y ?IL- AI!& (ecause s.e disclosed t.at s.e got married w.en s.e was )+ years old. <.e airline com,any violated t.e ,rovision of t.e La(or Code w.ic. states5
CIt s.all (e unlawful for an em,loyer to reEuire as a condition of em,loyment or continuation of em,loyment t.at a woman em,loyee s.all not get married# or to sti,ulate ex,ressly or tacitly t.at u,on getting married a woman em,loyee s.all (e deemed resigned or se,arated# or to actually dismiss# disc.arge# discriminate or ot.erwise ,re:udice a woman em,loyee merely (y reason of .er marriage.C
Is t.e ,olicy violative of any lawK L4MN SUGGESTE7 ANSWER'

Ies# it is violative of Article )60 of t.e La(or Code w.ic. ,rovides t.at no em,loyer s.all discriminate against any ,erson in res,ect to terms and conditions of em,loyment on account of .is age.

<.e ,olicy of t.e com,any to em,loy married women as ,roduction worDers only if t.ey are at least t.irty-five (34 years of age is valid. <.ere is no ,ro.i(ition in t.e La(or Code for suc. an em,loyer to exercise t.is management function. <.ere is a :ustifia(le (asis for t.e com,any ,olicy. i.e.# t.e need for continuity of ,roduction wit. minimum a(sences (ecause of t.e ,eculiar (usiness conditions and needs of t.e com,any# i.e.# very tig.t delivery sc.edules. <.e com,any res,ects t.e institution of marriage as s.own (y t.e fact t.at it em,loys married women. <.ere is no violation of t.e sti,ulation against marriage (Art.
E?-*2&? "t: W2? ": di4;#i?i"!ti2": i** $!* di4?i44!* (199.) ;inna Ignacio was .ired (y Stag UaraoDe Clu( as a guest relations officer. ;inna was also reEuired to sing and dance wit. guests of t.e clu(. In ;inna IgnacioPs em,loyment contract# w.ic. s.e signed# t.e following sti,ulations a,,eared5 Com,ensation5 <i,s and commissions coming from guests s.all (e su(:ected to )4M deduction.
Page %) of 108
Fours of worD5 4 P.8. u, to / A.8. dairy

including Sundays and Folidays
six mont.s. A rating of CoutstandingC is rewarded
wit. a merit increase. S.e was given a C(elow

8arriage or averageC rating in t.e last two ,eriods. According to t.e (anDPs ,ersonnel ,olicy# a t.ird rating of
9t.er conditions5 8ust maintain a (ody weig.t

of *4 I(s.# remain single.
,regnancy will (e considered as a valid ground for a termination of em,loyment. A year later# ;inna Ignaclo reEuested to go on leave (ecause s.e would (e getting married to one
of t.e clu(Ps regular guests. <.e management of t.e clu( dismissed .er. ;inna filed a com,laint for illegal dismissal# nig.t
C(elow averageC will result in termination. 8r. Perry

@inDle called Carissa into .is office a few days (efore su(mitting .er ,erformance ratings. Fe
invited .er to s,end t.e nig.t wit. .im in .is rest
s.ift differential ,ay# (acDwages# overtime ,ay and

.oliday ,ay. ;iscuss t.e merits of ;innaPs
.ouse. S.e ,olitely declined. Undaunted# 8r. @inDle renewed .is invitation# and Carissa again declined. Fe t.en warned .er to Cwatc. outC (ecause s.e mig.t regret it later on. A few days later# Carissa found t.at .er t.ird and last rating was again C(elow average.C Carissa t.en filed a com,laint for sexual .arassment against 8r. @inDle wit. t.e ;e,artment of La(or and &m,loyment. In .is counter-affidavit# .e claimed t.at .e was enamored wit. Carissa. Fe denied .aving demanded# muc. less received any sexual favors from .er in
com,laint. SUGGESTE7 ANSWER'

<.e first issue to (e resolved is5 Is ;inna Ignacio
an em,loyee of t.e Star UaraoDe Clu(K Ies# s.e is

an em,loyee ,er t.e ,rovision of t.e La(or Code
t.at states5 CAny woman w.o is ,ermitted or
suffered to worD# wit. or wit.out com,ensation# in any nig.t clu(# cocDtail lounge# massage clinic# (ar or similar esta(lis.ment# under t.e effective control
or su,ervision of t.e em,loyer for a su(stantial ,eriod s.all (e considered an em,loyee of suc. esta(lis.ment for ,ur,oses of la(or and social
consideration of giving .er an CoutstandingC rating. Fe also alleged t.at t.e com,laint was ,remature
(ecause Carissa failed to refer t.e matter to t.e Committee on ;ecorum and ;isci,line for investigation and resolution (efore t.e case
legislationC(Art. )3+ . In ;innaPs conditions of

em,loyment .ave all t.e aforesaid c.aracteristics.
against .im was filed. In .er re,ly affidavit# Carissa claimed t.at t.ere was no need for a ,rior referral
to t.e Committee on ;ecorum and ;isci,line of .er com,laint. !esolve t.e case wit. reasons. (4M SUGGESTE7 ANSWER' I will .old 8r. Perry @inDle guilty of sexual .arassment. <.is resolution is ,redicated mainly u,on t.e following considerations5
S.e .as (een illegally dismissed. <.e La(or Code ex,ressly ,rovides# t.at CIt s.all (e unlawful for an em,loyer to reEuire as a condition of em,loyment
or continuation of em,loyment t.at a woman
em,loyee s.all not get married# or to sti,ulate ex,ressly or tacitly t.at u,on getting married a woman em,loyee s.all (e deemed resigned or
se,arated# or to actually dismiss# disc.arge#
() 8r. Perry @inDle exercises aut.ority# influence

or moral ascendancy over Carissa(/ 8r. @inDlePs insistence in inviting Carissa Cto s,end t.e nig.t wit. .im in .is rest .ouseC im,lies a reEuest or demand for a sexual favor-
discriminate or ot.erwise ,re:udice a woman em,loyee merely (y reason of .er marriage.C (Art.
)31 $ecause of .er illegal dismissal# s.e is entitled to (acDwages from t.e time .er com,ensation was wit..eld from .er to t.e time of .er actual
(3 8r. @inDlePs warning clearly manifests t.at t.e

refusal of t.e sexual favor would :eo,ardiGe CarissaPs continued em,loyment- and (6 8r. @inDlePs invitation for a sexual favor will result in an intimidating# .ostile# or ot.erwise offensive worDing environment for Carissa.
reinstatement.
;inna is not entitled to nig.t differential ,ay#
overtime ,ay and .oliday ,ay (ecause s.e (elongs to one of t.ose classes of em,loyees w.o are not covered (y t.e ,rovision of t.e La(or Code
,roviding for t.ese (enefits. S.e is a worDer ,aid (y results# since .er com,ensation is determined
Carissa is correct in stating t.at t.ere was no need for ,rior referral to t.e Committee on ;ecorum and ;isci,line of .er com,laint (ecause not.ing in t.e
law ,recludes t.e victim of sexual .arassment from instituting a se,arate and inde,endent action for
damages and ot.er affirmative relief. (Sec. 1# !.A.

'o. 2+22 E?-*2&? "t: W2? ": S D)!* 0!#!44? "t A;t (2006) As a condition for .er em,loyment# Jose,.ine signed an agreement wit. .er em,loyer t.at s.e
(y t.e ti,s and commission t.at s.e receives from .er guests.
E?-*2&? "t: W2? ": S D)!* 0!#!44? "t

A;t (200,)
Carissa# a comely (anD teller# was due for .er

,erformance evaluation w.ic. is conducted every
Page %
of 108
will not get married# ot.erwise# s.e will (e considered resigned or se,arated from t.e service.
Jose,.ine got married. S.e asDed 9wen# t.e ,ersonnel manager# if t.e com,any can reconsider t.e agreement. Fe told Jose,.ine .e can do somet.ing a(out it# insinuating some sexual favors. S.e com,lained to .ig.er aut.orities (ut to no avail. S.e .ires you as .er counsel. @.at action or actions will you taDeK &x,lain. (4M
as service contractor# actually directs t.e worD
ALTERNATI9E ANSWER' I will file a criminal case against 9wen for violation of !A. 'o. 2+22# ot.erwise Dnown as t.e CAnti- Sexual Farassment Act of )**4.C I will also file a se,arate and inde,endent action for damages against 9wen. $y reason of t.e fact t.at t.e Com,any did not taDe immediate action t.ereon# I will include t.e Com,any in t.e civil suit for damages and maDe it :ointly and severally lia(le wit. 9wen. ALTERNATI9E ANSWER'
Aside from filing a criminal case against 9wen for violation of t.e Sexual Farassment Law (!.A. 2+22 and a se,arate action for damages# im,leading t.e com,any# I will also file an action for constructive dismissal against t.e Com,any since t.e em,loyee was ,laced in a :o( atmos,.ere im,osing o,,ressive worD conditions contrary to ,u(lic ,olicy and morals.
I"d - "d "t C2"t#!;t2# (2001)

(a COC is a (ona fide service contractor ,roviding man,ower services to various com,anies# ,ossessing t.e necessary ca,ital and eEui,ment needed to effectively carry out its commitments. CIC is an em,loyee of COC and assigned to worD as a :anitor in Com,any CQC. In t.e course of IPs assignment# QPs su,ervisors and em,loyees would give ver(al instructions to I as to .ow and w.ere to ,erform .is worD. O ,ays I salary. Su(seEuently# IPs services were terminated (y O. I sued Q for Illegal dismissal. 8ay IPs case against Q ,ros,erK @.yK (/M .
SUGGESTE7 ANSWER'
IPs case against Q will not ,ros,er# (ecause Q is not t.e em,loyer of I. <.e em,loyer of CIC is COC. CIP would (e an em,loyee of CQC if COC .ere is a la(or-only contractor (ut O is not a la(or-only contractor. Fe ,ossesses t.e necessary ca,ital and eEui,ment needed to effectively carry out its commitment as a service contractor. A,,lying t.e control test# t.e fact t.at CQPsC su,ervisors and em,loyees give ver(al instructions to I as to .ow and w.ere to ,erform .is worD does not necessarily mean t.at t.ere(y .e is under t.e control of Q as regards .is em,loyment as long as O#
of I. It s.ould also (e noted t.at O ,ays t.e salary of I as t.e em,loyee of t.e former. ANOT0ER SUGGESTE7 ANSWER: Ies# IPs case against Com,any CQC will ,ros,er. Com,any CQC will (e deemed t.e direct em,loyer (ecause t.e Com,any directly and s,ecifically controlled t.e manner (y w.ic. t.e worD s.ould (e done and# and (y doing so also t.e result. (See <raders !oyal $anD vs. 'L!C# ;ecem(er /. )*** .
<.e ,resence of t.e element or factor of control# w.ic. is t.e most im,ortant factor in determining t.e existence of an em,loyer-em,loyee relations.i, is ,resent. In !eligious of t.e Airgin 8ary vs. 'L!C# %.!. 'o. )03101# 9cto(er )3# )***# t.e Su,reme Court# ruled5
,ractice for s.o,s liDe Perfect <riangle to collect t.e service fees from customers and ,ay t.e same to t.e inde,endent contractors at t.e end of eac. weeD. <.e auto s.o, ex,lained t.at Pandoy was liDe a ,artner w.o worDed wit.in its ,remises# using ,arts ,rovided (y t.e s.o,# (ut ot.erwise Pandoy was free to render service in t.e ot.er auto s.o,s. 9n t.e ot.er .and# Pandoy insisted t.at .e still was entitled to t.e (enefits (ecause .e was loyal to Perfect <riangle# it (eing a fact t.at .e did not ,erform worD for anyone else. Is Pandoy correctK &x,lain (riefly. (4M
SUGGESTE7 ANSWER'
Pandoy is not correct. Fe is not an em,loyee (ecause .e does not meet t.e fourfold test for .im to (e an em,loyee of Perfect <riangle. All t.at .e could claim is5 .e worDed wit.in t.e ,remises of Perfect <riangle. Pandoy was '9< engaged as an em,loyee (y Perfect <riangle. Fe was '9< ,aid wages (y Perfect <riangle. Perfect <riangle does '9< .ave t.e ,ower to dismiss .im alt.oug. Perfect <riangle may not continue to allow .im to worD wit.in its ,remises. And most im,ortant of all# Pandoy was '9< under t.e control of Perfect <riangle as regards t.e worD .e ,erforms for customers. <.e Su,reme Court .as ruled5 CIn starD contrast to t.e Com,anyPs regular em,loyees# t.ere are inde,endent# free lance o,erators w.o are
As t.is Court .as consistently ruled# t.e ,ower of control is t.e most decisive factor in determining t.e existence of em,loyer- em,loyee relations.i,.
I"d - "d "t C2"t#!;t2# (2002)

Pandoy# an electronics tec.nician# worDed wit.in t.e ,remises of Perfect <riangle# an auto accessory s.o,. Fe filed a com,laint for illegal dismissal# overtime ,ay and ot.er (enefits against Perfect <riangle# w.ic. refused to ,ay .is claims on t.e ground t.at Pandoy was not its em,loyee (ut was an inde,endent contractor. It was common
Page 62 of 108
,ermitted (y t.e Com,any to ,osition t.emselves ,roximate to t.e Com,any ,remises. <.ese
inde,endent
o,erators
are
allowed
(y
t.e
Com,any to wait on Com,any customers w.o would (e reEuiring t.eir services. In exc.ange for
ALTERNATI9E ANSWER' a 8y analytical frameworD will (e an analysis of t.e law on Inde,endent contractor and la(or only contracting.
t.e ,rivileges of favora(le recommendation (y t.e Com,any and immediate access to t.e customers
in need of t.eir services# t.ese inde,endent o,erators allow t.e Com,any to collect t.eir
If t.ere is a valid I';&P&';&'< C9'<!AC<9! situation# 8r. ;ado will (e t.e direct em,loyer# and
t.e 8etro %rocery will (e t.e indirect em,loyer. If t.ere is a LA$9!-C9'<!AC<9! only relations.i,# t.e 8etro %rocery will (e t.e em,loyer as it directly .ired t.e em,loyees. SUGGESTE7 ANSWER'
service fee from t.e customer and t.is fee is given (acD to t.e Inde,endent o,erator at t.e end of t.e weeD. In effect# t.ey do not earn fixed wages from t.e Com,any as t.eir varia(le fees are earned (y t.em from t.e customers of t.e Com,any. <.e Com,any .as no control over and does not restrict t.e met.odology or t.e means and manner (y
w.ic. t.ese o,erators ,erform t.eir worD. <.ese o,erators are not su,ervised (y any em,loyee of
<.e legal significance is t.e determination of
t.e Com,any since t.e results of t.eir worD is controlled (y t.e customers w.o .ire t.em.
LiDewise# t.e Com,any .as no control as an em,loyer over t.ese o,erators. <.ey are not
em,loyee-em,loyer relations.i,# w.ic. gives rise to certain rig.ts and o(ligation of (ot. em,loyer and em,loyee# suc. as SSS mem(ers.i,# union mem(ers.i,# security of tenure# etc. I"d - "d "t C2"t#!;t2#: Li!%i*iti 4 (2004) A. Clean 8an,ower Inc. (C8I .ad ,rovided :anitorial services to t.e 'ational &conomic ;evelo,ment Aut.ority ('&;A since A,ril )*++. Its service contract was renewed every t.ree mont.s. Fowever# in t.e (idding .eld on July )**/# C8I was disEualified and excluded. In )**3#
su(:ect to t.e regular .ours and days of worD and may come and go as t.ey wis.. <.ey are not
su(:ect to any disci,linary measures from t.e Com,any# save merely for t.e in.erent rules of general (e.avior and good conductC VUs.io
8arDeting v. 'L!C# /*6 SC!A 123()**+ N
I"d - "d "t C2"t#!;t2# 64= L!%2#BO"*&

C2"t#!;ti"$: 12)#B12*d T 4t (2000)
six :anitors of C8I formerly assigned at '&;A filed a com,laint for under,ayment of wages. $ot. C8I and '&;A were im,leaded as res,ondents for
failure to com,ly wit. 'C! @age 9rders 'os. 0) and 0/# w.ic. tooD effect on 'ovem(er )# )**0 and January /# )**/# res,ectively.
8etro %rocery Inc. arranged wit. 8r. Juan ;ado# a

$arangay C.airman# to ,rovide t.e grocery wit.
worDers w.o will worD as cas.iers# (ag (oys# s.elf

counter .el,ers and sanitation worDers. <.e
grocery will ,ay 8r. ;ado an amount eEuivalent to

t.e direct and .idden costs of t.e wages of eac.
worDer assigned# ,lus ten ,ercent ()0M to cover t.e administrative costs related to t.eir
S.ould '&;A# a government agency su(:ect to (udgetary constraints# (e .eld lia(le solidarily wit. C8I for t.e ,ayment of salary differentials due t.e com,lainantsK Cite t.e legal (asis of your answer.
(4M SUGGESTE7 ANSWER' '&;A s.all (e .eld solidarily lia(le wit. C8I for t.e ,ayment of salary differentials due to t.e com,lainants# (ecause '&;A is t.e indirect em,loyer of said com,lainants. <.e La(or Code
arrangement. 8r. ;ado# in turn# will ,ay directly t.e

worDers t.eir wages. As far as t.e worDers are
concerned# 8r. ;ado is t.eir em,loyer. A grou, of

concerned worDers consulted you if 8r# ;ado is
really under t.e law t.eir em,loyer. A. Fow will you analyGe t.e ,ro(lem in order to formulate your answerK (3M $. @.at is t.e legal significance# if any# of t.e Euestion of t.e concerned worDers as to w.o is
t.eir em,loyerK (3M
,rovides
t.at
xxx
(A
,erson#
,artners.i,#
association or cor,oration w.ic.# not (eing an em,loyer# contracts wit. an inde,endent contractor
for t.e ,erformance of any worD# tasD# :o( or
,ro:ectC xxx Cs.all (e :ointly and severally lia(le
SUGGESTE7 ANSWER' a I will analyGe t.e ,ro(lem (y a,,lying t.e fourfold test of em,loyer-em,loyee relations.i,. I will
wit. .is contractor or su(contractor to suc.

em,loyees (of t.e contractor or su(contractor to t.e extent of worD ,erformed under t.e contract xxx.C (Arts. )01 and )02# La(or Code L!%2#BO"*& C2"t#!;t 64= (2% C2"t#!;ti"$ (199.) ;istinguis. (etween C:o( contractingC and Cla(oronly contracting.C SUGGESTE7 ANSWER'
examine if 8r. ;ado exercises ,ower of control or su,ervision over t.e worDersP manner and met.od
of doing t.eir worD. Control is t.e most im,ortant in examining factor em,loyer-em,loyee
relations.i,. <.e ot.er factors are .iring# ,ayment of wages# and ,ower to dismiss# I will also examine w.et.er t.ere was :o( contracting or la(or-only contracting.
Page %# of 108
@.en a ,erson# not (eing an em,loyer# contracts wit. an inde,endent contractor for t.e ,erformance of any worD# tasD# :o( or ,ro:ect# t.ere is CJ9$ C9'<!AC<I'%.C @.en t.e inde,endent contractor does t.e worD t.at is contracted out# .e is not under t.e control of t.e ,erson w.o contracted out t.e worD to (e done. In CLA$9!-9'LI C9'<!AC<I'%C# a ,erson su,,lies worDers to an em,loyer. Said ,erson does not .ave su(stantial ca,ital or investments in t.e form of tools# eEui,ment# mac.ineries# worD ,remises# among ot.ers# and t.e worDers recruited and ,laced (y suc. ,erson are ,erforming activities related to t.e ,rinci,al (usiness of t.e em,loyer to w.om t.e worDers are su,,lied.
SUGGESTE7 ANSWER'
L!%2#BO"*& C2"t#!;t2# (2002)

Sta. 8onica Plywood Cor,oration entered into a contract wit. Arnold for t.e milling of lum(er as well as t.e .auling of waste wood ,roducts. <.e com,any ,rovided t.e eEui,ment and tools (ecause Arnold .ad neit.er tools and eEui,ment nor ca,ital for t.e :o(. Arnold# on t.e ot.er .and# .ired .is friends# relatives and neig.(ors for t.e :o(. <.eir wages were ,aid (y Sta. 8onica Plywood Cor,. to Arnold# (ased on t.eir ,roduction or t.e num(er of worDers and t.e time used in certain areas of worD. All worD activities and sc.edules were fixed (y t.e com,any.
A. Is Arnold a :o( contractorK &x,lain (riefly. (/M $. @.o is lia(le for t.e claims of t.e worDers .ired (y ArnoldK &x,lain (riefly. (3M SUGGESTE7 ANSWER'
A. 'o. In two cases decided (y t.e Su,reme Court# it was .eld t.at t.ere is C:o( contractingC w.ere () t.e contractor carries on an inde,endent (usiness and undertaDes t.e contract worD in .is own account# under .is own res,onsi(ility according to .is own manner and met.od# free from t.e control and direction of .is em,loyer or ,rinci,al in all matters connected wit. t.e ,erformance of t.e worD exce,t as to t.e results t.ereof- and (/ t.e contractor .as su(stantial ca,ital or investment in t.e form of tools# eEui,ment# mac.ineries# worD ,remises and ot.er materials w.ic. are necessary in t.e conduct of .is (usiness. LLim v. 'L!C# 303 SC!A 63/ ()*** $aguio v. 'L!C# /0/ SC!A 614()**) N In t.e ,ro(lem given# Arnold did not .ave sufficient ca,ital or in vestment for one. ?or anot.er Arnold was not free from t.e control and direction of Sta. 8onica Plywood Cor,. (ecause all worD activities and sc.edules were fixed (y t.e com,any.
<.erefore# Arnold is not a :o( contractor. Fe is engaged in la(or-only contracting.
$. Sta. 8onica Plywood Cor,. is lia(le for t.e claims of t.e worDers .ired (y Arnold. A finding t.at Arnold is a la(or only contractor is eEuivalent to declaring t.at t.ere exist an em,loyer-em,loyee relations.i, (etween Sta. 8onica Plywood Cor,. and worDers .ired (y Arnold. <.is is so (ecause Arnold is considered a mere agent of Sta. 8onica Plywood Cor,. LLim v. 'L!C# 303 SC!A 63/# ()*** - $aguio et al# v. 'L!C# /0/ SC!A 614 ()**) N
/ A ,erson w.o engages t.e services of a (ona fide CI';&P&';&'< C9'<!AC<9!C for t.e ,erformance of any worD# tasD# :o( or ,ro:ect is t.e indirect em,loyer of t.e em,loyees w.o .ave (een .ired (y t.e inde,endent contractor to ,erform said worD# tasD# :o( or ,ro:ect.
L!%2#BO"*& C2"t#!;t2# 64= I"d - "d "t C2"t#!;t2# (1994) ) @.at is a Cla(or-onlyC contractK / ;istinguis. t.e lia(ilities of an em,loyer w.o engages t.e services of a (onafide Cinde,endent contractorC from one w.o engages a Cla(or-onlyC contractorK SUGGESTE7 ANSWER'
) CLA$9!-9'LIC C9'<!AC< is a contract (etween an em,loyer and a ,erson w.o su,,lies worDers to suc. em,loyer w.ere t.e ,erson su,,lying worDers does not .ave su(stantial ca,ital or investment in t.e form of tools# eEui,ment# mac.ineries# worD ,remises# among ot.ers# and t.e worDers recruited and ,laced (y suc. ,erson are ,erforming activities w.ic. are directly related to t.e ,rinci,al (usiness of suc. em,loyer. (Art. )01# La(or Code
In t.e event t.at t.e inde,endent contractor fails to ,ay t.e wages of .is em,loyees# an indirect em,loyer# in t.e same manner and extent t.at .e is lia(le to em,loyees directly em,loyed (y .im# is J9I'<LI and S&A&!ALLI LIA$L& wit. t.e Inde,endent contractor to t.e em,loyees of t.e latter to t.e extent of t.e worD ,erformed under t.e contract.
As for t.e ,erson w.o engages t.e services of a Cla(or onlyC contractor# t.e latter is considered merely as an agent of t.e former w.o s.all (e res,onsi(le to t.e worDers .ired (y t.e Cla(or onlyC contractor in t.e same manner and extent as if .e directly em,loyed suc. worDers.
ALTERNATI9E ANSWERS:
a An em,loyer w.o engages t.e services of a (ona fide Cinde,endent contractorC is S9LI;A!ILI LIA$L& wit. .is contractor or su(-contractor only for non-,ayment or under,ayment of wages and ot.er la(or standards ,rovisions of t.e La(or Code# w.ereas an
Page %, of 108
em,loyer w.o engages a Cla(or-onlyC contractor is lia(le for all (enefits# terms and conditions of em,loyment t.at it normally grants to its regular or direct em,loyees. ( An em,loyer w.o deals wit. a (ona-fide inde,endent contractor s.all (e lia(le only su(sidiarily# if t.e contractor or su(-contractor fails to ,ay t.e wages to t.e worDers in accordance wit. t.e La(or Code. U,on t.e ot.er .and# an em,loyer w.o deals wit. a Cla(or-onlyC contractor s.all (e ,rimarily res,onsi(le to t.e worDers in t.e same manner and extent as if t.e latter were directly em,loyed (y .im. (Arts )01-)02# La(or Code
of Service &x,orters v. ;rilon# )13 SC!A 3+1 ))*++N . ANOT0ER SUGGESTE7 ANSWER'
<.e ;9L& orders s.ould (e set aside. It is true t.at t.e 8igrant @orDers and 9verseas ?ili,inos Act# ,articularly its Section 4# could (e t.e (asis of t.e ,ower of ;9L& to effect a (an on t.e de,loyment of 9?@s (y OIQ. If t.e (an# .owever# is for t.e ,ur,ose of ,reventing OIQ from trans,orting extremists to terrorist training cam,s a(road# t.is is a ,olice and national security ,ro(lem (etter dealt wit. (y t.e ,olice or t.e 9ffice of t.e 'ational Security Adviser. 8ore im,ortantly# t.e cancellation of t.e license of OIQ reEuires notice and .earing. A(sent suc. notice and .earing# t.e order of cancellation of t.e Secretary of La(or and &m,loyment is null and void (ecause of t.e denial of due ,rocess.
R ;#)it? "t & /*!; ? "t: C!"; **!ti2": C #ti3i;!t 23 R $i4t#!ti2": T#!6 * B!" (2004)
Concerned ?ili,ino contract worDers in t.e 8iddle &ast re,orted to t.e ;e,artment of ?oreign Affairs (;?A t.at OIQ# a ,rivate recruitment and ,lacement agency# is covertly trans,orting extremists to terrorist training cam,s a(road. Intelligence agencies of t.e government allegedly confirmed t.e re,ort. U,on (eing alerted (y t.e ;?A# t.e ;e,artment of La(or and &m,loyment issued orders cancelling t.e licenses of OIQ# and im,osing an immediate travel (an on its recruits for t.e 8iddle &ast. OIQ a,,ealed to t.e 9ffice of t.e President to reverse and set aside t.e ;9L& orders# citing damages from loss of em,loyment of its recruits# and violations of due ,rocess including lacD of notice and .earing (y ;9L&. <.e ;9L& in its answer claimed t.e existence of an emergency in t.e 8iddle &ast w.ic. reEuired ,rom,t measures to ,rotect t.e life and lim( of 9?@s from a clear and ,resent danger ,osed (y t.e ongoing war against terrorism.
R ;#)it? "t & /*!; ? "t: i** $!* # ;#)it? "t t2 ;2"2?i; 4!%2t!$ (200,) () ;uring t.e o,en forum following your lecture to a grou, of managers and F!; ,ersonnel# you were asDed t.e following Euestions5 (a @.at Eualifying circumstances will convert Cillegal recruitmentC to Ceconomic sa(otage#C t.us su(:ecting its ,er,etrator or ,er,etrators to a ,enalty of life im,risonment and a fine of at least P400#000.00K Please ex,lain your answer (riefly. (3M SUGGESTE7 ANSWER= Under Article 3+(( of t.e La(or Code# as amended (y P.;. 'o. /0)+# it ,rovides t.at illegal recruitment s.all (e considered an offense involving economic sa(otage if any of t.e following Eualifying circumstances exists5
() @.en illegal recruitment is committed (y a SI';ICA<&# reEuiring t.ree or more ,ersons w.o cons,ire or confederate wit. one anot.er
S.ould t.e ;9L& orders (e u,.eld or set asideK (4M SUGGESTE7 ANSWER' ). <.e ;9L& order cancelling t.e licenses of OIQ is void (ecause a re,ort t.at an agency is covertly trans,orting extremists is not a valid ground for cancellation of a Certificate of !egistration (Art. /3*# La(or Code and t.ere is failure of due ,rocess as no .earing was conducted ,rior to t.e cancellation (Art. /3+# La(or Code .
/. <.e ;9L& order im,osing t.e travel (an is valid (ecause it is a valid exercise of ,olice ,ower to ,rotect t.e national interest (Sec. 3# Art. OIII# Constitution on full ,rotection to la(or safety of worDers and on t.e rule maDing aut.ority of t.e Secretary of La(or (Art. 4# La(or Code- P.il. Assn.
in carrying out any unlawful or illegal transaction# enter,rise or sc.eme@.en illegal recruitment is committed in a LA!%& SCAL&# as w.en it is committed against t.ree or more ,ersons individually or as a grou,. (Peo,le v. 'avarra# %.!. 'o. ))*31)# ?e(ruary )*# /00)- See also Sec. 1 of !.A. 'o. +06/
R ;#)it? "t & /*!; ? "t: i** $!* # ;#)it? "t: E;2"2?i; S!%2t!$ (2002)
@.en is illegal recruitment considered a crime of economic sa(otageK &x,lain (riefly. (3M SUGGESTE7 ANSWER' According to Art. /+ of t.e La(or Code# illegal recruitment is considered a crime of economic sa(otage w.en committed (y a syndicate or in large scale.
Illegal recruitment is deemed committed (y a
syndicate if carried out (y a grou, of t.ree (3 or
Page %$ of 108
more ,ersons cons,iring and7or confederating wit. one anot.er in carrying out any unlawful or illegal transaction# enter,rise or sc.eme w.ic. is an act of illegal recruitment. Illegal recruitment is deemed committed in large scale if committed against t.ree (3 or more ,ersons individually or as a grou,.
R ;#)it? "t & /*!; ? "t: N2"B T#!"43 #!%i*it& 23 Li; "4 (1995)
R ;#)it? "t & /*!; ? "t: L!#$ S;!* I** $!* R ;#)it? "t (200,)
8aryrose %andaPs a,,lication for t.e renewal ot.er license to recruit worDers for overseas em,loyment was still ,ending wit. t.e P.ili,,ine 9verseas &m,loyment Administration (P9&A . 'evert.eless# s.e recruited Alma and .er t.ree sisters# Ana# Joan# and 8avic# for em,loyment as .ousemates in Saudi Ara(ia. 8aryrose re,resented to t.e sisters t.at s.e .ad a license to recruit worDers for overseas em,loyment. 8aryrose also demanded and received P30#000.00 from eac. of t.em for .er services. Fowever# 8aryrosePs a,,lication for t.e renewal of .er license was denied# and conseEuently failed to em,loy t.e four sisters in Saudi Ara(ia. <.e sisters c.arged 8aryrose wit. large scale illegal recruitment. <estifying in .er defense# 8aryrose declared t.at s.e acted in good fait. (ecause s.e (elieved t.at .er a,,lication for t.e renewal of .er license would (e a,,roved. 8aryrose adduced in evidence t.e Affidavits of ;esistance w.ic. t.e four ,rivate com,lainants .ad executed after t.e ,rosecution rested its case. In t.e said affidavits# t.ey acDnowledge recei,t of t.e refund (y 8aryrose of t.e total amount of P)/0#000.00 and indicated t.at t.ey were no longer interested to ,ursue t.e case against 8aryrose. !esolve t.e case wit. reasons. (4M
A !ecruitment and Placement Agency declared voluntary (anDru,tcy. Among its assets is its license to engage in (usiness. Is t.e license of t.e (anDru,t agency an asset w.ic. can (e sold in ,u(lic auction (y t.e liEuidatorK L4MN SUGGESTE7 ANSWER'
'o# (ecause of t.e non-transfera(ility of t.e license to engage in recruitment and ,lacement. <.e La(or Code (in Article /* ,rovides t.at no license to engage in recruitment and ,lacement s.all (e used directly or indirectly (y any ,erson ot.er t.an t.e one in w.ose favor it was issued nor may suc. license (e transferred# conveyed or assigned to any ot.er ,erson or entity.
It may (e noted t.at t.e grant of a license is a governmental act (y t.e ;e,artment of La(or and &m,loyment (ased on ,ersonal Eualifications# and citiGens.i, and ca,italiGation reEuirements. (Arts. /2-/+# La(or Code
R ;#)it? "t & /*!; ? "t: R ;#)it? "t A$ ";i 4 (2002)

Is a cor,oration# seventy ,ercent (20M of t.e aut.oriGed and voting ca,ital of w.ic. is owned and controlled (y ?ili,ino citiGens# allowed to engage in t.e recruitment and ,lacement of worDers# locally or overseasK &x,lain (riefly. (/M
ALTERNATI9E ANSWER'
Illegal recruitment is defined (y law as any recruitment activities undertaDen (y non-licenses or non-.olders of aut.ority. (Peo,le v. Senoron# %.!. 'o. ))*)10# January 30#)**2 And it is large scale illegal recruitment w.en t.e offense is committed against 3 or more ,ersons# individually or as a grou,. (Article 3+L(N# La(or Code In view of t.e a(ove# 8aryrose is guilty of large scale illegal recruitment. Fer defense of good fait. and t.e Affidavit of ;esistance as well as t.e refund given will not save .er (ecause !.A. 'o. +06/ is a s,ecial law# and illegal recruitment is malum prohibitum. (Peo,le v. Saulo# %.!. 'o. )/4*03# 'ovem(er )4# /000
SUGGESTE7 ANSWER' 'o. A cor,oration# seventy ,ercent (20M of t.e aut.oriGed and voting ca,ital stocD of w.ic. is owned and controlled (y ?ili,ino citiGens cannot (e ,ermitted to ,artici,ate in t.e recruitment and ,lacement of worDers# locally or overseas# (ecause Art /2 of t.e La(or Code reEuires at least seventy- five ,ercent (24M .
ALTERNATI9E ANSWER' @it. t.e execution of t.e affidavit of desistance (y t.e com,lainants and t.e refund made (y 8aryrose# t.e case against .er for large scale illegal recruitment will surely fail.
R ;#)it? "t & /*!; ? "t: T#!6 * A$ ";&: /#2<i%iti2" (2006) @onder <ravel and <ours Agency (@<<A is a well-Dnown travel agency and an aut.oriGed sales agent of t.e P.ili,,ine Air Lines. Since ma:ority of its ,assengers are overseas worDers# @<<A a,,lied for a license for recruitment and ,lacement activities. It stated in its a,,lication t.at its ,ur,ose is not for ,rofit (ut to .el, ?ili,inos find em,loyment a(road. S.ould t.e a,,lication (e a,,rovedK (4M ALTERNATI9E ANSWER' <.e a,,lication s.ould (e disa,,roved# as it is ,ro.i(ited (y Article /1 of t.e La(or Code# to wit5 CArticle /1. <ravel agencies and sales agencies of airline com,anies are ,ro.i(ited from engaging in t.e (usiness of recruitment and ,lacement of worDers for overseas
em,loyment w.et.er for ,rofit or not.C
Page 66 of 108
arising out of an emergency# exigency or (usiness !ule I# Part IIP9&A !ules and !egulations %overning t.e !ecruitment and &m,loyment of Land-$ased @orDers (/00/ disEualifies any entity
.aving common director or owner of travel agencies and sales agencies of airlines# including any (usiness entity from t.e recruitment and ,lacement of ?ili,ino worDers overseas# w.et.er t.ey derive ,rofit or not. losses. W!$ : W!$ 7i4t2#ti2": 7 3i"iti2" & E* ? "t4 (2006) @.en is t.ere a wage distortionK ALTERNATI9E ANSWER'
ALTERNATI9E ANSWER'
'o. Section 1 of !A 'o. +06/ considers t.e following act as illegal recruitment5 C(: ?or an
A @A%& ;IS<9!<I9' arises w.en an increase in ,rescri(ed wage rates results in t.e elimination or
severe contraction of intentional Euantitative differences in wage or salary rates (etween and
officer or agent of a recruitment agency to (ecome an officer or mem(er of t.e $oard of any cor,oration engaged in travel agency or to engage directly or indirectly in t.e management of a travel agency.C <.e law considers t.e o,eration of travel
agencies and recruitment agencies as incom,ati(le activities. W!$ 7i4t2#ti2" (2002) A. Fow s.ould a wage distortion (e resolved ()
among em,loyee grou,s in an esta(lis.ment as to

effectively o(literate t.e distinctions em(odied in
suc. wage structure (ased on sDills# lengt. of service# or ot.er logical (ases of differentiation
(Article )/6# La(or Code of t.e P.ili,,ines . ALTERNATI9E ANSWER' <.ere is wage distortion w.en t.e following four elements concur5 a. An existing .ierarc.y of ,ositions wit. corres,onding salary rates(. A significant c.ange in t.e salary rate of a lower ,ay class wit.out a concomitant increase in t.e salary rate of a .ig.er one-
in case t.ere is a collective (argaining agreement

and (/ in case t.ere is noneK &x,lain (riefly. (3M
SUGGESTE7 ANSWER' A. According to Art. )/6 of t.e La(or Code# in case t.ere is a collective (argaining agreement# a
dis,ute arising from wage distortions s.all (e resolved t.roug. t.e grievance mac.inery ,rovided in t.e C$A# and if remains unresolved# t.roug. voluntary ar(itration. In case t.ere is no collective (argaining agreement# t.e em,loyers
c.
d.
<.e elimination of t.e distinction (etween t.e

two levels- and <.e existence of t.e distortion in t.e same region of t.e country.
and worDers s.all endeavor to correct suc. distortions . Any dis,ute arising t.erefrom s.all (e settled t.roug. t.e 'ational Conciliation and 8ediation $oard and if it remains unresolved after
ten ()0 calendar days of conciliations# t.en t.e
W!$ : W!$ 7i4t2#ti2": M !"4 23 S2*6i"$ (2006) Fow s.ould a wage distortion (e settledK SUGGESTE7 ANSWER' In organiGed esta(lis.ments# t.e wage distortion s.all (e resolved t.roug. t.e %!I&AA'C& P!9C&;U!& under t.eir collective (argaining agreement# and if it remains unresolved# t.roug. A9LU'<A!I A!$I<!A<I9'. 9n t.e ot.er .and#
dis,ute is referred to t.e a,,ro,riate (ranc. of t.e

'ational La(or !elations Commission.
W!$ : R d);ti2" 23 Mi"i?)? /!& & W!$ 4 (2006)

Can an em,loyer and an em,loyee enter into an
in esta(lis.ments w.ere t.ere are no collective (argaining agreements or recogniGed la(or unions#
t.e em,loyers and worDers s.all endeavor to correct suc. distortion. Any dis,ute arising
agreement reducing or increasing t.e minimum

,ercentage ,rovided for nig.t differential ,ay#
t.erefrom s.all (e settled t.roug. t.e 'ational Conciliation and 8ediation $oard# and if it remains
unresolved after ten ()0 calendar days of
overtime ,ay# and ,remium ,ayK (4M SUGGESTE7 ANSWER' Article )00 of t.e La(or Code ,ro.i(its t.e elimination and t.e diminution of (enefits (eing en:oyed (y em,loyees at t.e time t.e law was ,assed. <.e em,loyer and em,loyee cannot enter
into an agreement to reduce t.e minimum ,ercentage ,rovided (y law for nig.t differential
conciliation# s.all (e referred to t.e a,,ro,riate

(ranc. of t.e 'ational La(or !elations Commission for C98PULS9!I A!$I<!A<I9' (Article )/6# La(or Code of t.e P.ili,,ines . W!$ : W!$ 7i4t2#ti2": N2t ! $#2)"d 32# St#iG @L2;G2)t (2006) Can t.e issue of wage distortion (e raised in a notice of striDeK &x,lain. ()0M SUGGESTE7 ANSWER' '9. Section )1# C.a,ter I of !ules Im,lementing !A 12/2 ,rovides t.at CAny dis,ute involving wage
,ay# overtime ,ay and ,remium ,ay as t.at would

(e against ,u(lic ,olicy. 9n t.e ot.er .and# an agreement increasing t.e ,ercentage of (enefits would (e valid for (eing (eneficial to t.e em,loyee. Fowever# Art. //2 of t.e La(or Code
aut.oriGes diminution or reduction of (enefits in case of an im,elling# reasona(le :ustification
distortions s.all not (e a ground for striDe7locDout.C

Article )/6 of t.e La(or Code# as amended (y !e,u(lic Act 12/2 ,rescri(es a ,rocedure for t.e
Page %& of 108
correction of a wage distortion# im,licitly excluding striDes or locDouts or ot.er concerted activities as modes of settlement of t.e issue. <.e legislative intent t.at wage distortion s.all (e solved (y voluntary negotiation or ar(itration is made clear in t.e rules (Ilaiv at $uDlod ng 8anggagawa v. 'L!C# %.!. 'o. *)*+0# June /2# )**) .
decided t.e case of P.ili,,ine ;u,licators Inc. vs.
W!$ 4: 1>t< ?2"t< -!& (1994)

Conce,cion <extile Co. included t.e overtime ,ay# nig.t-s.ift differential ,ay# and t.e liDe in t.e com,utation of its em,loyeesP )3t.-mont. ,ay. Su(seEuently# wit. t.e ,romulgation of t.e decision of t.e Su,reme Court in t.e case of San 8iguel Cor,oration vs. Inciong ()03 SC!A )3* .olding t.at t.ese ot.er monetary claims s.ould not (e included in t.e com,utation of t.e )3t.mont. ,ay# Conce,cion <extile Co. soug.t to recover under t.e principle of solutio indebiti its over,ayment of its em,loyeesP )3t.-mont. ,ay# (y de(iting against future )3t.-mont. ,ayments w.atever excess amounts it .ad ,reviously made.
() Is t.e Com,anyPs action tena(leK (/ @it. res,ect to t.e ,ayment of t.e )3t.-mont. ,ay after t.e San 8iguel Cor,oration# ruling# w.at arrangement# if any# must t.e Com,any maDe in order to exclude from t.e )3t.-mont. ,ay all earnings and remunerations ot.er t.an t.e (asic ,ay. SUGGESTE7 ANSWER'
) <.e Com,anyPs action is not tena(le. <.e ,rinci,le of salutio inde(iti w.ic. is a civil law conce,t is not a,,lica(le in la(or law. <.us# solutio inde(iti is not a,,lica(le to t.e instant case# (;avao ?ruits Cor,orations vs. 'ational La(or !elations Commission# et at. //4 SC!A 41/
a <.e Com,anyPs action would (e tena(le if ,ayment was done (y mistaDe# In w.ic. case recovery can (e done under t.e ,rinci,le of solutio inde(iti. $ut if t.ere was no mistaDe# t.e Com,anyPs action would (e untena(le (ecause it would violate Article )00 of t.e La(or Code w.ic. ,ro.i(its elimination or diminution of (enefits. ( 'o. <.e Com,anyPs action is not tena(le. <.e grant (y Conce,cion <extile Co. of a (etter formula# more favora(le to t.e em,loyee# constituted a valid offer (y t.e com,any as t.e offerer and t.e em,loyees as t.e offeree. <.ere .aving (een a meeting of t.e minds of t.e ,arties# t.e rig.ts and o(ligations arising t.erefrom were valid. <.us# any amount received (y virtue t.ereof could not (e recovered# muc. less taDen away unilaterally. <.e ,rinci,le does not a,,ly to t.e case at (ar.
SUGGESTE7 ANSWER' /T After t.e )*+) San 8iguel ruling# t.e Fig. Court
'L!C# on )) 'ovem(er )**3# Accordingly# management may undertaDe to exclude sicD leave# vacation leave# maternity leave# ,remium ,ay for regular .oliday# nig.t differential ,ay and cost of living allowance. Sales commissions# .owever# s.ould (e included (ased on t.e settled rule as earlier enunciated in Songco vs. 'L!C# )+3 SC!A 1)0.
met.od (y w.ic. t.eir wages are ,aid.
W!$ 4: B2")4 (2002)

$. <.e ,ro:ected (onus for t.e em,loyees of Suerte Co. was 40M of t.eir mont.ly com,ensation. Unfortunately# due to t.e slum, in t.e (usiness# t.e ,resident reduced t.e (onus to 4M of t.eir com,ensation. Can t.e com,any unilaterally reduce t.e amount of (onusK &x,lain (riefly. (/M
W!$ 4: 1>t< ?2"t< -!& (1995)

@.at would (e your advice to your client# a manufacturing com,any# w.o asDs for your legal o,inion on w.et.er or not t.e )3t. 8ont. Pay Law (Presidential ;ecree 'o. +4) covers a casual em,loyee w.o is ,aid a dally wageK (4M
SUGGESTE7 ANSWER' Ies. <.e granting of a (onus is a management ,rerogative# somet.ing given in addition to w.at is ordinarily received (y or strictly due t.e reci,ient. An em,loyer# liDe Suerte Co.# cannot (e forced to distri(ute (onuses w.en it can no longer afford to ,ay. <o .old ot.erwise would (e to ,enaliGe t.e em,loyer for .is ,ast generosity. LProducers $anD of t.e P.il. v 'L!C# 344 SC!A 6+*# (/00) N ANOT0ER SUGGESTE7 ANSWER'
It de,ends. If t.ere is a legal o(ligation on t.e ,art of Suerte Co. to ,ay a (onus of its em,loyees eEuivalent to 40M of t.eir mont.ly com,ensation# (ecause said o(ligation is included in a collective (argaining agreement# t.en Suerte Co. cannot reduce t.e (onus to 4M of t.eir mont.ly com,ensation. $ut if t.e ,ayment of t.e (onus is not a legal o(ligation (ut only a voluntary act on t.e ,art of t.e em,loyer# said em,loyer#
SUGGESTE7 ANSWER' I will advise t.e manufacturing com,any to ,ay t.e casual em,loyee )3t. 8ont. Pay if suc. casual em,loyee .as worDed for at least one () mont. during a calendar year. <.e law on t.e )3t. 8ont. Pay ,rovides t.at em,loyees are entitled to t.e (enefit of said law regardless of t.eir designation or em,loyment status. <.e Su,reme Court ruled in JacDson $uildingCondominium Cor,oration v. 'L!C# /61 SC!A 3/*# ()**4 inter,reting P.;. 'o. +4)# as follows5 xxx em,loyees are entitled to t.e t.irteent.mont. ,ay (enefits regardless of t.eir designation and irres,ective of t.e
Page 68 of 108
unilaterally# can only reduce t.e (onus from 40M to 4M of t.e mont.ly com,ensation of its
(/ It is entirely de,endent on t.e em,loyerPs ca,acity to ,ay. 'ormally discretionary# it (ecomes ,art of t.e regular com,ensation (y reason of long and
em,loyees- t.e em,loyer can# in fact# not give any

(onus at all. W!$ 4: B2")4 (200>) OIQ &m,loyees Association filed a com,laint against A$C $anD for wrongful diminution of
regular concession or w.en t.e (onus is Included

as among t.e (enefits granted in a C$A. W!$ 4: C2?-)t!ti2" 23 B!4i; S!*!#& (199.) !o(ert SuareG is a salesman for Star P.armaceuticals# Star P.armaceuticals .as a,,lied wit. t.e ;e,artment of La(or and
(enefits. It alleged t.at t.e (anD .ad (een

,roviding for a mid-year (onus eEuivalents onemont. (asic ,ay and a C.ristmas (onus eEuivalent
to one-mont. (asic ,ay since )*2). U,on t.e effectivity of Presidential ;ecree (P.;. 'o. +4) in )*24 w.ic. granted t.e )3t. mont. ,ay# t.e (anD started giving its em,loyees a one-mont. (asic
,ay as mid-year (onus# one-mont. (asic ,ay as
&m,loyment for clearance to terminate ((y way of

retrenc.ment t.e services of SuareG due to
financial losses. !o(ert SuareG# aside from .is mont.ly salary# receives commissions on t.e sales
.e maDes. Fe also receives allowances. <.e existing C$A (etween Star P.armaceuticals and t.e union# of w.ic. !o(ert SuareG is a mem(er# states t.at any em,loyee se,arated from
C.ristmas (onus# and one-mont. (asic ,ay as

)3t. mont. ,ay. In )*+0# t.e (anD was ,laced
under conservators.i, and (y virtue of a monetary (oard resolution of t.e Central $anD# t.e (anD only gave one mont. (asic ,ay mandated (y P.;. +4)# and it no longer gave its em,loyees t.e traditional
mid-year and C.ristmas (onuses. Could A$C $anD (e com,elled# given t.e circumstances# to continue ,aying its em,loyees t.e traditional mid-
em,loyment for causes not due to t.e fault of t.e

em,loyee s.all receive from t.e com,any a
retirement gratuity in an amount eEuivalent to one

mont.Ps salary ,er year of service. !o(ert SuareG contends t.at in com,uting .is se,aration ,ay# .is sales commission and .is allowances s.ould (e included in t.e mont.ly salary. ;o you agreeK SUGGESTE7 ANSWER'
year and C.ristmas (onuses in addition to t.e )3t. mont. ,ayK SUGGESTE7 ANSWER'
'o. <.e grant of a (onus is a ,rerogative# not an
o(ligation# of t.e em,loyer. (<raders !oyal $anD v. 'L!C. )+* SC!A /26 ()**0 . <.e matter of giving a (onus over and a(ove t.at w.ic. is reEuired (y law is entirely de,endent on t.e financial ca,a(ility of t.e em,loyer to give it. ($usinessday v. 'L!C.
//) SC!A * ()**3 .
I agree# wit. some conditions. In com,uting

se,aration ,ay# t.e mont.ly salary s.ould include
commissions (ecause commissions received (y a

salesman is ,art of .is salary.
Fence# given t.e circumstances# A$C $anD cannot (e com,elled to continue ,aying its em,loyees t.e
traditional mid-year and C.ristmas (onuses in addition to t.e )3t. mont. ,ay. W!$ 4: B2")4: N!t)# (199,) @.at is a (onusK @.en is it demanda(le as a
$ut for allowances to (e included as ,art of salary# t.ey s.ould (e for services rendered or to (e
rendered# liDe a cost of living allowance. $ut trans,ortation and re,resentation allowances are
not considered as ,art of salary (ecause t.ey are

to meet ex,enses for trans,ortation and
re,resentation. <.us# cost of living allowances# (ut

not trans,ortation or re,resentation allowances# s.all (e included as ,art of salary in t.e com,utation of se,aration ,ay.
matter of rig.tK &x,lain. SUGGESTE7 ANSWER' A (onus is money given in addition to an

em,loyeePs usual com,ensation. It may (e given
Note< Re< a owan!es as &art of sa ar$* in +antos

(s# N@RC 132 +CRA 144* the +'&re"e Co'rt said< Fin the !o"&'tation of %a!kwages and of %asi! sa ar$ %'t a so her trans&ortation and e"ergen!$ i(ing a owan!es#F W!$ 4: C2?-)t!ti2": 02*id!& /!& (2002)
se&aration &a$* a!!o'nt "'st %e taken not on $
as a gratuity# as an act of li(erality. $ut a (onus is

demanda(le as a matter of rig.t if it is made a legal o(ligation (y law or in a collective (argaining
agreement or in a contract of em,loyment or (y its

.aving (een given for suc. a long time suc. t.at
t.e recei,t of a (onus .as ri,ened into a rig.t. ALTERNATI9E ANSWER' A (onus is an amount granted and ,aid to an em,loyee for .is industry and loyalty w.ic.
contri(uted to t.e em,loyerPs success and
9n orders of .is su,erior# &fren# a .ig.-s,eed

sewing mac.ine tec.nician# worDed on 8ay )# La(or ;ay. If .e worDed eig.t (1 .ours on t.at
day# .ow muc. s.ould .e receive if .is daily rate is

P600.00K (/M SUGGESTE7 ANSWER'
realiGation of ,rofit.
() %rant of (onus is a ,rerogative# not an o(ligation of t.e em,loyer5 and
Page %( of 108
&fren s.ould receive P+00.00. Art */ of t.e La(or

Code ,rovides t.at t.e em,loyer may reEuire an
regular .olidays# (ut also of t.eir regular wage# ,lus t.e ,remium t.ereof. (;9L& &x,lanatory
em,loyee to worD on any regular .oliday (ut suc. em,loyee s.all (e ,aid a com,ensation eEuivalent
to twice .is regular rate. W!$ 4: C2?-)t!ti2": 02*id!& /!&: O6 #ti? /!& (2002) <.is year# 'ational Feroes ;ay (August /4 falls
$ulletin on @orDersP &ntitlement to Foliday Pay on

* A,ril )**3# Araw ng Uagitingan and %ood ?riday W!$ 4: M2" & C*!i?4 (1995)
An ex,losion in a mine site resulted in t.e deat. of

fifty (40 miners. At t.e time of t.e accident
() <.e 8ining Com,any .as not yet ,aid t.e

wages# overtime# .oliday and rest day com,ensation of t.e deceased miners(/ All t.e deceased miners owed t.e 8iners Coo,erative Union sums of money(3 <.e 8ining Com,any was served (y a s.eriff
on a Sunday.
Sunday is t.e rest day of $onifacio
w.ose daily rate is P400.00. A. If $onifacio is reEuired (y .is em,loyer to worD on t.at day for eig.t (+ .ours# .ow muc.
s.ould .e (e ,aid for .is worDK &x,lain. (3M $. If .e worDs for ten ()0 .ours on t.at day# .ow muc. s.ould .e receive for .is worDK &x,lain.
(/M
@rits of %arnis.ment of @ages of some of t.e

deceased miners (y virtue of final Judgments in several collection suits.
SUGGESTE7 ANSWER' A. ?or worDing on .is sc.eduled rest day#

according to Art *3(a # $onifacio s.ould (e ,aid
P400.00 (.is daily rate ,lus P)40.00 (30M of .is
After t.e accident# t.e wives# ,aramours# (rot.ers#

sisters and ,arents of t.e deceased miners filed t.eir claims for un,aid wages# overtime# .oliday
daily rate Z P140.00. <.is amount of P140.00 s.ould (e multi,lied (y / Z P) #300.00. <.is is t.e amount t.at $onifacio as em,loyee worDing on .is sc.eduled rest day w.ic. is also a regular .oliday#
s.ould receive. Art. *6(c of t.e La(or Code
and rest day com,ensation. <.e Com,any .as

acDnowledged its o(ligations. Fowever# it is in a Euandary as to .ow to ad:udicate t.e conflicting
claims- and w.et.er it can deduct from t.e monies

due t.e miners t.eir un,aid de(ts wit. t.e credit union. Fow will you advise t.e mining com,any on t.e following5 ) Can t.e 8ining Com,any defer ,ayment of t.e money claims until an a,,ro,riate court .as ruled on t.e conflicting claimsK L3MN
,rovides t.at an em,loyee s.all (e ,aid a

com,ensation eEuivalent to twice .is regular rate
for worD on any regular .oliday. <.e Cregular rateC

of $onifacio on 8ay )# /00/ is wit. an additional t.irty ,ercent (ecause t.e day is also .is
sc.eduled rest day. $. P)#300.00 w.ic. is t.e amount t.at $onifacio is to receive for worDing on 8ay )# /00/ s.ould (e
divided (y + to determine .is .ourly rate of
Can t.e 8ining Com,any deduct from t.e

amount due to eac. miner an amount
eEuivalent to t.eir de(t and remit t.e same to

t.e Credit UnionKP(/MN SUGGESTE7 ANSWER'
). I will advise t.e 8ining Com,any to ,ay to t.e
P)1/.40. <.is .ourly rate s.ould (e multi,lied (y /

(t.e num(er of .ours .e worDed overtime . <.us#
t.e amount t.at $onifacio is entitled to receive for

.is overtime worD on 8ay )# /00/ is P3/4.00. W!$ 4: 02*id!& /!& (200,) ;uring t.e o,en forum following your lecture
res,ective .eirs of t.e deceased miners w.atever were t.e un,aid wages# overtime# .oliday and rest
day com,ensation of said deceased miners wit.out t.e necessity of intestate ,roceedings. <.e claimants# if t.ey are all of age s.all execute an
(efore mem(ers of various unions affiliated wit. a

la(or federation# you were asDed t.e following Euestions (State your answers and your reasons
affidavit attesting to t.eir relations.i, to t.e

deceased and t.e fact t.at t.ey are .is .eirs# to t.e exclusion of all ot.er ,ersons. If any of t.e
t.erefor 5
(a Araw ng Uagitingan and %ood ?riday are among t.e )0 ,aid regular .olidays under Article
.eirs is a minor# t.e affidavit s.all (e executed on

.is (e.alf (y .is natural guardian or next of Din. <.e affidavit s.all (e ,resented to t.e em,loyer
*6 of t.e La(or Code. Fow muc. will an em,loyee receive w.en (ot. .olidays fall on t.e same dayK
(6M
w.o s.all maDe ,ayment t.roug. t.e Secretary of

La(or or .is re,resentative. <.e re,resentative of t.e Secretary of La(or s.all act as referee in dividing t.e amount ,aid among t.e .eirs. VSee Art. )04 (( of t.e La(or Code
SUGGESTE7 ANSWER' If unworDed# t.e covered em,loyees are entitled to

at least /00M of t.eir (asic wage# (ecause to do
ot.erwise would reduce t.e num(er of .olidays under &9 'o. /03. If worDed# t.e covered em,loyees are entitled to com,ensation eEuivalent to at least 300M of t.eir (asic wage (ecause t.ey t.e ,ayment not only of t.e two are entitled to
/. I will advise t.e 8ining Com,any not to deduct

from t.e amount due to eac. miner t.e amount
eEuivalent to .is de(t to t.e Credit Union. <.e de(ts of a deceased worDer to t.e Credit Union is
Page &) of 108
not one of t.e allowa(le deductions under t.e

La(or Code# or any rules and regulations of t.e ;e,artment of La(or and &m,loyment. (See Art. ))3 of t.e La(or Code
Ies. 'emia is entitled to .oliday ,ay. <.e

Su,reme Court .as ruled5 CAs to t.e ot.er (enefits#
namely# .oliday ,ay# ,remium ,ay# )3t. mont.

,ay# and service incentive leave w.ic. t.e la(or ar(iter failed to rule on (ut w.ic. t.e ,etitioners
ANOT0ER SUGGESTE7 ANSWER' Ies# if ,ursuant to C$A ,rovision or aut.oriGed (y worDer in writing- ot.erwise. 'o.
W!$ 4: M2" & C*!i?4: Att2#" &C4 1

7!?!$ 4 (2001)
4:
,rayed for in t.eir com,laint# we .old t.at ,etitioners are so entitled to t.ese (enefits. <.ree (3 factors lead us to conclude t.at ,etitioners# alt.oug. ,iece rate worDers# were regular
em,loyees of ,rivate res,ondents.
(a &duardo Santiago# a ,ro:ect worDer# was (eing assigned (y .is em,loyer# $agsaD $uilders# to
Laoag# Ilocos 'orte. Santiago refused to com,ly
wit. t.e transfer claiming t.at it# in effect#
?I!S< as to t.e nature of t.e ,etitionerPs tasDs#

t.eir :o( of re,acDing snacD food was necessary or desira(le in t.e usual (usiness of
constituted a constructive dismissal (ecause it
,rivate res,ondents# w.o were engaged in t.e

manufacture and selling of suc. food ,roductsS&C9';# ,etitioners worDed for ,rivate res,ondents t.roug.out t.e year# t.eir em,loyment not .aving (een de,endent on a s,ecific ,ro:ect or season- and <FI!;# t.e lengt. of time t.at ,etitioners
would taDe .im away from .is family and .is usual
worD assignments in 8etro 8anila. <.e La(or
Ar(iter found t.at t.ere was no constructive

dismissal (ut ordered t.e ,ayment of se,aration
,ay due to strained relations (etween Santiago

and $agsaD $uilders ,lus attorneyPs fees eEuivalent to ten ,ercent ()0M of t.e value of
worDed for ,rivate res,ondents. <.us# w.ile

,etitionerPs mode of com,ensation was on a
SantiagoPs se,aration ,ay.

Is t.e award of attorneyPs fees validK State t.e
C,er ,iece (asisC t.e status and nature of t.eir

em,loyment was t.at of regular em,loyees.C LLa(or Congress of t.e P.ili,,ines v. 'L!C# /*0 SC!A 40* ()**+ W!$ 4: T !;< #4: ECOLA (199.) Lita CruG# a full time ,rofessor in San Ildefonso
reasons for your answer. (/M . SUGGESTE7 ANSWER'

'o# t.e award of attorneyPs fees is not valid. According to t.e La(or Code (Art. ))) (a # attorneyPs fees may (e assessed in cases of
unlawful wit..olding of wages w.ic. does not exist

in t.e case. <.e worDer refused to com,ly wit. a
lawful transfer order# and .ence# a refusal to worD. %iven t.is fact# t.ere can (e no (asis for t.e
,ayment of attorneyPs fees. (( Could t.e la(or ar(iter .ave validly awarded
University# is ,aid on a regular mont.ly (asis. CruG teac.es for a ,eriod of ten mont.s in a sc.oolyear#
excluding t.e two mont.Ps summer (reaD.
;uring t.e semestral (reaD# t.e University did not

,ay Lita CruG .er emergency Cost of Living allowance (&C9LA alt.oug. s.e received .er regular salary since t.e semestral (reaD was allegedly not an integral ,art of t.e sc.ool year
moral and exem,lary damages to Santiago instead of attorneyPs feesK @.yK (3M . SUGGESTE7 ANSWER:
'o# moral and exem,lary damages can (e
awarded only if t.e worDer was illegally terminated in an ar(itrary or ca,ricious manner. ('ueva &ci:a &lectric Coo,erative Inc.# &m,loyees Assn.# us.
'L!C# %.!. 'o. ))1011# January /6# /000- CruG us. 'L!C# %.!. 'o. ))13+6# ?e(ruary 2# /000-
and no teac.ing service were actually rendered (y .er. In s.ort# t.e University invoDed t.e ,rinci,le of
Cno worD# no ,ayC.
P.il. Aeolus etc.# vs. 'L!C# %.!. 'o. )/61)2# A,ril

/+# /000 #
Lita CruG seeDs your advice on w.et.er or not s.e is entitled to receive .er &C9LA during semestral
(reaDs. Fow would you res,ond to t.e EueryK SUGGESTE7 ANSWER'
W!$ 4: /!id %& R 4)*t4: 02*id!& /!& (2002) 'emia earns P2.00 for every manicure s.e does in t.e (ar(er s.o, of a friend w.ic. .as nineteen ()*
em,loyees. At times s.e taDes .ome P)24.00 a
<.ere is no longer any law maDing it t.e legal

o(ligation of an em,loyer to grant an &mergency
Cost of Living Allowance (&C9LA . &ffective )*+)# t.e mandatory living allowances ,rovided for in
earlier Presidential ;ecrees were integrated into t.e (asic ,ay of all covered em,loyees.
day and at ot.er times s.e earns not.ing. S.e now

claims .oliday ,ay. Is 'emia entitled to t.is
(enefitK &x,lain (riefly (4M SUGGESTE7 ANSWER' 'o# 'emia is not entitled to .oliday ,ay. Art. +/ of
t.e La(or Code ,rovides t.at worDers w.o are ,aid (y results are# among ot.ers# not entitled to .oliday
<.us# w.et.er t.e &C9LA will (e ,aid or not

during t.e semestral (reaD now de,ends on t.e
,rovisions of t.e a,,lica(le wage order or contract

w.ic. may (e a C$A# t.at many grant said &C9LA.
,ay. 'emia is a worDer w.o is ,aid (y results. S.e earns P2.00 for every manicure s.e does.
Page &
of 108
ALTERNATI9E ANSWER:
<.e Cno worD# no ,ayC ,rinci,le does not a,,ly. <.e teac.ers receive t.eir regular salaries during t.e semestral (reaD. <.e law granting emergency
SUGGESTE7 ANSWER' 'o. <.e ,reference of credits esta(lis.ed in Art. ))0 of t.e La(or Code cannot (e invoDed in t.e a(sence of any insolvency ,roceedings#
cost of living allowances was designed to augment

t.e income of t.e em,loyees to ena(le t.em to co,e wit. t.e rising cost of living and inflation. It
declaration of (anDru,tcy# or :udicial liEuidation.

(;$P v. Santos. )2) SC!A )3+ ()*+* . ANOT0ER SUGGESTE7 ANSWER'
was enacted ,ursuant to t.e StatePs duty to ,rotect la(or and to alleviate t.e ,lig.t of t.e worDers. <o u,.old t.e sc.oolPs inter,retation of t.e law would run counter to t.e intent of t.e law and constitution
(University of Pangasinan ?aculty Union University of Pangasinan# )/2 SC!A 1*) . v.
'o. @.at Art. ))0 of t.e La(or Code esta(lis.es is

not a lien (ut a ,reference of credit in favor of em,loyees. UnliDe a lien# a ,reference of credit does not create a c.arge u,on any ,articular ,ro,erty of t.e de(tor. (;evelo,ment $anD of t.e P.ili,,ines v. Secretary of La(or. )2* SC!A 130 ()*+* . ANOT0ER SUGGESTE7 ANSWER'
W!$ 4: U"-!id W!$ 4: /# 3 # "; 23 C# dit i" 3!62# 23 E?-*2& 4 (199,)

). Under t.e La(or Code# is t.e rig.t of first
,reference a lien on t.e ,ro,erty of t.e insolvent
<.e ;ecision of t.e La(or Ar(iter .olding Premiere (as foreclosing $anD mortgagee-creditor su(sidiarily lia(le for a money o(ligation of OIQ =
Co# (as mortgagor to Cas,ar# its em,loyee# .as no legal (asis. ). <.ere is no ,rivity of relations.i, (etween t.e $anD and Cas,ar. <.e relations.i,# u,on w.ic.
de(tor in favor of t.e worDersK &x,lain. SUGGESTE7 ANSWER'

<.e rig.t of first ,reference in favor of worDers is not a lien on t.e ,ro,erty of t.e insolvent de(tor.
<.e ,reference could (e exercised only in t.e event of (anDru,tcy or liEuidation of an em,loyerPs
(usiness.
t.e o(ligation to ,ay a sum of money is (ased# is

(etween OIQ (t.e mortgagor and Cas,ar as its em,loyee arising from t.e La(or Code ,rovision reEuiring an em,loyer to ,ay se,aration ,ay# re5 ot.er causes of em,loyment.
ALTERNATI9E ANSWER' A ,reference does not attac. to s,ecific ,ro,erties.

A lien creates c.arges on a ,articular ,ro,erty.
<.e rig.t of first ,reference as regards un,aid wages recogniGed (y t.e La(or Code does not
constitute a lien on t.e ,ro,erty of t.e insolvent
/.
At (ot. times - La(or Ar(iter ;ecision to ,ay
se,aration ,ay and foreclosure - OIQ = Co. was
an existing (usiness entity and neit.er (anDru,t or

in liEuidation# alt.oug. its (usiness o,erations after t.e foreclosure ceased.
de(tor in favor of t.e worDers. It is (ut a ,reference

of credit in t.eir favor# a ,reference in a,,lication. <.e La(or Code does not ,ur,ort to create a lien
in favor of worDers or em,loyees for un,aid wages

eit.er u,on all of t.e ,ro,erties or u,on any ,articular ,ro,erty owned (y t.eir em,loyer.
<.e decision of t.e La(or Ar(iter for OIQ = Co. to ,ay a sum of money to Cas,ar was (ased on an action in ,ersonam# not in rem. enforcea(le
3. against any ,arty. (Sundowner Cor,oration vs. drilon. )+0 SC!A )6 ()*+*
W!$ 4: U"-!id W!$ 4: /# 3 # "; 23 C# dit i" 3!62# 23 E?-*2& 4 (200>)

Premiere $anD# a (anDing cor,oration# (eing t.e creditor-mortgagee of OIQ = Co.# a garment firm# foreclosed t.e .y,ot.ecated assets of t.e latter. ;es,ite t.e foreclosure# OIQ = Co. continued its (usiness o,erations. A year later# t.e (anD tooD ,ossession of t.e foreclosed ,ro,erty. <.e
<.e reference in t.e ;ecision to Cla(or (enefits due to an em,loyee is su,erior to t.e rig.t of a mortgagee of ,ro,ertyC is mis,laced. <.e
6. ,referential claim rule .as no (asis and runs contrary to law and :uris,rudence. W!$ 4: U"-!id W!$ 4: /# 3 # "; 23 C# dit i" 3!62# 23 E?-*2& 4 (199,) ;istinguis. t.e mortgage created under t.e Civil
Code from t.e rig.t of first ,reference created (y
garment firmPs (usiness o,erations ceased wit.out

a declaration of (anDru,tcy. Jose Cas,ar# an em,loyee of OIQ = Co.# was dismissed from em,loyment due to t.e cessation of (usiness of t.e firm. Fe filed a com,laint against OIQ = Co.
and t.e (anD. <.e La(or Ar(iter# after .earing# so found t.e com,any lia(le# as claimed (y Jose
Cas,ar# for se,aration ,ay. Premiere $anD was
t.e La(or Code as regards t.e un,aid wages of worDers. &x,lain. SUGGESTE7 ANSWER'
A 89!<%A%& directly su(:ects t.e ,ro,erty u,on

w.ic. it is im,osed# w.oever t.e ,ossessor may (e# to t.e fulfillment of t.e o(ligation for w.ic. it was constituted. It creates a real rig.t w.ic. is
additionally found su(sidiarily lia(le u,on t.e t.esis t.at t.e satisfaction of la(or (enefits due to t.e em,loyee is su,erior to t.e rig.t of a
mortgagee of ,ro,erty. @as t.e La(or Ar(iter
enforcea(le against t.e w.ole world. It is t.erefore

a lien on an identified real ,ro,erty.
correct in .is decisionK
Page &" of 108
89!<%A%& C!&;I< is a s,ecial ,referred credit under t.e Civil Code in t.e classification of credits. <.e ,reference given (y t.e La(or Code w.en not
attac.ed to any s,ecific ,ro,erty# is an ordinary
wit. res,ect to t.eir claims as worDers against

LC?C.
Pane < A
! ai"s "'st %e fi ed in inso (en!$
,referred credit. ALTERNATI9E ANSWER' If t.e asset of an em,loyer w.ic. .as (ecome
(anDru,t or .as (een liEuidated .as (een mortgaged# t.e ,roceeds of t.e sale of said mortgaged asset is first su(:ect to t.e lien of t.e ,erson to w.om t.e ,ro,erty is mortgaged. Said lien is su,erior to t.e first ,reference en:oyed (y t.e worDers ,ursuant to t.e La(or Code.
&ro!eedings* whi!h are o'tside the .'risdi!tion of the N@RC 7Re&'% i! (# Pera ta8 W!$ 4: W!$ 7i4t2#ti2" (199.) (a ;efine @age ;istortion. (( 8ay a wage distortion# alleged (y t.e
em,loyees (ut re:ected (y t.e em,loyer to (e

suc.# (e a valid ground for staging a striDeK SUGGESTE7 ANSWER' (a A @A%& ;IS<9!<I9' is t.at (roug.t a(out w.ere an increase in t.e ,rescri(ed wage rates results in t.e elimination or severe contraction of intentional Euantitative differences in wage or
in an esta(lis.ment as to effectively o(literate t.e
W!$ 4: U"-!id W!$ 4: /# 3 # "; 23 C# dit i" 3!62# 23 E?-*2& 4 (1999)

?AC<S5 Lowland Cement = ?actory Com,any (LC?C (orrowed P4008 from t.e ;evelo,ment $anD of t.e P.ili,,ines and mortgaged t.e entire com,any# inclusive of its land# (uildings and eEui,ment# to guarantee t.e ,ayment of t.e loan. Fowever# (ecause of t.e economic conditions# LC?C incurred .eavy losses and eventually failed
salary rates (etween and among em,loyee grou,s

distinctions em(odied in suc. wage rates (ased on
sDills#
lengt. of service and ot.er logical (ases of
differentiation. (( 'o# t.e existence of wage distortion is not a valid ground for a striDe (ecause Art. )/6 of t.e
La(or Code ,rovides for a s,ecific met.od of
to ,ay ;$P t.e reEuired mont.ly amortiGations

over a ,eriod of more t.an one () year. In due time# ;$P foreclosed t.e mortgaged assets of
,rocedure for correcting wage distortion. Ilaw at
LC<C resulting in t.e closure of t.e com,any and

t.e dis,lacement of all its em,loyees for want of
$uDlod ng 8anggagawa vs. 'L!C# )*+ SC!A

4+1# t.e Court said5It goes wit.out saying t.at t.ese :oint or
worD.
<.e LC?C La(or Union LUnionN filed in (e.alf of
coordinated activities may (e for(idden or instance of Cdistortions of t.e wage structure

restricted (y law or contract. ?or t.e ,articular wit.in an esta(lis.mentC resulting from t.e
t.e dis,laced worDers a la(or case against ;$P as

t.e new owner of t.e defunct cement factory for
wage differentials# retirement ,ay and ot.er money

claims. <.e La(or Ar(iter decided in t.e favor of
t.e Union. ;$P a,,ealed to t.e 'L!C. ;$P contended in its a,,eal t.at its acEuisition of
t.e mortgage assets of LC?C t.roug. foreclosure
a,,lication of any ,rescri(ed wage increase (y virtue of a law or wage order. Section 3 of !e,u(lic Act 'o. 12/2 ,rescri(es a s,ecific#
detailed and com,re.ensive ,rocedure for t.e
correction t.ereof# t.ere(y im,licitly excluding

striDes or locDouts or ot.er concerted activities as modes of settlement of t.e issue. ALTERNATI9E ANSWER' (( A wage distortion# alleged (y t.e em,loyees
sale did not maDe it t.e owner of t.e defunct

Lowland Cement# and t.at t.e doctrine of successor-em,loyer is not a,,lica(le in t.is case#
since ;$P did not continue t.e (usiness o,eration

of LC?C.
<.e 'L!C w.ile finding merit in ;$PPs contention#

nonet.eless .eld ;$P lia(le to t.e extent of t.e
(ut re:ected (y t.e em,loyer can (e a valid ground for staging a striDe if it .a,,ens t.at in re:ecting t.e allegation of wage distortion# t.e em,loyer refuses
to consider t.e issue under t.e grievance
,roceeds of t.e foreclosure sale since t.e UnionPs

claims in (e.alf of t.e worDers constitute a first
,rocedure ,rovided for in t.e a,,lica(le C$A# and

later on t.roug. Aoluntary Ar(itration. <.ese acts
,reference wit. res,ect t.ereto ,ursuant to article ))0 of t.e La(or Code.
Is t.e 'L!C correct in .olding ;$P lia(le to t.e
of t.e em,loyer could (e considered as a violation

of its duty to (argain collectively w.ic. is unfair la(or ,ractice (ULP . A ULP striDe is legal.
extent of t.e ,roceeds of t.e foreclosure saleK

&x,lain (riefly (4M
SUGGESTE7 ANSWER'
'o. ;$P is not lia(le. ;$P .as a lien over t.e
,ro,erties of LC?C w.ic. were mortgaged to ;$P and said lien is su,erior to t.e ,reference t.at t.e
worDers .ave under t.e La(or Code (in Article ))0
W!$ 4: W!$ 4 64= S!*!#&: S)%A ;t t2 Att!;<? "t (1994) ) ;istinguis. CsalaryC from Cwages.C / Are t.ese su(:ect to attac.ment and executionK SUGGESTE7 ANSWER' ) <.e term C@A%&SC a,,lies to com,ensation for manual la(or# sDilled or unsDilled# w.ile salary
Page &# of 108
denotes a com,ensation for a .ig.er degree of em,loyment. (%aa vs. Court of A,,eals# )60
C!ig.ts may (e waived# unless t.e waiver is

contrary to law# ,u(lic order# ,u(lic ,olicy#
SC!A 306 # ALTERNATI9E ANSWER'

C@A%&SC are t.ose ,aid to any em,loyee as .is
morals or good customs.C W2#Gi"$ 02)#4: C<!#it!%* I"4tit)ti2": O6 #ti? /!& (2002) Socorro is a clerD-ty,ist in t.e Fos,icio de San Jose# a c.arita(le institution de,endent for its
remuneration or earnings ,aya(le (y an em,loyer

for worD done or to (e done# or for services
rendered or to (e rendered. 9n t.e ot.er .and# CSALA!IC is used in t.e law t.at ,rovides for a )3t.-mont. ,ay. In t.is law# (asic salary includes all remuneration or earnings
existence on contri(utions and donations from well wis.ers. S.e renders worD eleven ()) .ours a day
(ut .as not (een given overtime ,ay since .er
,aid (y an em,loyer to .is em,loyees for services

rendered# (ut does not include allowances or
,lace of worD is a c.arita(le institution. Is Socorro

entitled to overtime ,ayK &x,lain (riefly. (4M SUGGESTE7 ANSWER'
monetary (enefits w.ic. are not considered or

integrated as ,art of t.e regular or (asic salary. (Art. *2(f # La(or Code- Sec# /(( # P.;. 'o. +4) / Under Article )20+ of t.e Civil Code# only
Ies. Socorro is entitled to overtime com,ensation.

S.e does not fall under any of t.e exce,tions to t.e coverage of Art. +/# under t.e ,rovisions of
Fours of @orD. <.e La(or Code is eEually

a,,lica(le to non-,rofit institutions. A covered entitled to overtime com,ensation. W2#Gi"$ 02)#4: C<!#it!%* I"4tit)ti2": W G*& R 4t / #i2d: (1995) A Ladies ;ormitory run or managed (y a c.arita(le non-,rofit organiGation claims t.at it is exem,t from
CwagesC are exem,t from attac.ment or execution. Salaries are not exem,t from attac.ment or
execution. (%aa vs. Court of A,,eals# )60 SC!A
em,loyee w.o worDs (eyond eig.t (+ .ours is
306 .
W!$ 4: W!i6 # 23 C2?- "4!ti2" (1996)

/ Jose a,,lied wit. 8ercure ;rug Com,any for t.e ,osition of Sales ClerD. 8ercure ;rug
Com,any maintains a c.ain of drug stores t.at are o,en everyday till late at nig.t. Jose was informed
t.at .e .ad to worD on Sundays and .olidays at
t.e coverage of t.e @eeDly !est Period ,rovision

of t.e La(or Code. Is t.e claim validK L4MN SUGGESTE7 ANSWER'
'o. <.e claim is not valid. <.e ,rovisions on
nig.t as ,art of t.e regular course of em,loyment.

Fe was ,resented wit. a contract of em,loyment
setting fort. .is com,ensation on an annual (asis

wit. an ex,ress waiver of extra com,ensation for
weeDly rest ,eriods in t.e La(or Code cover every em,loyer# w.et.er o,erating for ,rofit or not. (See
Article *) of t.e La(or Code W2#Gi"$ 02)#4: C2?-# 44 d W2#G W G (200,) (d Under w.at conditions may a Ccom,ressed worD weeDC sc.edule (e legally aut.oriGed as an
worD on Sundays and .olidays# w.ic. Jose signed. Is suc. a waiver (inding on JoseK &x,lain. SUGGESTE7 ANSWER' As long as t.e annual com,ensation is an amount
t.at is not less t.an w.at Jose s.ould receive for
all t.e days t.at .e worDs# ,lus t.e extra

com,ensation t.at .e s.ould receive for worD on .is weeDly rest days and on s,ecial and regular
exce,tion to t.e Ceig.t-.our a dayC reEuirement

under t.e La(or CodeK (6M ALTERNATI9E ANSWER'
.olidays and for nig.t differential ,ay for late nig.t

worD# considering t.e laws and wage orders ,roviding for minimum wages# and t.e ,ertinent
<.e conditions for an allowa(le Ccom,ressed worD

weeDC are t.e following5 t.e worDers agree to t.e
,rovisions of t.e La(or Code# t.en t.e waiver t.at

Jose signed is (inding on .im for .e is not really
tem,orary c.ange of worD sc.edule and t.ey do
waiving any rig.t under La(or Law. It is not
contrary to law# morals# good customs# ,u(lic order

or ,u(lic ,olicy for an em,loyer and em,loyee to enter into a contract w.ere t.e em,loyeesP
not suffer any loss of overtime ,ay# fringe (enefits or t.eir weeDly or mont.ly taDe-.ome ,ay. (;9L& &x,lanatory $ulletin on t.e !eduction of @orDdays
on @ages issued on July /3# )*+4 ALTERNATI9E ANSWER'
com,ensation t.at is agreed u,on already includes all t.e amounts .e is to receive for overtime worD and for worD on weeDly rest days and .olidays and for nig.t differential ,ay for late nig.t worD.
AL<&!'A<IA& A'S@&!5
CCom,ressed worD weeDC is resorted to (y t.e em,loyer to ,revent serious losses due to causes
(eyond .is control# suc. as w.en t.ere is a su(stantial slum, in t.e demand for .is goods or services or w.en t.ere is lacD of raw materials. (&x,lanatory $ulletin on t.e !eduction of
<.e waiver of (enefits ,rovided for (y law is void.

Art. 1 of t.e 'ew Civil Code ,rovides5
@orDdays on @ages Issued (y ;9L&# July

/3#)*+4 W2#Gi"$ 02)#4: Ni$<t S<i3t 7i33 # "ti!* (2002)
Page &, of 108
As a tireman in a gasoline station# o,en twenty four
8onday t.roug. ?riday to offset t.e overtime on
(/6 .ours a day wit. only five (4 em,loyees#

%oma worDed from )0500 P.8. until 2500 A.8. of
Saturday. Fence# t.e em,loyees are entitled to

overtime com,ensation# i.e. ,remium rates of ,ay on Saturday. W2#Gi"$ 02)#4: Si;G L !6 : O6 #ti? /!& (199.) ;anilo ?lores a,,lied for t.e ,osition of driver in t.e motor-,ool of %old Com,any# a multinational
t.e following day. Fe claims .e is entitled to nig.t

s.ift differential. (3M Is .e correctK &x,lain (riefly.
SUGGESTE7 ANSWER'
Ies. Under Art +1 of t.e La(or Code# nig.t s.ift
differential s.all (e ,aid to every em,loyee for

worD ,erformed (etween )0500 oPclocD in t.e evening to six oPclocD in t.e morning.
cor,oration. ;anilo was informed t.at .e would

freEuently (e worDing overtime as .e would .ave
<.erefore# %oma is entitled to nig.ts.ift differential for worD ,erformed from )0500 ,m until 1500 am of t.e day following# (ut not from 1500 am to 2500 am
of t.e same day.
to drive for t.e com,anyPs executives even (eyond t.e ordinary eig.t-.our worD day. Fe was ,rovided
wit. a contract of em,loyment w.erein .e would
(e ,aid a mont.ly rate eEuivalent to 34 times .is
ANOT0ER SUGGESTE7 ANSWER' <.e 9mni(us !ules Im,lementing t.e La(or Code
(In $ooD III# !ule II dealing wit. nig.t s.ift
daily wage# regular sicD and vacation leaves# 4

day-leave wit. ,ay every mont. and time off wit.
,ay w.en t.e com,anyPs executives using t.e cars

do not need ;aniloPs service for more t.an eig.t .ours a day# in lieu of overtime. Are t.e a(ove ,rovisions of t.e contract of
em,loyment in conformity wit.# or violative of# t.e
differential ,rovides t.at its ,rovisions on nig.t

s.ift differential s.all '9< a,,ly to em,loyees of Cretail and service esta(lis.ments regularly em,loying not more t.an five (4 worDersC.
$ecause of t.is ,rovision# %oma is not entitled to
nig.t s.ift differential (ecause t.e gasoline station

w.ere .e worDs .as only five em,loyees. W2#Gi"$ 02)#4: S!t)#d!& W2#G (200>) A case against an em,loyer com,any was filed c.arging it wit. .aving violated t.e ,ro.i(ition against offsetting undertime for overtime worD on
lawK SUGGESTE7 ANSWER'
&xce,t for t.e ,rovision t.at ;anilo s.all .ave time off wit. ,ay w.en t.e com,anyPs executives using
t.e cars do not need ;aniloPs service for more t.an
eig.t .ours a day# in lieu of overtime# t.e ,rovisions of t.e contract of em,loyment of ;anilo
are not violative of any la(or law (ecause t.ey
anot.er day. <.e com,lainants were a(le to s.ow

t.at# ,ursuant to t.e Collective $argaining
instead im,rove u,on t.e ,resent ,rovisions of

,ertinent la(or laws.
<.us# t.e mont.ly rate eEuivalent to 34 times t.e
Agreement (C$A # em,loyees of t.e union .ad

(een reEuired to worD CovertimeC on Saturday (ut
were ,aid only at regular rates of ,ay on t.e t.esis

t.at t.ey were not reEuired to com,lete# and t.ey
daily wage may (e sufficient to include overtime
did not in fact com,lete# t.e eig.t-.our worD ,eriod

daily from 8onday t.roug. ?riday. %iven t.e circumstances# t.e em,loyer contended t.at t.e em,loyees were not entitled to overtime com,ensation# i.e.# wit. ,remium rates of ,ay. ;ecide t.e controversy.
,ay. <.ere is no la(or law reEuiring t.e ,ayment of sicD and vacation leaves exce,t t.e ,rovision for a
five-day service incentive leave in t.e La(or Code.
<.e 4-day-leave wit. ,ay every mont. .as no

counter,art in La(or Law and is very generous.
SUGGESTE7 ANSWER' <.e em,loyer is correct. @.ile Art. ++ of t.e La(or Code clearly ,rovides t.at undertime worD on any ot.er ,articular day s.all not (e offset (y overtime
worD on any ot.er day# t.is rule is ina,,lica(le in
As for t.e ,rovision in ;aniloPs contract of em,loyment t.at .e s.all receive time off wit. ,ay in lieu of overtime# t.is violates t.e ,rovision of t.e
La(or Code w.ic. states t.at undertime worD on any ,articular day s.all not (e offset (y overtime worD on any ot.er day. Permission given to t.e
t.is case ,ertaining to Saturday worD w.ic. in reality does not constitute overtime worD as
Saturday is still a worDing day under t.e law and
em,loyer to go on leave on some ot.er day of t.e

weeD s.all not exem,t t.e em,loyer from ,aying
t.ere is no C$A sti,ulation against it.
t.e additional com,ensation reEuired (y t.e La(or

Code. W2#Gi"$ 02)#4: W< " C2?- "4!%* : EW<i* 2" C!**K (2004)
%il $ates# a com,uter analyst and ,rogrammer of
ANOT0ER SUGGESTE7 ANSWER' Art# ++ of t.e La(or Code ,rovides t.at undertime
worD on any ,articular day s.all not (e offset (y overtime worD on any ot.er day. <.e C$A (eing
t.e law (etween t.e ,arties and t.e Union .aving s.own t.at t.e em,loyees rendered overtime worD on Saturday# t.e contention of t.e em,loyer is not tena(le. <.e em,loyer cannot use t.e undertime of
Fard ;rive Com,any# worDs eig.t .ours a day for

five days a weeD at t.e main office ,roviding
customers information tec.nology assistance.
Page &$ of 108
9n Saturdays# .owever# t.e com,any reEuires .im to Dee, .is cellular ,.one o,en from +500 A.8. to
4500 P.8. so t.at t.e 8anagement could contact
reEuired to Dee, .is cellular ,.one on so t.at .e could (e contacted w.enever .is services as driver (ecomes necessary.
.im in case of .eavy worD load or emergency

,ro(lems needing .is ex,ertise. 8ay said .ours on Saturdays (e considered
@ould t.e .ours t.at Lito and $ong are on call (e

considered com,ensa(le worDing .oursK SUGGESTE7 ANSWER'
<.e .ours of Lito and $ong w.ile on call can (e
com,ensa(le worDing .ours Bw.ile on callHK If so#

s.ould said com,ensation (e re,orted to t.e
considered com,ensa(le .ours. <.e a,,lica(le
Social Security SystemK (4M SUGGESTE7 ANSWER' Said .ours on Saturdays s.ould (e considered as
com,ensa(le worDing .ours Cw.ile on callC. In accordance wit. t.e !ules and !egulations
rule is5 CAn em,loyee w.o is reEuired to remain on call in t.e em,loyerPs ,remises or so close t.ereto
t.at .e cannot use t.e time effectively and gainfully for .is own ,ur,ose s.all (e considered
as worDing w.ile on can. An em,loyee w.o is not

reEuired to leave word at .is .ome or wit.
Im,lementing t.e La(or Code# an em,loyee w.o is

not reEuired to leave word at .is .ome or wit.
com,any officials w.ere (e may (e reac.ed is not

worDing w.ile on call.C Fere# $ong is reEuired to
com,any officials as to w.ere .e may (e reac.ed is not worDing w.ile on call. $ut in t.e Euestion# %il
$ates was reEuired to Dee, .is cell ,.one o,en from +500 A.8. to 4500 P.8. <.erefore# $ates s.ould (e considered as worDing w.ile on call# if
stay at t.e office after office .ours so .e could (e

called to drive t.e trucDs of t.e Com,any. As for
$ong# .e is reEuired to Dee, .is cellular ,.one so

t.at .e could (e contacted w.enever .is services
.e cannot use effectively and gainfully for .is own

,ur,ose t.e time from +500 A.8. to 4500 P.8. on Saturdays w.en .e is reEuired to Dee, .is cell-
as driver as needed. <.us# t.e waiting time of Lito and $ong s.ould (e considered are com,ensa(le
.ours. Note< It !o' d %e arg'ed that in the !ase of Bong
who is not reG'ired to sta$ in the offi!e %'t is
,.one o,en.
<.e com,ensation actually received (y $ates for worDing w.ile on call on Saturdays s.ould (e re,orted to t.e Social Security System (ecause under t.e Social Security Law# com,ensation
a owed to go ho"e* if he is not a!t'a $ asked %$
!ar* he !an 'se his ti"e effe!ti(e $ and gainf' $

to his own &'r&ose* th's* the ti"e that he is at
!e ' ar &hone to re&ort to the offi!e to dri(e a
ho"e "a$ "ean that there are not !o"&ensa% e

ho'rs#
means Call actual remuneration for em,loyment.C ANOT0ER SUGGESTE7 ANSWER' If %il $ates can effectively utiliGe t.e Saturdays in .is own interest even Cw.ile on callC# said .ours on Saturdays are not com,ensa(le. Fowever# if
during said .ours on reEuired to attend to leaving w.at .e is com,ensa(le worDing
TERMINATION O1 EM/LOIMENT
B!;G8!$ 4 (2002) A. An em,loyee was ordered reinstated wit. (acDwages. Is .e entitled to t.e (enefits and
Saturdays# $ates is actually urgent worD to t.e extent of doing# t.en t.e same are .ours to t.e extent of t.e
increases granted during t.e ,eriod of .is lay-offK

&x,lain (riefly. (3M $. Aside from t.e :ust causes enumerated in
actual .ours of worD rendered (y .im.

<.e com,ensation ,aid (y t.e com,any to $ates
for said .ours worDed on Saturdays s.ould (e re,orted to t.e SSS. <.is is so (ecause t.e (asis
of com,uting t.e SSS contri(ution includes all actual remuneration# including allowances and cas. value of any com,ensation ,aid in any medium ot.er t.an cas..
Article /+/ of t.e La(or Code for t.e termination of

em,loyment# state t.ree V3T lawful or aut.oriGed causes for t.e dismissal of an em,loyee. (/M SUGGESTE7 ANSWER' A. Ies. An em,loyee w.o is ordered reinstated
wit. (acDwages is entitled to t.e (enefits and

increases granted during t.e ,eriod of .is lay-off. <.e Su,reme Court .as ruled5 C$acDwages are
W2#Gi"$ 02)#4: W< " C2?- "4!%* : EW<i*

2" C!**K: W!iti"$ Ti? (199.) Lito UulangDulang and $ong Urongsulong are
granted for earnings a worDer lost due to .is illegal

dismissal and an em,loyer is o(liged to ,ay an illegally dismissed em,loyee t.e w.ole amount of salaries ,lus all ot.er (enefits and (onuses and general increases to w.ic. t.e latter s.ould .ave (een normally entitled .ad .e not (een dismissed.C LSigma Personnel Services v. 'L!C# //6 SC!A )+) ()**3 N B!;G8!$ 4 64= U"-!id W!$ 4 (1994)
em,loyed as trucD drivers of Line 8overs# Inc. Usually. Lito is reEuired (y t.e ,ersonnel manager
to :ust stay at t.e .ead office after office .ours (ecause .e could (e called to drive t.e trucDs. @.ile at t.e .ead office. Lito merely waits in t.e
managerPs rece,tion room. 9n t.e ot.er .and.

$ong is allowed to go .ome after office .ours (ut is
Page &% of 108
;istinguis. (etween an award for (acD wages and an award for un,aid wages. SUGGESTE7 ANSWER'
An award for $ACU@A%&S is to com,ensate an em,loyee w.o .as (een illegally dismissed# for t.e wages# allowances and ot.er (enefits or t.eir monetary eEuivalent# w.ic. said em,loyee did not receive from t.e time .e was illegally dismissed u, to t.e time of .is actual reinstatement.
claiming#
among
ot.ers#
t.at
t.e
award
for
9n t.e ot.er .and# an award for U'PAI; @A%&S is for an em,loyee w.o .as actually worDed (ut .as not (een ,aid t.e wages .e is entitled to receive for suc. worD done. (Arts. /2* and *2() # La(or Code ALTERNATI9E ANSWER' An award of $ACU@A%&S is given to an em,loyee w.o is un:ustly dismissed. <.e cause of action .ere is t.e un:ust dismissal. 9n t.e ot.er .and# an award of U'PAI; @A%&S is given to an em,loyee w.o .as not (een ,aid .is salaries or wages for services actually rendered. <.e cause of action .ere is non-,ayment of wages or salaries. (%eneral $a,tist $i(le College vs. 'L!C /)* SC!A 46* .
B!;G8!$ 4: B!4i4 (2001) @.at economic com,onents constitute (acDwages for a ranD and file em,loyeeK Are t.ese com,onents eEually a,,lica(le to a managerial em,loyeeK (4M SUGGESTE7 ANSWER'
<.e La(or Code (Art. /2* ,rovides t.at an em,loyee w.o is un:ustly dismissed from worD is entitled to reinstatement and also to .is full (acDwages# inclusive of allowances# and to .is ot.er (enefits or t.eir monetary eEuivalent com,uted from t.e time .is com,ensation was wit..eld from .im u, to .is actual reinstatement.
An em,loyee is entitled to all t.e a(ove (enefit regardless of w.et.er .e is a ranD-and-file em,loyee or a managerial em,loyee. Fowever# (acDwages may also include t.e )3t. mont. ,ay w.ic. are ,aid to ranDand-file em,loyees# as well as (enefits arising from a C$A given only to em,loyees in t.e (argaining unit. 8anagerial em,loyees cannot (e given t.e same since t.ey are ineligi(le to :oin a la(or organiGation.
B!;G8!$ 4: B!4i4 (2001)

CAC was .ired (y com,any C$C in January )*+0 until A was illegally dismissed on A,ril 30# )**0 as found (y a La(or Ar(iter w.o ordered reinstatement and full (acDwages from A,ril 30# )**0 until As reinstatement. <.e Ar(iterPs decision was ,romulgated on A,ril /*# )**4. $ a,,ealed
(acDwages was excessive in t.at it went (eyond t.ree-year rule set fort. in 8ercury ;rug v. CI! (41 SC!A 1*1 . Is $Ps contention tena(leK @.yK (4M
SUGGESTE7 ANSWER'
'o# t.e contention of C$C is not tena(le. !e,. Act 'o. 12)4# w.ic. was enacted in )*+*# in effect set aside t.e t.ree-year rule set fort. in 8ercury ;rug vs. CI! (41 SC!A 1*1 w.en it ,rovided t.at t.e full (acDwages t.at an un:ustly dismissed em,loyee s.all receive s.all (e com,uted from t.e time .is com,ensation was wit..eld from .im u, to t.e time of .is actual reinstatement. <.e word CactualC was inserted in t.e law (y !e,. Act 'o. 12)4. <.us# in accordance wit. t.e aforesaid law# an un:ustly dismissed em,loyee s.all receive .is full (acDwages com,uted from t.e time .is com,ensation was wit..eld from .im u, to t.e time of .is actual reinstatement even if t.is ,eriod is more t.an t.ree years.
s,ecifically declared t.at t.e award of (acDwages was to (e com,uted from t.e time com,ensation was wit..eld from t.e em,loyee u, to t.e time of .is reinstatement.
xxx
<.e clear legislative intent of t.e amendment in !A 'o. 12)4 is to give more (enefits to t.e worDers t.an was ,reviously given t.em under t.e 8ercury ;rug rule. In ot.er words# t.e ,rovision calling for Cfull (acDwagesC to illegally dismissed em,loyees is clear# ,lain and free from am(iguity# and# t.erefore# must (e a,,lied wit.out attem,ted or strained inter,retation.
B!;G8!$ 4: B!4i4 (2001)

(a CAC# an em,loyee of Com,any C$C# was found to .ave (een illegally dismissed and was ordered to (e reinstated and ,aid (acDwages from t.e time of dismissal until actual reinstatement. <.e case was elevated all t.e way to t.e Su,reme Court. $y t.e time t.e Su,reme CourtPs decision (ecame final and executory# $ .ad closed down and was in t.e ,rocess of winding u,. 'onet.eless# $ ,aid A .is (acDwages and se,aration ,ay. A com,lained t.at $>s com,utation was erroneous in t.at APs allowances was not included. Is A correct in .is claimK ?or w.at reason(s K (/M .
ANOT0ER SUGGESTE7 ANSWER' 'o# t.e contention of C$C is not tena(le. <.e Su,reme Court (In ?errer vs. 'L!C# July 4# )**3 a(andoned t.e 8ercury ;rug !ule and in )**1 $ustamante vs. 'L!C# /14 SC!A 1) t.e Su,reme Court said5
LJuoting Article /2* of t.e La(or CodeN Under t.e a(ove Euoted ,rovision# it (ecame mandatory to award (acDwages to illegally dismissed regular em,loyees. <.e law
SUGGESTE7 ANSWER'
A is correct. After its amendment (y !e,. Act 'o. 12)4# t.e (acDwages t.at an em,loyee w.o .as
Page && of 108
(een un:ustly dismissed is entitled to receive is not limited to .is full (acDwages (ut also includes .is allowances and t.e ot.er (enefits or t.eir monetary eEuivalent. ANOT0ER SUGGESTE7 ANSWER' In t.e case of Consolidated .!ural $anD us. 'L!C# %.!. 'o. )/3+)0# January /0#)***# t.e Su,reme Court ruled t.at allowances of t.e em,loyee s.ould (e included in t.e com,utation of (acDwages.
of closure or cessation of o,eration due to serious (usiness losses or financial reverses.
7i4?i44!*: A)t<2#iJ d C!)4 4: C*24)# & C 44!ti2" (2001)

Com,any CAC was engaged in t.e manufacture of goods using t.e (y-,roducts of coconut trees and em,loyed some fifty worDers w.o lived in t.e coconut ,lantation in JueGon Province. <.e land u,on w.ic. A conducted its o,eration was su(:ected to land reform under !.A. 1142 for distri(ution to t.e tenants and residents of t.e land. ConseEuently# A .ad to close its o,erations and dismiss its worDers. <.e union re,resenting t.e em,loyees demanded t.at A ,ay t.e dismissed worDers se,aration ,ay under Art. /+3 of t.e La(or Code t.at reEuires# among ot.ers# t.e ,ayment of se,aration ,ay to em,loyees in cases of Cclosing or cessation of o,erations of t.e esta(lis.ment or undertaDingC. Is t.e unionPs claim correct or notK @.yK (4M
7i4?i44!*: A)t<2#iJ d C!)4 4 (2002) $. According to Art /+3 of t.e La(or Code# t.e lawful or aut.oriGed causes for t.e termination of an em,loyee are5 ). installation of la(or saving devices /. redundancy 3. retrenc.ment to ,revent losses or6. closing or cessation of o,eration of t.e esta(lis.ment or undertaDing# unless t.e closing is for t.e ,ur,ose of circumventing t.e ,rovisions of t.e La(or Code. Art /+6 also ,rovides t.at an em,loyer may terminate t.e services of an em,loyee w.o .as (een found to (e suffering from any disease and w.ose continued em,loyment is ,ro.i(ited (y law or is ,re:udicial to .is .ealt. as well as to t.e .ealt. of .is co-em,loyees.
7i4?i44!*: A)t<2#iJ d C!)4 4 64= ()4t C!)4 (2004) @.at are t.e aut.oriGed causes for a valid dismissal (y t.e em,loyer of an em,loyeeK @.y are t.ey distinct from t.e :ust causesK (4M SUGGESTE7 ANSWERS' <.e AU<F9!IQ&; CAUS&S for a valid dismissal are t.e following5 ). installation of la(or-saving devices /. redundancy 3. retrenc.ment to ,revent losses 6. t.e closing or cessation of o,eration of t.e esta(lis.ment or undertaDing
SUGGESTE7 ANSWERS'
<.e aut.oriGed causes for a valid dismissal are distinct from :ust causes (ecause w.ere t.e dismissal of an em,loyee is (ased on :ust causes# t.ese :ust causes are acts committed (y t.e em,loyee w.ic. ,rovide t.e (asis for .is dismissal. 9n t.e ot.er .and# w.ere t.e dismissal is (ased on aut.oriGed causes# t.ese aut.oriGed causes are t.e results of t.e ,ro,er exercise (y t.e em,loyer of .is management ,rerogatives. If a valid dismissal is (ased on :ust causes# t.ere is no lia(ility on t.e ,art of t.e em,loyer# alt.oug. sometimes# financial assistance to (e given to t.e dismissed em,loyee is asDed of t.e em,loyer. If a valid dismissal is (ased on aut.oriGed causes# t.e em,loyer .as to ,ay se,aration ,ay exce,t in case
SUGGESTE7 ANSWER' <.e unionPs claim is not correct. In t.e case of 'ational ?ederation of La(or vs. 'L!C# %.!. 'o. )/22)+# 8arc. /. /000# t.e Su,reme Court ruled t.at t.ere is no o(ligation to ,ay se,aration ,ay if t.e closure is not a unilateral and voluntary act of t.e em,loyer. In t.e Euestion# t.e closure was (roug.t a(out (y a unilateral and voluntary act of em,loyer (ut due to t.e act government in t.e im,lementation of Com,re.ensive Agrarian !eform Law.
7i4?i44!*: A)t<2#iJ d C!)4 4: C*24)# & C 44!ti2" 23 B)4i" 44: O*d A$ (2006)
not t.e of t.e
If t.e reason for t.e closure is due to old age of t.e (rot.ers and sisters5 ). Is t.e closure allowed (y lawK (/.4M /. Are t.e em,loyees entitled to se,aration (enefitsK (/.4 M SUGGESTE7 ANSWER' If closure is due to old age R
). I&S# it is allowed (y law. <.e em,loyer may go out of (usiness (y closing t.e same regardless of .is reasons# if done in good fait. and due to causes (eyond .is control. (LA' Pictures &m,loyees and @orDers Association v. LA' Pictures# 'o. L-/36*4# Se,tem(er 30#)*20-J.A#<. %eneral Services v. 'L!C# 'o. L-/163/# Se,tem(er 30# )*20- Ala(ang Country Clu(# Inc. v. 'L!C# %.!. 'o. )421))# August *# /004
SUGGESTE7 ANSWER' /. I&S. 9ne mont. ,ay# or one-.alf mont. ,ay for every year of service# a fraction of at least 1 mont.s or more eEuivalent to one year# w.ic.ever is .ig.er. (Catatista v. 'L!C# %!. 'o. )0/6//# August 3#)**4 .
Page 78 of 108
7i4?i44!*: A)t<2#iJ d C!)4 4: C*24)# &

C 44!ti2" 23 B)4i" 44: S -!#!ti2" /!&
!&<!&'CF8&'< on t.e ot.er .and# ... is
resorted to ,rimarily to avoid or minimiGe

(usiness losses.C
(2006) A$C <omato Cor,oration# owned and managed (y

(een in (usiness for 60 years. ;ue to serious
t.ree (3 elderly (rot.ers and two (/ sisters# .as (usiness losses and financial reverses during t.e last five (4 years# t.ey decided to close t.e (usiness. ). As counsel for t.e cor,oration# w.at ste,s will
In &scareal vs. 'L!C# /)3 SC!A 62/ ()**/ # t.e Su,reme Court ruled t.at t.e law does not reEuire
financial loss as a (asis for redundancy. 7i4?i44!*: A)t<2#iJ d C!)4 4: R d)"d!";& (1999) ?AC<S5 Farvester Inde,endent Aentures (FIA ado,ted a redundancy ,rogram to streamline o,erations. Positions w.ic. overla,,ed eac. ot.er#
or w.ic. are in excess of t.e reEuirements of t.e
you taDe ,rior to its closureK (/.4M

/. Are t.e em,loyees entitled to se,aration ,ayK
(/.4M SUGGESTE7 ANSWER' ). Ste,s to taDe ,rior to closure5 a @ritten 'otice to ;9L& 30 days ,rior to
t.e intended date of termination# s.owing a (ona fide reason for closure-
service# were declared redundant. <.is ,rogram
resulted in t.e reduction of man,ower com,lement

and conseEuent termination of fifteen ()4
@ritten 'otice to em,loyees 30 days ,rior

to t.e intended date of termination
em,loyees# w.ic. included t.e secretary of t.e local union and t.e com,anyPs Pollution control
9fficer.
(Catatista v. 'L!C# %!. 'o. )0/6//# Aug. 3 )**4 . SUGGESTE7 ANSWER'

/. '9# Art. /+3 of t.e La(or Code does not
Ilaw at $uDlod ng 8anggagawa (I$8 # Euestioned

t.e termination of t.e )4 em,loyees# contending t.at t.e same constituted union (usting and
t.erefore# illegal# if t.e same is undertaDen wit.out

,rior union a,,roval.
o(ligate an em,loyer to ,ay se,aration (enefits
w.en t.e closure is due to serious (usiness losses

or financial reverses ('ort. ;avao 8ining and ;evelo,ment Cor,. v. 'L!C# %.!. 'o. ))/461# 8arc. )3#)**1 # exce,t if t.e C$A ,rovides ot.erwise (JAUA ?oods v. Pacot# %.!. 'o. )4)32+# 8ar. /+# /004 . 7i4?i44!*: A)t<2#iJ d C!)4 4: 728"4iJi"$
). Is I$8 correct in its contention t.at redundancy can (e im,lemented (y FIA only u,on ,rior union
a,,rovalK @.yK (3M SUGGESTE7 ANSWER'
<.e La(or Code (in Article /+3 very clearly gives

t.e em,loyer t.e rig.t to terminate any of its
em,loyees for redundancy.

/. Can t.e ,osition of Pollution Control 9fficer (e
E?-*2&
4 (2001)
Soon after t.e Asian meltdown (egan in 9cto(er )**2# A$C !ealty and 8anagement Cor,oration undertooD a downsiGing ,rogram and terminated
declared redundantK @.yK (/M SUGGESTE7 ANSWER' If t.ere is a law reEuiring com,anies to .ave a
Pollution 9fficer# t.en FIA cannot declare suc.

office redundant. If t.ere is no suc. law# t.en t.e Pollution 9fficer could (e considered redundant.
nearly a t.ird of its regular worDforce. <.e affected

em,loyees Euestioned t.eir termination arguing t.e em,loyees correctK &x,lain your answer# (3M .
t.at t.e action was ,reci,itate in t.at A$C .ad not ,roved t.at it sustained any losses. Is t.e claim of SUGGESTE7 ANSWER'
<.e claim of t.e em,loyees may or may not (e correct. @.en t.e Cor,oration undertooD its CdownsiGingC ,rogram# it may .ave terminated its em,loyees on eit.er one of two grounds# namely#
Pane < Consider !ase of Es!area # A &osition

!reated %$ aw !annot %e de! ared red'ndant# 7i4?i44!*: A)t<2#iJ d C!)4 4: R d)"d!";& (2000)
Can redundancy exist w.ere t.e same is due
redundancy or retrenc.ment. ?or !&;U';A'CI# t.ere is no reEuirement of

losses# w.ereas in retrenc.ment# su(stantial losses# actual or antici,ated# is a reEuirement.
to t.e com,anyPs failure to ,ro,erly forecast its man,ower reEuirementsK (3M
,erformed increasing
Can redundancy exist w.ere t.e worD

(y twelve ()/ of worDers can (e t.e s,eed a mac.ine wit.out
,erformed as efficiently (y ten ()0 worDers (y detriment to t.e .ealt. and safety of t.e worDersK
(3M SUGGESTE7 ANSWER'
(Article /+3# La(or Code . In Atlantic %ulf and Pacific Com,any vs. 'L!C# %.!. 'o. )/24)1. 8ay
/+# )***# t.e Su,reme Court ruled5
C... it is necessary to distinguis. redundancy

from retrenc.ment... !edundancy exists w.en t.e services of an em,loyee are in excess of enter,rise. reEuired an w.at is (y
Ies# !&;U';A'CI exists w.en a ,osition
.as (ecome an excess or su,erfluous w.ic.# in
turn# may (e caused (y reorganiGation# closure of
Page &( of 108
a section or de,artment# or ado,tion of la(or- saving arrangements. Poor forecasting does not invalidate redundancy. ?orecasting after all is not fail-free. L@ilts.ire ?ile Co..Inc. v. 'L!C. )*3 SC!A 114 ()**) N. ( Ies# redundancy can exist w.ere worD efficiency .as (een im,roved mec.anically t.us resulting in excessive or su,erfluous man,ower. L@ilts.ire ?ile Co.# Inc. v. 'L!C# )*3 SC!A 114()**) N.
7i4?i44!*: A)t<2#iJ d C!)4 4: R t# ";<? "t & R d)"d!";& (2001)
Su,reme Court stated t.at !&;U';A'CI exists
(a @.at conditions must ,revail and w.at reEuirements# if any# must an em,loyer com,ly wit. to :ustify7effect a valid retrenc.ment ,rogramK (/M . SUGGESTE7 ANSWER: In t.e case of Asian Alco.ol Cor,. vs. 'L!C# %.!. 'o. )3))0+# 8arc. /4#)***# t.e Su,reme Court stated t.at t.e reEuirements for a valid retrenc.ment must (e ,roved (y clear and convincing evidence5 () t.at t.e retrenc.ment is reasona(ly necessary and liDely to ,revent (usiness losses w.ic.# if already incurred# are not merely de minimis# (ut SU$S<A'<IAL# S&!I9US# AC<UAL and !&AL or if only ex,ected# are reasona(ly imminent as ,erceived o(:ectively and in good fait. (y t.e em,loyer(/ t.at t.e em,loyer served @!I<<&' '9<IC& (ot. to t.e em,loyees and to t.e ;e,artment of La(or and &m,loyment at least one mont. ,rior to t.e intended date of retrenc.ment-
(3 t.at t.e em,loyer ,ays t.e retrenc.ed em,loyees S&PA!A<I9' PAI eEuivalent to one mont. ,ay or at least one mont. ,ay for every year of service# w.ic.ever is .ig.er-
(6 t.at t.e em,loyer exercises its ,rerogative to retrenc. em,loyees in %99; ?AI<F for t.e advancement of its interest and not to defeat or circumvent t.e em,loyeesP rig.t to security of tenure- and (4 t.at t.e em,loyer used ?AI! and !&AS9'A$L& C!I<&!IA in ascertaining w.o would (e dismissed and w.o would (e retained among t.e em,loyees# suc. as status (i.e.# w.et.er t.ey are tem,orary# casual# regular or managerial em,loyees # efficiency# seniority# ,.ysical fitness# age# and financial .ards.i, for certain worDers. (( @.at conditions must ,revail and w.at reEuirements# if any# must an em,loyer com,ly wit. to :ustify7effect a valid redundancy ,rogramK (/M . SUGGESTE7 ANSWER'
In t.e case of Asian Alco.ol Cor,. (su,ra # t.e
w.en t.e service ca,a(ility of t.e worD is in excess of w.at is reasona(ly needed to meet t.e demands on t.e enter,rise. A !&;U';A'< P9SI<I9' is one rendered su,erfluous (y any num(er of factors# suc. as over.iring of worDers# decreased volume of (usiness dro,,ing of a ,articular line ,reviously manufactured (y t.e com,any or ,.asing out of a service activity ,reviously undertaDen (y t.e (usiness. Under t.ese conditions# t.e em,loyer .as no legal o(ligation to Dee, in its ,ayroll more em,loyees t.an are necessary for t.e o,eration of its (usiness.
?or t.e im,lementation of a redundancy ,rogram to (e valid# t.e em,loyer must com,ly wit. t.e following !&JUISI<&S5 () written notice served on (ot. t.e em,loyees and t.e ;e,artment of La(or and &m,loyment at least one mont. ,rior to t.e intended date of retrenc.ment(/ ,ayment of se,aration ,ay eEuivalent to at least one mont. ,ay or at least one mont. ,ay for every year of service w.ic.ever is .ig.er(3 good fait. in a(olis.ing t.e redundant ,ositions- and (6 fair and reasona(le criteria in ascertaining w.at ,ositions are to (e declared redundant and accordingly a(olis.ed.
7i4?i44!*: A)t<2#iJ d C!)4 4: R t# ";<? "t (1995) <.e Com,any Legal Counsel advised t.e $oard of ;irectors as follows5 CA com,any cannot retrenc. to ,revent losses until actual losses occur. <.e Com,any must wait until t.e end of t.e $usiness Iear w.en its $ooDs of Accounts# Profit and Loss Statement s.owing t.e actual loss and $alance S.eet .ave (een audited (y an Inde,endent auditing firm.C Is t.e legal advice of counsel correctKL4MN SUGGESTE7 ANSWER' <.e legal advice is not correct. <.e La(or Code (in Article /+3 ,rovides t.at retrenc.ment may (e resorted to C<9 P!&A&'< L9SS&SC <.us# t.ere could (e legal (asis for retrenc.ment even (efore actual losses as long as t.e losses are imminent and serious. ANOT0ER SUGGESTE7 ANSWER' <.e advise of t.e Com,any Legal Counsel t.at an em,loyer cannot retrenc. to ,revent losses until actual losses occur is not correct. <.e La(or Code ,rovides5 Art. /+3. Closure of esta(lis.ment and reduction of ,ersonnel. <.e em,loyer may also terminate t.e em,loyment of any em,loyee xxx retrenc.ment to ,revent losses.
<.e law does not reEuire t.at retrenc.ment can (e undertaDen (y an em,loyer only after an actual
Page ') of 108
(usiness loss occurs. <.e Su,reme Court in Lo,eG Sugar Cor,oration v# ?ederation of ?ree @orDers# )+* SC!A )2* ()**0 . said5
In its ordinary connotation# t.e ,.rase Cto ,revent lossesC means t.at t.e retrenc.ment or termination of some em,loyees is aut.oriGed to (e undertaDen (y t.e em,loyer sometime (efore t.e losses antici,ated are actually sustained or realiGed. It is not# in ot.er words# t.e intention of t.e lawmaDer to com,el t.e em,loyer to stay .is .and and Dee, all .is em,loyees until sometime after losses s.all .ave in fact materialiGed- if suc. an intent were ex,ressly written into law# t.e law may well (e vulnera(le to constitutional attacD as taDing ,ro,erty from one man to anot.er# (underscoring su,,liedN
;aisyPs ;e,artment Store to ;9L& and t.e
7i4?i44!*: A)t<2#iJ d C!)4 4: R t# ";<? "t (200>)

;aisyPs ;e,artment Store .ired Leo as a c.ecDer to a,,re.end s.o,lifters. Leo later (ecame C.ief of t.e C.ecDers Section and acEuired t.e status of a regular em,loyee. $y way of a cost-cutting measure# ;aisyPs decided to a(olis. t.e entire C.ecDers Section. <.e services of Leo# along wit. t.ose of .is co-em,loyees worDing in t.e same section# were terminated on t.e same day. A mont. after t.e dismissal of Leo# ;aisyPs engaged t.e services of anot.er ,erson as an ordinary c.ecDer and wit. a salary muc. lower t.an t.at w.ic. Leo used to receive. %iven t.e a(ove factual settings (not.ing more .aving (een esta(lis.ed # could t.e dismissal of Leo (e successfully assailed (y .imK
SUGGESTE7 ANSWER'
Ies. %iven t.e factual setting in t.e ,ro(lem# and since Cnot.ing more (.ave (een esta(lis.edC# t.e dismissal of Leo can (e successfully assailed (y .im. <.is is so (ecause t.e (urden of ,roof is u,on t.e em,loyer to s.ow com,liance wit. t.e following reEuisites for reduction of ,ersonnel5
). Losses or ex,ected losses s.ould (e su(stantial and not merely de minimis/. <.e ex,ected losses must (e reasona(ly imminent# and suc. imminence can (e ,erceived o(:ectively and in good fait. (y t.e em,loyer. 3. It must (e necessary and liDely to ,revent t.e ex,ected losses. <.e em,loyer must .ave taDen ot.er measures to cut costs ot.er t.an la(or costs- and 6. Losses if already realiGed# or t.e ex,ected losses must (e ,roved (y sufficient and convincing evidence. (Lo,eG Sugar Cor,. v. ?ederation of Sugar @orDers. )+* SC!A )2*()**0 .
8oreover# t.e notice reEuirements to (e given (y
em,loyees concerned 30 days ,rior to t.e intended date of termination# as well as t.e reEuisite se,aration ,ay# were not com,lied wit..

Ies. <.e aut.oriGed cause to dismiss due to redundancy or retrenc.ment under Art. /+3 of t.e La(or Code .as (een dis,roved (y ;aisyPs engaging t.e services of a su(stitute c.ecDer at a salary muc. lower t.an t.at w.ic. Leo used to receive. Also# it a,,ears t.at t.e one () mont. notice rule reEuired in said law was not com,lied wit.. Suc. (eing t.e case# t.e twin reEuirements for a valid dismissal under Arts. /22 (( and /+3 of t.e Code .ave clearly not (een com,lied wit.. <.at no se,aration ,ay was ,aid Leo# in violation of Art. /+3 of t.e Code# .is dismissal can all t.e more (e successfully assailed.
suc. a ,olicy. <.e reason is sim,le enoug.. A .ost of relevant factors come into ,lay in determining cost efficient measures and in c.oosing t.e em,loyees w.o will (e retained or se,arated to save t.e com,any from closing s.o,. In determining t.ese issues# management ,lays a ,re-eminent role. <.e c.aracteriGation of ,ositions as redundant is an exercise of (usiness :udgment on t.e ,art of t.e em,loyer. It will (e u,.eld as long as it ,asses t.e test of ar(itrariness.
7i4?i44!*: A)t<2#iJ d C!)4 4: Si;G" 44 (2004)

A. %a(riela Liwanag .as (een worDing as (ooDDee,er at %reat ?oods# Inc.# w.ic. o,erates a c.ain of .ig.-end restaurants t.roug.out t.e country# since )*20 w.en it was still a small eatery at $inondo. In t.e early ,art of t.e year /003# %a(riela# w.o was already 40 years old# re,orted for worD after a weeD-long vacation in .er ,rovince. It was t.e .eig.t of t.e SA!S (Severe Acute !es,iratory Syndrome scare# and management learned t.at t.e first confirmed SA!S deat. case in t.e P.ili,,ines# a B(aliD(ayanH nurse from Canada# is a townmate of %a(riela. Immediately# a memorandum was issued (y management terminating t.e services of %a(riela on t.e ground t.at s.e is a ,ro(a(le carrier of SA!S virus and t.at .er continued em,loyment is ,re:udicial to t.e .ealt. of .er co-em,loyees.
7i4?i44!*: A)t<2#iJ d C!)4 4: S "i2#it& R)* (2001)

(c Is t.e S&'I9!I<I !UL& or Clast in first outC ,olicy to (e strictly followed in effecting a retrenc.ment or redundancy ,rogramK ()M .
SUGGESTE7 ANSWER'
Again# in Asian Alco.ol Cor,.# t.e Su,reme Court stated t.at wit. regard t.e ,olicy of Cfirst in# last outC in c.oosing w.ic. ,ositions to declare as redundant or w.om to retrenc. to ,revent furt.er (usiness losses# t.ere is no law t.at mandates
Page 81 of 108
Is t.e action taDen (y t.e em,loyer :ustifiedK (4M SUGGESTE7 ANSWER' <.e em,loyerPs act of terminating t.e em,loyment
of %a(riela is not :ustified. <.ere is no s.owing t.at
evaluation test (y t.e 8a.usay 8edical Center is not t.e certification reEuired for disease to (e a
ground for termination. <.e !ules and !egulations

im,lementing t.e La(or Code reEuire a certification
(y a ,u(lic .ealt. aut.ority t.at t.e disease is of
said em,loyee is sicD wit. SA!S# or t.at s.e

associated or .ad contact wit. t.e deceased nurse. <.ey are merely townmates. ?urt.ermore#
t.ere is no certification (y a com,etent ,u(lic
suc. nature or at suc. a stage t.at it cannot (e

cured wit.in a ,eriod of six (1 mont.s even wit.
.ealt. aut.ority t.at t.e disease is of suc. a nature

or suc. a stage t.at it cannot (e cured wit.in a
,eriod of six (1 mont.s even wit. ,ro,er medical

treatment. (Im,lementing !ules# $ooD AI# !ule )# Sec. +# La(or Code . 7i4?i44!*: C2"4t#);ti6 7i4?i44!*: 1*2!ti"$
,ro,er medical treatment. ANOT0ER SUGGESTE7 ANSWER' <.e issues involved are as follows5 ). Is t.ere constructive dismissalK /. Is t.ere a valid exercise of management ,rerogativeK 9n t.e first issue# t.ere is constructive dismissal. !S cannot (e ,laced on Coff-detailC and Cfloating
statusC indefinitely. If it lasts for more t.an six (1
St!t)4 (2004)
!S# a security guard# filed a com,laint for illegal
mont.s# !S s.all (e deemed to .ave (een
dismissal against Star Security Agency.
Fe
alleged .e was constructively dismissed after ten years of service to t.e Agency. Faving (een
constructively dismissed t.us entitling .im to se,aration (enefits. (Su,erstar Security Agency v.
'L!C# )+6 SC!A 26# L)**0N .
,laced on Boff-detailH and Bfloating statusH for 1 mont.s already# .e claimed t.e Agency :ust really wanted to get rid of .im (ecause it reEuired .im to
taDe a neuro-,syc.iatric evaluation test (y
9n t.e second issue# t.ere is no valid exercise of

management ,rerogative. StarPs claim of management ,rerogative in assigning its guards cannot (e exercised to defeat or circumvent !SP rig.t to security of tenure. 7i4?i44!*: C2"4t#);ti6 7i4?i44!*: T#!"43 # (1996) 8ansueto was .ired (y t.e P.ili,,ine PacDing Com,any (PPC sometime in )*10 as an .ourly ,aid researc. field worDer at its ,inea,,le
8a.usay 8edical Center. !S said .e already su(mitted t.e result of .is evaluation test (y $rent
8edical Clinic as ,recondition to a new
assignment# (ut t.e re,ort was re:ected (y t.e Agency. !S added t.at 8a.usay 8edical Center .ad close ties wit. Star>s ,resident. It could mani,ulate tests to favor only t.ose guards w.om
t.e Agency wanted to retain. Star defended its ,olicy of reliance on 8a.usay 8edical Center (ecause it .as (een duly accredited (y t.e P.ili,,ine 'ational Police. It is not one of t.ose
,lantation in $uDidnon. In )*20# .e was transferred to t.e general cro,s ,lantation in 8isamis 9riental.
8ansueto was ,romoted to t.e ,osition of a mont.ly ,aid regular su,ervisor four years after. Su(seEuently# researc. activity in 8isamis 9riental
was ,.ased out to 8arc. of )*+/ for .aving
du(ious
re,orts.
testing
centers
issuing
ready-made
Star cited its sad ex,erience last year
w.en a guard ran amucD and s.ot an em,loyee of a client-(anD. Star claimed management ,rerogative in assigning its guards# and ,rayed
t.at !S> com,laint (e dismissed. @.at are t.e issuesK (4M Identify and resolve t.em.
unnecessary. 8ansueto t.ereafter received a written memorandum from t.e PPC#

(ecome reassigning .im to t.e $uDidnon ,lantation
effective A,ril )# )*+/# wit. assurance t.at .is

,osition of su,ervisor was still t.ere for .im to .old.
SUGGESTE7 ANSWER' <.e facts in t.e Euestion raise t.ese issues5 ). @.en !S was ,laced on Coff-detailC or Cfloating statusC for more t.an six mont.s# can !S claim t.at .e was terminatedK /. Is t.ere a valid reason for t.e termination of !SK
9n t.e first issue# (ased on ,revailing :uris,rudence# !S can (e considered as terminated (ecause .e .as (een ,laced on Coff
8ansueto tried to ,ersuade t.e PPC management

to reconsider .is transfer and if t.is was not ,ossi(le# to at least consider .is ,osition as redundant so t.at .e could (e entitled to severance ,ay. PPC did not acce,t 8ansuetoPs ,ro,osal. @.en 8ansueto continuously failed to re,ort for worD at t.e $uDidnon ,lantation# PPC terminated
.is em,loyment (y reason of .is refusal to acce,t

.is new assignment.
detailC or Cfloating statusC for a ,eriod w.ic. is more t.an six (1 mont.s.
9n t.e second issue# it is true t.at disease is a ground for termination. $ut t.e neuro-,syc.iatric
8ansueto claims t.at .is reassignment is tantamount to an Illegal constructive dismissal. ;o

you agree wit. 8ansuetoK &x,lain. SUGGESTE7 ANSWER'
Page '" of 108
<.ere is no constructive dismissal (y t.e mere act of transferring an em,loyee. <.e em,loyeePs
contention cannot (e sustained sim,ly (ecause a transfer causes inconvenience. <.ere is no constructive dismissal w.ere# as in P.ili,,ine
com,lainant only if t.e claimant claimed and ,roved t.at .e is entitled to attorneyPs fees. ANOT0ER SUGGESTE7 ANSWER'
Ja,an Active Car(on Cor,.# vs. 'L!C# )2) SC!A

)16 ()*+* # t.e Court ruled t.at constructive
Article //0+ of t.e 'ew Civil Code allows t.e award of attorneyPs fees w.en t.e defendantPs act or omission .as com,elled t.e ,laintiff to litigate or
incur ex,enses to ,rotect .is interest. AttorneyPs fees may (e considered as a ,art of an eEuita(le relief awarded in t.e conce,t of damages. 7i4?i44!*: 7) /#2; 44: R H)i# ? "t4 (1994) ) ;istinguis. (etween t.e su(stantive and t.e
dismissal means5 A Euitting (ecause continued em,loyment is

rendered im,ossi(le# unreasona(le or unliDea(leas an offer involving a demotion in ranD and a diminution in ,ay. <.e transfer will not su(stantially alter t.e terms and conditions of em,loyment of t.e Su,ervisor. <.e rig.t to transfer an em,loyee is ,art of t.e em,loyerPs managerial function.
,rocedural reEuirements for t.e dismissal of an

em,loyee. SUGGESTE7 ANSWER' ) <.is is t.e SU$S<A'<IA& !&JUI!&8&'< for t.e valid dismissal of an em,loyee5 <.ere s.ould
?urt.ermore# t.e Court ruled t.at an em,loyee .as no vested rig.t to a ,osition# and in :ustifia(le cases em,loyment may (e terminated.
An em,loyerPs rig.t to security of tenure does not
(e a :ust cause for t.e termination of an em,loyee

or t.at t.e termination is aut.oriGed (y law. <.is is t.e P!9C&;U!AL !&JUI!&8&'<5 <.e em,loyer s.ould furnis. t.e em,loyee w.ose em,loyment is soug.t to (e terminated a written notice containing a statement of t.e causes for
give .im suc. a vested rig.t to .is ,osition as

would de,rive t.e Com,any of its ,rerogative c.ange .is assignment or transfer .im w.ere will (e most useful. @.en .is transfer is unreasona(le# not inconvenient# nor ,re:udicial to .e not to
termination and t.e em,loyer s.ould afford t.e em,loyee to (e terminated am,le o,,ortunity to (e .eard and to defend .imself wit. t.e assistance of
.is re,resentative if .e so desires. (Arts. /2* and /22 (( # La(or Code 7i4?i44!*: 7) /#2; 44: R H)i# ? "t4 (2006) Inday was em,loyed (y Ferrera Im,rovements# Inc. (Ferrera Fome
.im# and it does not involve a demotion in ranD or a

diminution of .is salaries# (enefits# and ot.er ,rivileges# t.e em,loyee may not com,lain t.at it
amounts to a constructive dismissal.
7i4?i44!*: 7!?!$ 4 R ;26 #!%* (2001) @.at damages can an illegally

em,loyee collect from .is em,loyerK (/M .
Fome
dismissed
as interior
SUGGESTE7 ANSWER'
An illegally dismissed em,loyee may collect from .is em,loyer AC<UAL or C98P&'SA<9!I damages# 89!AL damages and &O&8PLA!I damages# as well as attorneyPs fees as damages.
decorator. ;uring t.e first year of .er em,loyment# s.e did not re,ort for worD for one mont.. Fence# .er em,loyer dismissed .er from t.e service. S.e
filed wit. t.e La(or Ar(iter a com,laint for illegal dismissal alleging s.e did not a(andon .er worD and t.at in terminating .er em,loyment# Ferrera Fome de,rived .er of .er rig.t to due ,rocess.
ANOT0ER SUGGESTE7 ANSWER' 8oral and exem,lary damages are only ,ro,er
w.ere t.e em,loyee .as (een .arassed and
S.e t.us ,rayed t.at s.e (e reinstated to .er

,osition. Inday .ired you as .er counsel. In ,re,aring t.e
ar(itrarily terminated (y t.e em,loyer# 'ueva &ci:a

vs. &lectric Coo,erative &m,loyees Association 'L!C# %.!. 'o. )13+6. ?e(ruary 2#
(%.!. 'o. ))1011# January /6# /000- CruG vs.

/000-
,osition ,a,er to (e su(mitted to t.e La(or Ar(iter# ex,lain t.e standards of due ,rocess w.ic. s.ould
.ave (een o(served (y Ferrera Fome in terminating your clientPs em,loyment. (4M SUGGESTE7 ANSWER' <.e La(or Code ,rovides t.e following ,rocedure to (e o(served in terminating t.e services of an
P.ili,,ine Aeolus etc.# vs. C.ua (%.!. 'o. )/61)2# A,ril /+# /000- and Lucas vs. !oyo# %.!. 'o.
)31)+4# 9cto(er 30# /000 . (%) M!& t< L!%2# A#%it #+ NLRC 2# C2)#t 23 A-- !*4 6!*id*& !8!#d !tt2#" &L4 3 4 i" 3!62#
em,loyee (ased on :ust causes as defined in Art.
23 ! ;2?-*!i"!"t 6 " i3 "2t ;*!i? d 2# -#26 " i" t< -#2; di"$4M W<&M (>N). SUGGESTE7 ANSWER' A La(or Ar(iter# 'L!C and Court of A,,eals may validly award attorneyPs
fees
/+3 of t.e Code5 a. A written notice must (e served on t.e em,loyee s,ecifying grounds for termination
and giving .im o,,ortunity to answer<.e em,loyee s.all (e given am,le o,,ortunity to
a
in favor
of
defend .imself# wit. or wit.out t.e assistance of
Page '# of 108
counsel- and c A written notice of termination indicating t.e grounds to :ustify .is termination (Aga(on v. 'L!C# %.!. 'o. )4+1*3# )2 'ovem(er /006 .
and could (e :ust cause for t.e termination of .er em,loyment. ALTERNATI9E ANSWER'
<.e case s.ould (e decided in favor of 8arimar# t.e sc.ool teac.er. <.e sc.ool failed to adduce evidence in su,,ort of its claim of immoral conduct on t.e ,art of 8arimar- .ence# its claim Ct.at t.e marriage (etween t.e two (teac.er and student is (est ,roof w.ic. confirm t.e sus,icion t.at 8arimar and Sergio indulged in amorous relations inside t.e classroom after office .oursC is a gratuitous statement. ?urt.ermore# marriage (etween two ,arties of dis,arate ages# even as (etween an older teac.er and a younger student is not an immoral act.
7i4?i44!*: ()4t C!)4 : I??2#!* C2"d);t (1996)

8arimar is a teac.er in Santi(aneG Fig. Sc.ool# S.e is t.e class adviser of t.e senior (atc. w.ere Sergio is enrolled. Since it is t.e ,olicy of t.e sc.ool to extend remedial instructions to its students# Sergio is im,arted suc. instructions in sc.ool (y 8arimar after regular class .ours. In t.e course t.ereof# 8arimar and Sergio fell in love wit. eac. ot.er and s.ortly after got married. 8arimar is 3) years old w.ile Sergio is only )1. Santi(aneG Fig. Sc.ool t.ereafter seeDs to terminate t.e em,loyment of 8arimar for a(usive and unet.ical conduct un(ecoming of a dignified sc.ool teac.er and t.at .er continued em,loyment is inimical to t.e (est interest and would downgrade t.e .ig. moral values of t.e sc.ool. 8arimar# according to t.e sc.ool# recDlessly tooD advantage of .er ,osition as a teac.er (y luring a graduating student under .er advisory section and )4 years .er :unior into an amorous relations.i,# in violation of t.e Code of &t.ics for teac.ers w.ic. states# among ot.ers# t.at a Csc.ool official or teac.er s.ould never taDe advantage of .is7.er ,osition to court a ,u,il or student.C @.ile no one directly saw 8arimar and Sergio doing any intimate acts inside t.e classroom# t.e sc.ool nonet.eless maintains t.at t.e marriage (etween t.e two is t.e (est ,roof w.ic. confirms t.e sus,icion t.at 8arimar and Sergio indulged in amorous relations inside t.e classroom after class .ours. 8arimar# on t.e ot.er .and# contends t.at t.ere is not.ing wrong wit. a teac.er falling in love wit. .er ,u,il and conseEuently# contracting marriage wit. .im. Fow would you decide t.e case. &x,lain.
In C.ua Jua v Clave# )+* SC!A ))2 ()**0 a case w.ic. is exactly similar to t.e ,ro(lem# t.e Su,reme Court ruled5
@.ere t.ere is no su(stantial evidence of t.e im,uted immoral acts# it follows t.at t.e alleged violation of t.e Code of &t.ics would .ave no (asis. If t.e two eventually fell in love# des,ite t.e dis,arity on t.eir ages and academic levels# t.is only lends su(stance# to t.e truism t.at t.e .eart .as reasons of its own w.ic. reason does not Dnow. $ut# definitely# yielding to t.is gentle and universal emotion is not to (e casually eEuated wit. immorality. <.e deviation of t.e circumstances of t.eir marriage from t.e usual societal ,attern cannot (e considered as a defiance of contem,orary social norms.
7i4?i44!*: ()4t C!)4 : I"d - "d "t C2"t#!;t2# (200,)

Antonio AntuEuin# a security guard# was caug.t slee,ing on t.e :o( w.ile on duty at t.e Iosi Cigarette ?actory. As a result# .e was dismissed from em,loyment (y t.e @agan Security Agency# an inde,endent contractor. At t.e time of .is dismissal# Antonio .ad (een serving as a watc.man in t.e factory for many years# often at stretc.es of u, to )/ .ours# even on Sundays and .olidays# wit.out overtime# nig.ttime and rest day (enefits. Fe t.ereafter filed a com,laint for illegal dismissal and non-,ayment of (enefits against Iosi Cigarette ?actory# w.ic. .e claimed was .is actual and direct em,loyer. As t.e La(or Ar(iter assigned to .ear t.e case# .ow would you correctly resolve t.e following5 (1M
SUGGESTE7 ANSWER' <.e fact t.at 8arimar and Sergio got married is not (y itself sufficient ,roof t.at 8arimar as a 3) year old teac.er# tooD advantage of .er ,osition to court Sergio# a )1-year old student# w.om s.e was tutoring after regular class .ours. <.us# 8arimar could not (e considered as violating t.e sc.oolPs Code of &t.ics w.ic. could .ave (een a valid cause for .er termination. 8arimarPs falling in love wit. .er student cannot (e considered serious misconduct w.ic. is a Just cause for termination of em,loyment.
9f course# if it is ,roven t.at 8arimar and Sergio indulged in amorous relations inside t.e classroom after class .ours# t.is would constitute serious misconduct on t.e ,art of 8arimar as a teac.er
(a) Antonio(s $har*e o) ille*al dis%issal1 SUGGESTE7 ANSWER'

<.is is a case involving ,ermissi(le :o( contracting. AntonioPs c.arge of illegal dismissal against Iosi Cigarette ?actory will not ,ros,er. @agan Security Agency# an inde,endent contractor# is AntonioPs direct em,loyer. Iosi is only AntonioPs indirect em,loyer. $y force of law# t.ere is in reality no em,loyer-em,loyee relations.i, (etween Iosi and
Page ', of 108
Antonio. ($aguio v. 'L!C# %.!. 'os. 2*0060+# 9cto(er 6# )**) (!) Antonio(s $lai% )or overti%e and other !ene)its/ SUGGESTE7 ANSWER'
I will dismiss AntonioPs claim for overtime and ot.er (enefits for lacD of merit as against Iosi. In legitimate :o( contracting# t.e ,rinci,al em,loyer (Iosi (ecomes :ointly and severally lia(le wit. t.e :o( contractor (@agan only for t.e ,ayment of t.e em,loyeePs (Antonio wages w.enever t.e contractor fails to ,ay t.e same. 9t.er t.an t.at# t.e ,rinci,al em,loyer (Iosi is not res,onsi(le for any ot.er claim made (y t.e em,loyee (Antonio . (San 8iguel Cor,. v. 8A&!C Integrated Services# Inc.# %.!. 'o. )6612/# July )0# /003
Code was inter,reted (y t.e Su,reme Court in Aris P.ili,,ines# Inc. v. 'L!C# as follows5
CIt is not dis,uted t.at ,rivate res,ondent .as done# indeed .e admitted to .ave committed# a serious misconduct. In order to constitute a C:ust causeC for dismissal# .owever# t.e act com,lained of must (e related to t.e ,erformance of t.e duties of t.e em,loyee suc. as would s.ow .im to (e t.ere(y unfit to continue worDing for t.e em,loyer.C 7i4?i44!*: ()4t C!)4 : /#2%!ti2"!#& E?-*2& 4: Ri$<t4 (2006) ;uring t.eir ,ro(ationary em,loyment# eig.t (+ em,loyees were (erated and insulted (y t.eir su,ervisor. In ,rotest# t.ey walDed out. <.e su,ervisor s.outed at t.em to go .ome and never to re,ort (acD to worD. Later# t.e ,ersonnel manager reEuired t.em to ex,lain w.y t.ey s.ould not (e dismissed from em,loyment for a(andonment and failure to Eualify for t.e ,ositions a,,lied for. <.ey filed a com,laint for illegal dismissal against t.eir em,loyer.
7i4?i44!*: ()4t C!)4 : Mi4;2"d);t (1996)

Sergio# an em,loyee of &ncantado P.ili,,ines# Inc. (&PI # was at t.e com,any canteen w.en CoraGon# a canteen .el,er# Euestioned .im for .is use of some(ody elsePs identification card (I; . Sergio flared u, and s.outed at CoraGon C@ala Dang ,aDialam[ Uung gusto mo# ita,on Do itong mga ,agDain ninyo[C. @.en Sergio noticed t.at some ,eo,le w.ere staring at .im rat.er menacingly# .e left t.e canteen (ut returned a few minutes later to remarD c.allengingly CSino (a ang nagagalitC Sergio t.en (egan smas.ing some food items t.at were on dis,lay for sale in t.e canteen# after w.ic. .e sla,,ed CoraGon w.ic. caused .er to fall and suffer contusions. <.e incident ,rom,ted CoraGon to file a written com,laint wit. %ustavo# t.e ,ersonnel manager of &PI# against Sergio. %ustavo reEuired Sergio to ex,lain in writing w.y no disci,linary action s.ould (e taDen against .im. In .is written ex,lanation. Sergio admitted .is misconduct (ut tried to ex,lain it away (y saying t.at .e was under t.e influence of liEuor at t.e time of t.e incident. %ustavo t.ereafter issued a letter of termination from t.e em,loyment of Sergio for serious misconduct. Sergio now flies a com,laint for illegal dismissal# arguing t.at .is acts did not constitute serious misconduct t.at would :ustify .is dismissal. ;ecide.
As a La(or Ar(iter# .ow will you resolve t.e caseK ()0M SUGGESTE7 ANSWER' As a La(or Ar(iter I will resolve t.e case in favor of t.e eig.t (+ ,ro(ationary em,loyees due to t.e following considerations5 ). Pro(ationary em,loyees also en:oy security of tenure ($i(oso v. Aictoria 8illing# %.!. 'o. L- 66310# 8arc. 3)# )*22 . /. In all cases involving em,loyees on ,ro(ationary status# t.e em,loyer s.all maDe Dnown to t.e em,loyee at t.e time .e is .ired# t.e standards (y w.ic. .e will Eualify for t.e ,ositions a,,lied for. 3. <.e filing of t.e com,laint for illegal dismissal effectively negates t.e em,loyerPs t.eory of a(andonment (!iGada v. 'L!C# %.!. 'o. *1*+/# Se,tem(er /)# )*** . 6. <.e order to go .ome and not to return to worD constitutes dismissal from em,loyment. 4. <.e eig.t (+ ,ro(ationary em,loyees were terminated wit.out :ust cause and wit.out due ,rocess In view of t.e foregoing# I will order reinstatement to t.eir former ,ositions wit.out loss of seniority rig.ts wit. full (acDwages# ,lus damages and attorney fees.
SUGGESTE7 ANSWER' <.e acts of Sergio constituted serious misconduct. <.us# t.ere was :ust cause for .is termination. <.e fact t.at .e was under t.e influence of liEuor at t.e time t.at .e did w.at .e did does not mitigate# instead it aggravates# .is misconduct. $eing under t.e influence of liEuor w.ile at worD is (y itself serious misconduct. ALTERNATI9E ANSWER'
<.e dismissal is not :ustified (ecause t.e serious misconduct committed (y t.e em,loyee is not in connection wit. .is worD. Art. /+/(g of t.e La(or
7i4?i44!*: ()4t C!)4 : R H)i# ? "t4 (1999)

?AC<S5 Jose,. Aitriolo (JA # a cas.ier of Seaside Suns.ine Su,ermart (SSS # was found after an audit# to .ave cas. s.ortages on .is monetary accounta(ility covering a ,eriod of a(out five mont.s in t.e total amount of P6+#000.00. SSS served u,on JA t.e written c.arge against .im via a
memorandum order of ,reventive sus,ension#
Page '$ of 108
giving JA /6 .ours to su(mit .is ex,lanation. As
@as t.e award of t.e se,aration ,ay ,ro,erK
soon as JA su(mitted .is written ex,lanation wit.in

t.e given ,eriod# t.e same was deemed
&x,lain. SUGGESTE7 ANSWER'
unsatisfactory (y t.e com,any and JA was ,erem,torily dismissed wit.out any .earing.
<.e day following .is termination from em,loyment. JA filed a case of illegal dismissal
'o# t.e award of se,aration ,ay is not ,ro,er (ecause t.e em,loyee was terminated for serious misconduct and ,ayment of se,aration ,ay will (e
to reward an em,loyee for a wrong doing. In
against SSS. ;uring t.e .earing (efore t.e La(or

Ar(iter. SSS ,roved (y su(stantial evidence JAPs
P.ili,,ine Long ;istance <ele,.one Co.# vs 'L!C# )16 SC!A 12) ()*++ . @e .old t.at .encefort. se,aration ,ay s.all (e allowed as a measure of social :ustice only in t.ose
misa,,ro,riation of com,any funds and various

infractions detrimental to t.e (usiness of t.e com,any. JA# .owever# contended t.at .is
dismissal was illegal (ecause t.e com,any did not

com,ly wit. t.e reEuirements of due ,rocess. I. ;id SSS com,ly wit. t.e reEuirements of ,rocedural due ,rocess in t.e dismissal from
instances w.ere t.e em,loyee is validly dismissed for causes ot.er t.an serious misconduct or t.ose
reflecting .is moral c.aracter.
<.e ,olicy of social :ustice is not intended to
em,loyment of JAK &x,lain (riefly (/M SUGGESTE7 ANSWER'

In connection wit. t.e rig.t to due ,rocess in t.e
countenance wrongdoing. Com,assion for t.e ,oor is an im,erative of every .uman society (ut
only w.en t.e reci,ient is not a rascal claiming an

undeserve ,rivilege. <.ose w.o invoDe social
termination of an em,loyee# t.e La(or Code (in Article /22L(N reEuires t.at t.e em,loyer furnis.
:ustice may do so only if t.eir .ands are clean and

t.eir motives (lameless.
t.e worDer w.ose em,loyment is soug.t to (e terminated a written notice containing a statement
of t.e causes for termination and s.all afford am,le o,,ortunity to (e .eard and to defend
A contrary rule would .ave t.e effect of rewarding

rat.er t.an ,unis.ing t.e erring em,loyee for .is offense. ALTERNATI9E ANSWER: <.e award of t.e se,aration ,ay was not ,ro,er.
.imself wit. t.e assistance of .is re,resentative if

.e so desires. SSS did not com,ly wit. t.e a(ove descri(ed reEuirements for due ,rocess. <.e memorandum
According to t.e La(or Code# S&PA!A<I9' PAI is to (e ,aid to an em,loyee w.ose em,loyment is
terminated due to t.e installation of la(or saving
order was for t.e ,reventive sus,ension of JA# not

a notice for .is termination and t.e causes of .is
devices# redundancy# retrenc.ment to ,revent

losses or t.e closing or cessation of o,eration of t.e esta(lis.ment or undertaDing. @.en an em,loyer terminates t.e services of an em,loyee
termination. /. If you were t.e La(or Ar(iter# .ow would you
decide t.e caseK &x,lain (riefly (3M SUGGESTE7 ANSWER' I will decide t.at t.e termination of JA was legal. It was for :ust cause. JAPs misa,,ro,riation of com,any funds and various infractions detrimental
to t.e (usiness of t.e com,any duly ,roven (y su(stantial evidence constitute a willful (reac. (y JA of t.e trust re,osed in .im (y .is em,loyer w.ic. is a :ust cause for termination. (See Article /+/ $ut I will award .im indemnity of# say Pl#000# for t.e failure of t.e em,loyer to give .im due ,rocess.
w.o .as (een found to (e suffering from any

disease# t.e em,loyee se,aration ,ay. is also to (e ,aid
$ut on t.e (asis of eEuity# t.e Su,reme Court .as

ruled t.at an em,loyee w.ose em,loyment .as (een terminated for :ust cause may nevert.eless# for .umanitarian reasons# (e granted financial
assistance in t.e form of se,aration ,ay. $ut also

according to t.e Su,reme Court# a terminated
em,loyee is not deserving of said financial assistance if .er termination is due to serious
misconduct.
In t.e case# ;aisy was dismissed (ecause of
7i4?i44!*: ()4t C!)4 : S -!#!ti2" /!&

(1996)
serious misconduct. <.us# s.e s.ould not (e ,aid

se,aration ,ay. 7i4?i44!*: ()4t C!)4 4 (2001) CAC worDed for com,any C$C as a ranD and file
) ;aisy# t.e (ranc. manager of <ro,ical ?ootwear

Inc.. was dismissed for serious misconduct. S.e
filed a com,laint for illegal dismissal and damages.

<.e La(or Ar(iter sustained ;aisyPs dismissal (ut awarded .er se,aration ,ay (ased on social :ustice and as an act of com,assion considering .er )0-year service wit. t.e com,any.
em,loyee until A,ril )**0 w.en APs services were terminated due to loss of confidence in A.
Fowever# (efore effecting APs dismissal# $ accorded A due ,rocess including full o,,ortunity
Page '% of 108
to answer t.e c.arges against .im in t.e course of t.e investigation. @as $ :ustified in dismissing A after t.e investigationK @.yK (4M SUGGESTE7 ANSWER' In t.e case of PL;< vs. 'L!C (%.!. 'o. )01*62# ?e(ruary ))# )*** # t.e Su,reme Court ruled t.at t.e (asic reEuisite for dismissal on t.e ground of loss of confidence is t.at t.e em,loyee concerned must (e one .olding a ,osition of trust and confidence. !anD-and-file em,loyees may only (e dismissed for loss of confidence if t.e same is (ecause of a willful (reac. of trust (y a ranD and file em,loyee of t.e trust re,osed in .im (y .is em,loyer or duly aut.oriGed re,resentative (Art. /+/(c # La(or Code . ANOT0ER SUGGESTE7 ANSWER'
C$C is :ustified in dismissing CAC for loss of confidence after according .im t.e rig.t to ,rocedural due ,rocess. Fowever# t.e following guidelines must (e o(served# as ruled in 'oDom vs. 'L!C# %.!. 'o. )60036. July )+# /0005
8odel &m,loyee and given a salary increase. 9n
). loss of confidence s.ould not (e simulated/. it s.ould not (e used as su(terfuge for causes w.ic. are im,ro,er# illegal or un:ustified3. it may not (e ar(itrarily asserted in t.e face of overw.elming evidence to t.e contrary- and 6. it must (e genuine# not a mere after t.oug.t to :ustify t.eir action
7i4?i44!*: ()4t C!)4 4 64= A)t<2#iJ d C!)4 4 (2000)

;istinguis. (etween dismissal of an em,loyee for :ust cause and termination of em,loyment for aut.oriGed cause. &numerate exam,les of :ust cause and aut.oriGed cause. (4M
SUGGESTE7 ANSWER' ;ismissal for a JUS< CAUS& is founded on faults or misdeeds of t.e em,loyee. Se,aration ,ay# as a rule# will not (e ,aid. &xam,les5 serious misconduct# willful diso(edience# commission of crime# gross and .a(itual neglect# fraud and ot.er causes analogous to t.e foregoing. (Art /+/# La(or Code . <ermination for AU<F9!IQ&; CAUS&S are (ased on (usiness exigencies or measures ado,ted (y t.e em,loyer# not constituting faults of t.e em,loyee. Payment of se,aration ,ay at varying amounts is reEuired. &xam,les5 redundancy# closure# retrenc.ment# installation of la(or saving device and aut.oriGed cause. (Art. /+3-/+6# La(or Code .
7i4?i44!*: ()4t C!)4 4: 7i42% di "; (199,)

!oman .ad (een a driver of ;ou(le-<en Cor,oration for ten ()0 years. As early as .is fift. year in t.e service .e was already commended as a
.is sevent. year# .e (ecame a steward of .is la(or union. Since t.en .e (ecame dis,utatious and o(stinate and .is ,erformance fell (elow ,ar. 9ne day .is manager told .im to ,icD u, some documents from a certain (anD w.ic. were needed to close a (usiness transaction. !oman did not o(ey. Fe said .e .ad an im,ortant ,ersonal engagement. 8oreover# .e did not want to drive a ve.icle t.at was not air-conditioned. @.en .is immediate su,ervisor asDed .im in t.e afternoon to drive an air-conditioned car# !oman again refused. Fe said .e did not want to drive as .e wanted to leave t.e office early. !oman was asDed to ex,lain. After .earing .is ex,lanation# !oman was dismissed for willful diso(edience. !oman filed a case for illegal dismissal against t.e ;ou(le-<en Cor,oration wit. ,rayer for reinstatement and full (acD wages wit.out loss of seniority rig.ts# ,lus moral and exem,lary damages and attorneyPs fees. !oman contended t.at since t.ere was no emergency situation and t.ere were ot.er drivers availa(le# .is refusal to drive for t.e manager# and later for .is su,ervisor# was not serious enoug. to warrant .is dismissal. 9n t.e ot.er .and# .e claimed t.at .e was (eing ,unis.ed (ecause of .is activities as a steward of .is union. If you were t.e La(or Ar(iter# would you sustain !omanK ;iscuss fully.
If I were t.e La(or Ar(iter# I will not sustain !oman. It is true t.at it would (e an unfair la(or ,ractice for an em,loyer to discriminate against .is em,loyee for t.e latterPs union activities.
$ut in t.e case# t.e Cor,oration is not discriminating against !oman (ecause .e is a union official. @.en t.e 8anager of !oman told .im to ,icD u, some documents from a certain (anD# t.is was a lawful order and w.en !oman did not o(ey t.e order# .e was diso(edient- and w.en .e diso(eyed a similar reEuest made later in t.e afternoon of same day# .e was guilty of willful diso(edience to do w.at management asDed .im to do. <.is is :ust cause for .is termination.
ALTERNATI9E ANSWER' a 'o. <.e existence of an emergency situation is irrelevant to t.e c.arge of willful diso(edience- an o,,osite ,rinci,le would allow a worDer to s.ield .imself under .is self-designed conce,t of Cnon- emergency situationC to deli(erately defy t.e directive of t.e em,loyer. !oman was given adeEuate o,,ortunity under t.e circumstances to answer t.e c.arge. Fis ex,lanation was taDen into consideration in arriving at t.e decision to dismiss .im.
( If it can (e esta(lis.ed t.at t.e true and (asic motive for t.e em,loyerPs act is derived from t.e
SUGGESTE7 ANSWER'
Page 87 of 108
em,loyeePs union affiliation or activities# t.e allegation (y t.e em,loyer of anot.er reason
of :urisdiction considering t.e existence of an
em,loyer-em,loyee relations.i, and t.erefore# it is

claimed t.at t.e case s.ould .ave (een filed (efore t.e La(or Ar(iter.
w.atever its su(stance of validity# is unavailing.

<.us# t.e dismissal could (e considered illegal. 7i4?i44!*: ()4t C!)4 4: 7i42% di "; (200>)
). @ill 8ariet ;emetrioPs refusal to transfer 9scar Pimentel was an agent su,ervisor# rising
from t.e ranDs# in a estate. In order to com,any issued a su,ervisors reEuiring agent su,ervisors cor,oration engaged in real ,romote t.e (usiness# t.e memorandum to all agent t.em to su(mit a feasi(ility com,lied exce,t 9scar. constitute t.e offense of insu(ordinationK &x,lain (riefly. (/MT SUGGESTE7 ANSWER' 8ariet ;emetrioPs transfer constitutes t.e offense
of insu(ordination. <.e transfer is a lawful order of

t.e em,loyer. It is t.e em,loyerPs ,rerogative# (ased on its assessment and ,erce,tion of its em,loyeesP
study wit.in t.eir res,ective areas of o,eration. All !eminded (y t.e com,any to com,ly wit. t.e memorandum# 9scar ex,lained t.at (eing a dro,out in sc.ool and uneducated# .e would (e una(le
to su(mit t.e reEuired study. <.e com,any found t.e ex,lanation unacce,ta(le and terminated .is em,loyment. Aggrieved# 9scar filed a com,laint for illegal dismissal against t.e com,any. ;ecide t.e
Eualifications# a,titudes# and com,etence# to move

its em,loyees around in t.e various areas of its (usiness o,erations in order to ascertain w.ere t.ey will function wit. maximum (enefit to t.e
com,any. An em,loyeePs rig.t to security of tenure

does not give .im suc. a vested rig.t in .is
case. SUGGESTE7 ANSWER' ?or failure to com,ly wit. t.e memorandum to su(mit a feasi(ility study on .is area of o,eration#
9scar can not (e terminated (,resuma(ly for
,osition as would de,rive t.e com,any of its ,rerogative to c.ange .is assignment or transfer .im w.ere .e will (e most useful. @.en .is
transfer is not unreasona(le# nor inconvenient# nor

,re:udicial to .im# and it does not involve a demotion in ranD or a diminution of .is salaries# (enefits# and ot.er ,rivileges# t.e em,loyee may
insu(ordination or willful diso(edience (ecause

t.e same envisages t.e concurrence of at least
two reEuisites5 () t.e em,loyeePs assailed conduct must .ave (een willful or intentional# t.e willfulness
(eing c.aracteriGed (y a wrongful and ,erverse
not refuse to o(ey t.e order of transfer. (P.ili,,ine

Ja,an Active Car(on Cor,. A. 'L!C# )2) SC!A )16 7i4?i44!*: ()4t C!)4 4: Mi4;2"d);t (199,) Universal 8illing Com,any (U'IA&!SAL and
attitude- and (/ t.e order violated must .ave (een

reasona(le# or lawful# made Dnown to t.e
em,loyee and must ,ertain to t.e duties w.ic. .e .ad (een engaged to disc.arge. In t.e case at (ar# at least two reEuisites are a(sent# namely5 () 9scar did not willfully diso(ey t.e memorandum wit. a ,erverse attitude- and (/ t.e directive to maDe a feasi(ility study did not
,ertain to .is duties. Fence# t.e termination from
8araPs Canteen (8A!APS executed an agreement

t.at U'IA&!SAL em,loyees ,atroniGing 8A!APS
could (uy food on credit and en:oy a /4M discount ,rovided t.at t.ey ,resent t.eir Identification Card
(I; and wear t.eir com,any uniform. 'iDDo# an
em,loyee of U'IA&!SAL# used t.e I; of %alo# a
em,loyment of 9scar Pimentel is not lawful.

7i4?i44!*: ()4t C!)4 4: I"4)%2#di"!ti2" (1999) ?AC<S5 8ariet ;emetrio was a clerD-ty,ist in t.e 9ffice of t.e President of a multi-national cor,oration. 9ne day s.e was (erated (y t.e President of t.e com,any# t.e latter s.outing
co-em,loyee in (uying food at 8A!APS. An alert 8A!APS discovered em,loyee of t.e misre,resentation of 'iDDo (ut not wit.out engaging .im in a .eated argument. 'iDDo (oxed
8A!APS em,loyee resulting in serious ,.ysical in:uries to t.e latter. U'IA&!SAL dismissed 'iDDo from t.e com,any. 'iDDo sued U'IA&!SAL for
illegal dismissal.
invectives at .er in t.e ,resence of em,loyees and visitors for a minor infraction s.e committed. 8ariet
was reduced to tears out of s.ame and felt so
(itter a(out t.e incident t.at s.e filed a civil case
As La(or Ar(iter# .ow would you decide t.e caseK

;iscuss fully. SUGGESTE7 ANSWER' <.ere is ground for disci,lining 'iDDo. In
for damages against t.e com,any ,resident (efore t.e regular courts. Soon t.ereafter# 8ariet received a memorandum transferring .er to t.e 9ffice of t.e
%eneral 8anager wit.out demotion in ranD or diminution in ,ay. 8ariet refused to transfer.
,resenting t.e I; of a co-em,loyee to (uy food at

8araPs at a discount and engaging in a fist fig.t#
t.ese acts of 'iDDo constitute misconduct. $ut it is

not t.e Dind of serious misconduct t.at could (e
t.e (asis of dismissal. It will (e noted t.at t.e fig.t

did not taDe ,lace at t.e worD,lace. ALTERNATI9E ANSWER'
@it. res,ect to t.e civil suit for damages# t.e com,any lawyer filed a 8otion to ;ismiss for lacD
Page '' of 108
<.e facts are not clear w.et.er t.e canteen is wit.in t.e com,any ,remises. If it is# t.en t.e act of 'iDDo in (oxing 8araPs em,loyee may (e considered as a valid ground for disci,linary action. Fowever# in t.is case# t.e ,enalty of dismissal is not commensurate to t.e misconduct allegedly committed.
t.e trust re,osed in .im (y .is em,loyer or duly
7i4?i44!*: ()4t C!)4 4: Q)it;*!i?4 (1999) Can a final and executory :udgment (e com,romised under a C!elease and JuitclaimC for a lesser amountK (3M SUGGESTE7 ANSWER'
Ies# as long as t.e C!elease and JuitclaimC is signed (y t.e very same ,erson entitled to receive w.atever is to (e ,aid under t.e final and executory :udgment t.at was t.e su(:ect of t.e com,romise agreement and t.at t.e C!elease and JuitclaimC was signed voluntarily. In Al(a Patio de 8aDati v. 'L!C5 A final and executory :udgment can no longer (e altered# even if t.e modification is meant to correct w.at is ,erceived to (e an erroneous conclusion of fact or law# and regardless of w.et.er t.e modification is attem,ted to (e made (y t.e court rendering it or (y t.e .ig.est court of t.e land. 8oreover# a )inal and e2e$#tor& -#d*%ent $annot !e ne*otiated# .ence# any act to su(vert it is contem,tuous.
It was incum(ent u,on t.e counsel for t.e com,lainant to .ave seen to it t.at t.e interest of all com,lainants was ,rotected. <.e Euitclaim and t.e release in t.e ,re,aration of w.ic. .e assisted clearly worDed to t.e grave disadvantage of t.e com,lainants. <o render t.e decision of t.is Court meaningless (y ,aying t.e (acD-wages of t.e affected em,loyees in a muc. lesser amount clearly manifested a willful disres,ect of t.e aut.ority of t.is Court as t.e final ar(iter of cases (roug.t to it.
A )inal and e2e$#tor& -#d*%ent $annot !e $o%pro%ised #nder a 3Release and 4#it$lai% C if said C!elease and Juitclaim is clearly to t.e grave disadvantage of t.e affected em,loyees (y ,aying t.em muc. lesser amounts t.an w.at t.ey were entitled to receive under t.e :udgment. (See Al(a Patio de 8aDati vs. 'L!C# /0) SC!A 344 . 2= M!& !" 2#di"!#& #!"GB!"dB3i* ?-*2& % t #?i"!t d 32# *244 23 t#)4t !"d ;2"3id "; M I3 42+ 8<!t -#223 i4 # H)i# dM I3 "2t+ 8<& "2tM
(/M SUGGESTE7 ANSWER'

An ordinary ranD and file em,loyee may (e terminated for loss of trust and confidence as long as loss of trust and confidence is (roug.t a(out o(:ectively due to a willful (reac. (y t.e em,loyee of
aut.oriGed re,resentative# and said willful (reac. is ,roven (y su(stantial evidence.

@.en adeEuately ,roven# t.e dual grounds of (reac. of trust and loss of confidence constitute valid and am,le (ases to warrant termination of an errant em,loyee. As a general rule# .owever# em,loyers are allowed a wider altitude of discretion in terminating t.e em,loyment of managerial ,ersonnel or t.ose of similar ranD ,erforming functions w.ic. (y t.eir nature reEuires t.e em,loyerPs full trust and confidence# t.an in t.e case of an ordinary ranD-and-file em,loyee# w.ose termination on t.e (asis of t.ese same grounds reEuires ,roof of involvement in t.e events in Euestion- mere uncorro(orated assertions and accusations (y t.e em,loyer will not suffice. (8anila 8idtown Commercial Cor,oration v. 'uw.rain. )4* SC!A /)/ .
accounta(ilities of t.e cor,oration t.ey re,resent.

Fowever# S9LI;A!I LIA$ILI<I&S may at times (e incurred (ut only w.en exce,tional circumstances warrant suc. as# generally# in t.e following cases5 w.en directors and trustees or# in a,,ro,riate cases# t.e officers of a cor,oration5
() vote for or assent to ,atently unlawful acts of t.e cor,oration(/ act in (ad fait. or wit. gross negligence in directing t.e cor,orate affairs(3 are guilty of conflict of Interest to t.e ,re:udice of t.e cor,oration# its stocD.olders or mem(ers# and ot.er ,ersons.
In la(or cases# t.e Su,reme Court .as .eld cor,orate directors and officers solidarity lia(le wit. t.e cor,oration for t.e termination of em,loyment of em,loyees done wit. malice or (ad fait.. (Sunio v. 'L!C. )/2 SC!A 3*0- %eneral $anD and <rust Co. v. Court of A,,eals# )34 SC!A 14* .
7i4?i44!*: Li!%i*it&: C2#-2#!t O33i; #4 (199.) Are t.e ,rinci,al officers of a cor,oration lia(le in t.eir ,ersonal ca,acity for non-,ayment of un,aid wages and ot.er monetary (enefits due its em,loyeesK SUGGESTE7 ANSWER' As a general rule# t.e o(ligations incurred (y t.e ,rinci,al officers and em,loyees of a cor,oration are not t.eirs (ut t.e direct
ALTERNATI9E ANSWER' 'o. Unless t.ey are guilty of malice or (ad fait. in connection wit. t.e non-,ayment of un,aid wages and ot.er monetary (enefits due to em,loyees.
7i4?i44!*: /!&#2** R i"4t!t ? "t (200,) (c @.at is meant (y C,ayroll reinstatementC and w.en does it a,,lyK (6M SUGGESTE7 ANSWER' Page '( of 108
C/AIROLL REINSTATEMENTC is one w.ere an
In a case (8aranaw Fotel Cor,. v. 'L!C# /3+
em,loyee is ,aid .is mont.ly salary wit.out

maDing .im ,erform actual worD. It a,,lies in termination cases w.ere t.e la(or court declares t.e dismissal illegal and orders reinstatement of t.e em,loyee# (ut t.e em,loyer does not want to
SC!A )*) # t.e Su,reme Court said t.at alt.oug.

t.e reinstatement as,ect of a La(or Ar(iterPs decision was immediately executory# it does not
follow t.at it is self-executory. <.ere must still (e a

writ of execution issued motu ,ro,rio or u,on
actually or ,.ysically reinstate .im and instead# at

t.e em,loyerPs o,tion# merely reinstates em,loyee in t.e ,ayroll ,ending a,,eal. t.e
motion of t.e interested ,arty. (See Article //6 2= M!& t< NLRC 2#d # t< -!&#2** # i"4t!t ? "t 23 S<!#2" C2? t!M W<&M (2N) SUGGESTE7 ANSWER: <.e 'L!C may '9< order t.e ,ayroll
7i4?i44!*: /!&#2** R i"4t!t ? "t: R i"4t!t ? "t O#d # (1999) ?AC<S5 In t.e illegal dismissal case filed (y
S.aron Cometa against U, = ;own Com,any# t.e

la(or Ar(iter rendered a decision directing .er
reinstatement of S.aron Cometa. <.e La(or Code (Article //3 ,rovides t.at in t.e immediate
reinstatement of a dismissed em,loyee# t.e
immediate reinstatement and ,ayment of full (acDwages. <.e Com,any a,,ealed to t.e 'L!C.
?ollowing .er lawyerPs advise t.at t.e
em,loyee s.all (e admitted (acD to worD under t.e

same terms and conditions ,revailing ,rior to t.e em,loyeePs dismissal or# at t.e o,tion of t.e em,loyer# merely reinstated in t.e ,ayroll. <.us#
reinstatement as,ect of t.e decision is immediately

executory# S.aron went to t.e F!; 9ffice of t.e Com,any and demanded immediate
t.e reinstatement of t.e em,loyee in t.e ,ayroll is at t.e o,tion of t.e em,loyer and not of t.e 'L!C
or t.e La(or Ar(iter w.o .ave t.e ,ower only to direct reinstatement. 7i4?i44!*: R i"4t!t ? "t (1994)
reinstatement. @.en t.e Com,any refused# .er lawyer# Atty. 8aximiano Anunciacion# filed a motion to cite t.e em,loyer in contem,t. Acting on
t.e motion# t.e 'L!C ordered t.e ,ayroll reinstatement of S.aron Cometa. 1= C!" t< ;2?-!"& 2# !"& 23 it4 233i;i!*4 %
8ay a court order t.e reinstatement of a dismissed

em,loyee even if t.e ,rayer of t.e com,laint did not include suc. reliefK SUGGESTE7 ANSWER'
;it d 32# ;2"t ?-t 32# # 3)4i"$ t2 # i"4t!t

S<!#2" C2? t!M W<&M (>N)
SUGGESTE7 ANSWER'
Ies. <.e com,any or any of its officials can (e
cited for contem,t. It is noted t.at in .is decision#
So long as t.ere is a finding t.at t.e em,loyee was

illegally dismissed# t.e court can order t.e reinstatement of an em,loyee even if t.e com,laint does not include a ,rayer for reinstatement# unless# of course# t.e em,loyee .as waived .is
t.e La(or Ar(iter s,ecifically directed t.e immediate reinstatement of S.aron Cometa. <.is
directive under t.e La(or Code (Article //3 is

immediately executory# even ,ending a,,eal. (Pioneer <exturiGing Cor,oration v. 'L!C# /+0
rig.t to reinstatement. $y law an em,loyee w.o is

un:ustly dismissed is entitled to reinstatement# among ot.ers.
<.e mere fact t.at t.e com,laint did not ,ray for
SC!A +01 ALTERNATI9E ANSWER'

Ies. Under Art. //3 of t.e La(or Code# an
em,loyer .as two o,tions in order for .im to
reinstatement will not ,re:udice t.e em,loyee# (ecause tec.nicalities of law and ,rocedure are
com,ly wit. an order of reinstatement# w.ic. is
frowned u,on in la(or ,roceedings. (%eneral

$a,tist $i(le College vs. 'L!C. /)* SC!A 46* . 7i4?i44!*: R i"4t!t ? "t (199,) %ive at least five (4 instances w.en an illegally dismissed em,loyee may not (e reinstated. SUGGESTE7 ANSWER' ?ive L4N instances w.en an illegally dismissed em,loyee may not (e reinstated5 () @.en t.e ,osition .eld (y t.e illegally dismissed em,loyee .as (een a(olis.ed and
immediately executory# even ,ending a,,eal. ?I!S<LI# .e can admit t.e dismissed
em,loyee (acD to worD under t.e same terms and conditions ,revailing ,rior to .is dismissal or se,aration or to a su(stantially eEuivalent ,osition if t.e former ,osition is already filled
u,.
S&C9';LI# t.e em,loyer can (e reinstated in t.e ,ayroll. ?ailing to exercise any of t.e a(ove
o,tions# t.e em,loyer can (e com,elled under PAI' 9? C9'<&8P<# to ,ay instead t.e salary of t.e em,loyee effective from t.e date t.e em,loyer failed to reinstate des,ite an executory writ of execution served u,on .im. Under Art. /)+ of t.e La(or Code# t.e 'L!C .as t.e ,ower to cite ,ersons for direct and indirect contem,t. ANOT0ER ALTERNATI9E ANSWER'
t.ere is no su(stantially eEuivalent ,osition for

said em,loyee(/ @.en t.e em,loyer .as ceased to o,erate(3 @.en t.e em,loyee no longer wis.es to (e reinstated-
(6 @.en strained relations (etween t.e em,loyer

and t.e em,loyee .ave develo,ed and
Page () of 108
LABOR LAW Bar Q & A (as arranged by Topics) 19942006 (4 @.en t.e em,loyer .as lost .is trust and
confidence in t.e em,loyee w.o is .olding a ,osition of trust and confidence.
cause for termination- Fearing- and 'otice of <ermination. <.e La(or Code reads5 A. 'otice and Fearing Art# /22. 8iscellaneous ,rovisions. - xxx
(( xxx <.e em,loyer s.all furnis. t.e worDer
In addition to t.e a(ove# an illegally dismissed

em,loyee may not (e reinstated5 () @.en .e is already entitled to retire at t.e time
w.ose em,loyment is soug.t to (e terminated a
.e is to (e reinstated(/ @.en .e is already dead(3 @.en reinstatement will not serve t.e interest of t.e ,arties- and (6 @.en .e .as o(tained regular and eEuivalent su(stantially em,loyment
written notice containing a statement of t.e causes

for termination and s.all afford t.e latter am,le
o,,ortunity to (e .eard and to defend .imself wit.

t.e assistance of .is re,resentative if .e so desires ...
<.e Su,reme Court ruled in Salaw v# 'L!C# /0/
elsew.ere.
SC!A 2 ()**)
7i4?i44!*: R H)i# ? "t4 (1995)

Assuming t.e existence of valid grounds for
xxx 'ot only must t.e dismissal (e for a valid or unaut.oriGed cause as ,rovided (y law xxx (ut
t.e rudimentary reEuirements of due ,rocess -
dismissal# w.at are t.e reEuirements (efore an

em,loyer can terminate t.e services of an $.
notice and .earing - most also (e o(served

(efore an em,loyee must (e dismissed. T82 (2) N2ti; R H)i# ? "t4 -
em,loyeeK L4MN SUGGESTE7 ANSWER'

<.e em,loyee (eing terminated s.ould (e given
<.e Su,reme Court in <anala v. 'L!C /4/ SC!A

3)6 ()**1 # and in a long line of earlier cases# ruled5
;U& P!9C&SS (y t.e em,loyer. ?or termination of em,loyment (ased on any of t.e
(UST CAUSES for termination# t.e reEuirements
xxx <.is Court .as re,eatedly .eld t.at to meet

t.e reEuirements of due ,rocess# t.e law reEuires t.at an em,loyer must furnis. t.e
of due ,rocess t.at t.e em,loyer must com,ly wit.

are5
worDers soug.t to (e dismissed wit. two written

notices (efore termination of em,loyment can (e legally effected# t.at is# () a notice w.ic. termination and giving to said em,loyee
). A @!I<<&' '9<IC& s.ould (e served on t.e em,loyee s,ecifying t.e ground or grounds for reasona(le o,,ortunity wit.in w.ic. to ex,lain .is side. /. A F&A!I'% or C9'?&!&'C& s.ould (e .eld during w.ic. t.e em,loyee concerned# wit. t.e
assistance of counsel if t.e em,loyee so
a,,rises t.e em,loyee of t.e ,articular acts or

omissions for w.ic. .is dismissal is soug.t- and
(/ su(seEuent notice# after due .earing# w.ic.

informs t.e em,loyee of t.e em,loyers decision to dismiss .im. 7i4?i44!*: R H)i# ? "t4 (1999) ?AC<S5 9n Se,tem(er 3# )**+# t.e 'ational $ureau of Investigation ('$I extracted from JoDo
desires# is given t.e o,,ortunity to res,ond to

t.e c.arge# ,resent .is evidence and ,resent
t.e evidence ,resented against .im. 3. A @!I<<&' '9<IC& 9? <&!8I'A<I9'# if termination is t.e decision of t.e em,loyer#
s.ould (e served on t.e em,loyee indicating t.at u,on due consideration of all t.e
;iaG R wit.out t.e assistance of counsel R a

sworn statement w.ic. made it a,,ear t.at JoDo#
in ca.oots wit. anot.er em,loyee# !eu(en Padilla#

sold ten ()0 cas. registers w.ic. .ad (een
circumstances# grounds .ave (een esta(lis.ed

to :ustify .is termination. ?or termination of em,loyment (ased on
foreclosed (y 'ort.-Sout. $anD for P40#000.00

and divided t.e ,roceeds t.erefrom in eEual s.ares (etween t.e two of t.em. 9n Se,tem(er )0# )**+. JoDo was reEuested (y
AUT0ORIOE7 CAUSES # t.e reEuirements of due

,rocess s.all (e deemed com,lied wit. u,on service of a @!I<<&' '9<IC& to t.e em,loyee and t.e a,,ro,riate !egional 9ffice of t.e
!olando $ato# t.e (anD manager# to a,,ear (efore

t.e ;isci,linary $oard for an investigation in t.e following tenor5 CIou are reEuested to come on <.ursday. Se,tem(er )6# )**+# at ))500 a.m. t.e
;e,artment of La(or = &m,loyment at least t.irty

(30 days (efore t.e effectivity of t.e termination s,ecifying t.e ground or grounds for termination.
$oard !oom# wit.out counsel or re,resentative# in connection wit. t.e investigation of t.e foreclosed
cas. registers w.ic. you sold wit.out aut.ority.C 8r. $ato .imself conducted t.e investigation# and two (/ days t.ereafter# .e dismissed JoDo. <.e
ANOT0ER SUGGESTE7 ANSWER' Assuming t.at t.ere is a valid ground to terminate

em,loyment# t.e em,loyer must com,ly wit. t.e reEuirement of P!9C&;U!AL ;U& P!9C&SS -
written notice of intent to terminate
stating t.e
(anD ,remised its action in dismissing JoDo solely on t.e latterPs admission of t.e offense im,uted to
Page (
of 108
.im (y t.e '$I in its interrogation on Se,tem(er 3# )**+. Aside from t.is sworn statement# no ot.er evidence was ,resented (y t.e (anD to esta(lis. t.e cul,a(ility of JoDo in t.e fraudulent sale of t.e (anDPs foreclosed ,ro,erties. ). Is t.e dismissal of JoDo ;iaG (y 'ort.Sout. $anD legally :ustifiedK &x,lain (riefly. (3M SUGGESTE7 ANSWER' <.e dismissal of JoDo ;iaG (y 'ort.-Sout. $anD is not legally :ustified# ;iaG was not given t.e reEuired due ,rocess (y t.e $anD. Fe s.ould .ave (een given a written notice t.at .e was (eing terminated and a statement of t.e causes for .is termination. Fe was instead given a :ust notice a(out an investigation relative to an incident.
It was also contrary to law for t.e $anD to tell ;iaG t.at .e s.ould attend t.e investigation Cwit.out counsel or re,resentative.C Instead# .e s.ould .ave (een afforded as ,rovided in t.e La(or Code (in Article /22 L(N am,le o,,ortunity to (e .eard and to defend .imself wit. t.e assistance of .is re,resentative if .e so desires.
ot.er com,etent and convincing evidence. At t.e
If t.e evidence t.at was t.e (asis for t.e termination of JoDo ;iaG was only .is own statement CextractedC from .im (y t.e '$I w.en JoDo was wit.out t.e assistance of counsel# t.en t.e statement cannot (e su(stantial evidence for JoDoPs termination. ALTERNATI9E ANSWER' 'o. Under Sec. )/ of Art. in of t.e )*+2 Constitution any Cconfession or admission o(tained in violation of Sec. )/ and )2 s.all (e inadmissi(le in evidence against .imC. Since t.e sole (asis for .is dismissal was t.e confession ,rocured (y t.e '$I in violation of .is rig.t to counsel w.ic. is inadmissi(le for any ,ur,ose and any ,roceeding including an administrative case# .is dismissal is illegal. ;iaGPs termination is liDewiseillegal (ecause .e was de,rived of .is rig.t to due ,rocess since during t.e investigation .e was reEuired to attend wit.out counsel or re,resentative. /. Can !eu(en PadillaPs ,artici,ation in t.e fraudulent sale of t.e (anDPs foreclosed ,ro,erties (e made to rest solely on t.e unilateral declaration of JoDo ;iaGK @.yK (/M SUGGESTE7 ANSWER' 'o. <.e unilateral declaration of JoDo# w.ere JoDo .as not (een su(:ected to crossexaminations cannot (e considered as su(stantial evidence- it is :ust .earsay. ALTERNATI9E ANSWER'
'o. <.e unilateral declaration of JoDo is not enoug.. Suc. declaration must (e corro(orated (y
very least# w.at t.e $anD s.ould do s.ould (e to confront !eu(en Padilla wit. t.e declaration of JoDo (Century <extile 8ills# Inc. vs. 'L!C# )1) SC!A1/+ .
7i4?i44!*: R H)i# ? "t4: S)4- "4i2" 23 T #?i"!ti2" (1994)

Atty. 9liGa .eads t.e legal de,artment of Com,any O wit. t.e ranD and title of Aice-President. ;uring .is leave of a(sence# .is assistant tooD over as acting .ead of t.e legal de,artment. U,on .is return# Atty. 9liGa was informed in writing t.at .is services were no longer needed# it a,,earing t.at t.e Com,any .ad lost so many cases (y default due to .is incom,etence. Atty. 9liGa filed a case for illegal dismissal.
case of illegal dismissal t.at Atty. 9liGa may .ave filed# .e is found to (e grossly incom,etent# t.is is :ust cause for .is dismissal. (Art. /22(( # La(or Code ALTERNATI9E ANSWER'
Ies. <.e examinee su(mits t.at Atty. 9liGaPs case will ,ros,er. @ell-settled is t.e rule t.at even managerial em,loyees are entitled to t.e constitutional guarantee of security of tenure. In t.e case at (ar# t.ere was a clear de,rivation of Atty. 9liGaPs rig.t to due ,rocess. <.e (lanDet accusation of Cincom,etenceC .ardly Eualifies as com,liance wit. t.e su(stantive reEuirements for an em,loyeePs dismissal. <.e written notice t.at .is services were no longer needed also fall s.ort of t.e ,rocedural reEuirements of notice and o,,ortunity to (e .eard# t.e twin ingredients of due ,rocess. / <.e La(or Code gives t.e Secretary of La(or and &m,loyment t.e ,ower to sus,end t.e effects of a termination made (y an em,loyer ,ending resolution of a la(or dis,ute in t.e event of a ,rima facie finding (y t.e ;e,artment of La(or and &m,loyment (efore w.om suc. dis,ute is ,ending t.at t.e termination may cause serious la(or dis,ute or is in im,lementation of a mass lay-off. <.e termination of Atty. 9liGa does not cause a serious la(or dis,ute considering t.at .e is a
) @ill .is case ,ros,erK / Pending .earing# may Atty. 9liGa asD t.e Secretary of La(or to sus,end t.e effects of t.e termination of t.e services of an em,loyee and to order .is tem,orary reinstatementK SUGGESTE7 ANSWER' ) Fis case will ,ros,er. Fe was not given ,rocedural due ,rocess. Fe was not given t.e reEuired notice# namely# a written notice containing a statement of t.e causes for termination# and .e was not afforded am,le o,,ortunity to (e .eard and to defend .imself. $ut if# (efore t.e La(or Ar(iter# in a .earing of t.e
Page (" of 108
managerial em,loyee. It is not in im,lementation of a mass lay-off. <.us# ,ending .earing# t.e Secretary of La(or and &m,loyment may not sus,end t.e effects of t.e termination and order .is tem,orary reinstatement. (Art. /22L(N
7i4?i44!*: R H)i4it 4: R i"4t!t ? "t

Juan ;uD.a# a (ill collector of Ladies %arments Com,any# was dismissed (ecause .e did not remit .is collections. Fe filed a case against .is com,any for illegal dismissal. ;uring t.e .earing# t.e President of t.e Com,any admitted t.at Juan was never formally investigated for .is dis.onestyneit.er was .e informed of t.e nature of t.e c.arge against .im. Fe was sim,ly (arred from entering com,any ,remises (y t.e security guards u,on instruction of management.
Pending a,,eal# w.at rig.ts are availa(le to Juan relative to t.e favora(le decision of t.e La(or Ar(iterK &x,lain. SUGGESTE7 ANSWER' Juan can asD for immediate reinstatement ,ending resolution of t.e a,,eal filed (y t.e com,any wit. t.e 'L!C. At t.e o,tion of .is em,loyer# .e may (e admitted (acD to worD or merely reinstated in t.e ,ayroll.
7i4?i44!*: S -!#!ti2" /!&: B!;G8!$ 4 (2002)

Lyric <.eater Cor,. issued a memorandum ,ro.i(iting all ticDet sellers from encas.ing any c.ecD from t.eir cas. collections and reEuiring t.em instead to turn over all cas. collections to t.e management at t.e end of t.e day. In violation of t.is memorandum# 8elody# a ticDet seller# encas.ed five (4 c.ecDs from .er cas. collection. Su(seEuently t.e c.ecDs were dis.onored w.en de,osited in t.e account of Lyric <.eater. ?or t.is action# 8elody was ,laced under a /0-day sus,ension and directed to ex,lain w.y s.e s.ould not (e dismissed for violation of t.e com,anyPs memorandum. In .er ex,lanation# s.e admitted .aving encas.ed t.e c.ecDs wit.out t.e com,anyPs ,ermission. @.ile t.e investigation was ,ending# 8elody filed a com,laint against Lyric <.eater for (acDwages and se,aration ,ay. <.e La(or Ar(iter ordered Lyric <.eater to ,ay 8elody P))4#6/0.2* re,resenting se,aration ,ay and (acDwages. <.e 'L!C affirmed t.e ruling of t.e La(or Ar(iter. Is t.e ruling of t.e 'L!C correctK &x,lain (riefly. (4M
Juan ;uD.a asDs for immediate reinstatement wit. full (acD wages and wit.out loss of seniority rig.ts. @ill t.e com,laint of Juan ;uD.a for illegal dismissal ,ros,erK &x,lain. SUGGESTE7 ANSWER' Ies# t.ere may (e :ust cause for terminating Juan ;uD.a. $ut .e was not accorded t.e reEuired due ,rocess of law. ALTERNATI9E ANSWER'
<.e com,laint of Juan ;uD.a for illegal dismissal will ,ros,er in t.e sense t.at t.e com,laint will (e .eard (y a La(or Ar(iter. Fis (eing (arred from entering com,any ,remises is tantamount to dismissal. In t.e .earings# t.e em,loyer will .ave t.e (urden of ,roving t.at t.ere is :ust cause for terminating Juan# ,ossi(ly on t.e (asis of willful (reac. of trust. 9n t.e ot.er .and# Juan will (e given t.e o,,ortunity to ,rove t.at .is failure to remit .is collection is not (ecause of dis.onesty#
/. Assuming t.at .e cannot (e reinstated# w.at rig.t can .e immediately assert against .is em,loyerK &x,lain. SUGGESTE7 ANSWER' Assuming t.at Juan cannot (e reinstated (ecause t.ere is :ust cause for .is dismissal# .e would nevert.eless (e entitled to an indemnity from .is em,loyer# (ecause .e was denied due ,rocess of law (y said em,loyer. ALTERNATI9E ANSWER' Juan can ,ursue t.e case of illegal dismissal (efore a La(or Ar(iter w.ere .e will assert t.e rig.t to defend .imself# ie.# to ex,lain .is failure to remit .is collections. 3. Su,,ose Juan ;uD.a ,roved during t.e .earing t.at .e was ro((ed of .is collections and# conseEuently# t.e La(or Ar(iter decided in .is favor. In t.e meantime# t.e Ladies %arments Com,any a,,ealed to t.e 'ational La(or !elations Commission ('L!C .
SUGGESTE7 ANSWER' <.e ruling of t.e 'L!C affirming t.e La(or Ar(iterPs decision ordering Lyric <.eater to ,ay P))4#6/0.2* re,resenting se,aration ,ay and (acDwages is wrong. <.e La(or Ar(iterPs decision is wrong (ecause5 a It is ,remature. <.ere was still no termination. All t.at was done (y t.e em,loyer (Lyric <.eater was to ,lace t.e em,loyee (8elody under a /0-day sus,ension# meanw.ile directing .er to ex,lain w.y s.e s.ould not (e dismissed for violation of com,anyPs memoranda.
( <.e order for Lyric <.eater to ,ay se,aration ,ay .as no factual (asis. Se,aration ,ay is to (e ,aid to an em,loyee w.o is terminated due to t.e Installation of la(or saving devices# redundancy# retrenc.ment to ,revent losses or t.e closing or cessation of o,eration of t.e esta(lis.ment undertaDing. 'one of t.ese events .as taDen ,lace. 'eit.er is se,aration ,ay .ere in lieu of reinstatement. 8elody is not entitled to reinstatement (ecause t.ere Is a :ust cause for .er termination.
Page (# of 108
<.e order for Lyric <.eater to ,ay (acDwages .as no factual (asis. If after investigation# Lyric <.eater dismisses 8elody# t.ere is :ust cause for suc. termination. <.ere is willful diso(edience (y t.e em,loyee of t.e lawful orders of .er em,loyer in connection wit. .er worD. S.e did not :ust violate t.e lawful order of t.e em,loyer. S.e violated it five times. 8elody did not give any :ustifia(le reason for violating t.e com,anyPs memorandum ,ro.i(iting t.e encas.ment of c.ecDs. LJo Cinema Cor,. v. Avellana# %! 'o. )3/+32# June /+# /00)N
regular em,loyee and ?ili,ino seamen are
E?-*2& E?-*2&
: C2"t#!;t)!* 4: S !3!# #4 (2002)
<omas and CruG .ave (een em,loyed for t.e last // years in various ca,acities on (oard t.e s.i,s of $A!U9 S.i,,ing Com,any. <.eir em,loyment was made t.roug. a local manning com,any. <.ey .ave signed several ten ()0 mont. em,loyment contracts wit. $A!U9 S.i,,ing. <.e 'L!C ruled t.at t.ey were contractual em,loyees and t.at t.eir em,loyment was terminated eac. time t.eir contracts ex,ired is t.e ruling of t.e 'L!C correctK &x,lain your answer fully. (4M
SUGGESTE7 ANSWER' Ies. A contract of em,loyment for a definite ,eriod terminates (y its own terms at t.e end of suc. ,eriod. Since <omas and CruG signed ten ()0 - mont. contracts# t.eir em,loyment terminates (y its own terms at t.e end of eac. ten ()0 -mont. ,eriod. <.e decisive determinant in term em,loyment s.ould not (e t.e activities t.at t.e em,loyee is called u,on to ,erform (ut t.e day certain agreed u,on (y t.e ,arties for t.e commencement and termination of t.eir em,loyment relation (not t.e c.aracter of .is duties as (eing Cusually necessary or desira(le in t.e usual (usiness of t.e em,loyerC . Sti,ulation in t.e em,loyment contracts ,roviding for Cterm em,loymentC or Cfixed ,eriod em,loymentC are valid w.en t.e ,eriod are agreed u,on Dnowingly and voluntarily (y t.e ,arties wit.out force# duress or im,ro,er ,ressure exerted on t.e em,loyeeand w.en suc. sti,ulations were not designed to circumvent t.e laws on security of tenure. L$rent Sc.ool v. Qamora# )+) SC!A 20/ ()**0 N
8oreover# in $rent Sc.ool v. Qamora# su,ra# t.e Su,reme Court stated t.at Art. /+0 of t.e La(or Code does not a,,ly to overseas em,loyment. In Pa(lo Coyoca v. 'L!C# /63 SC!A )*0# ()**4 # t.e Su,reme Court also .eld t.at a seafarer is not a
governed (y t.e rules and regulations governing overseas em,loyment and t.e said rules do not ,rovide for se,aration or termination ,ay. ?rom t.e foregoing cases# it is clear t.at seafarers are considered contractual em,loyees. <.ey cannot (e considered as regular em,loyees under Art /+0 of t.e La(or Code. <.eir em,loyment is governed (y t.e contracts t.ey sign every time t.ey are re.ired and t.eir em,loyment is terminated w.en t.e contract ex,ires. <.eir em,loyment is contractually fixed for a certain ,eriod of time. <.ey fall under t.e exce,tion of Art /+0 w.ose em,loyment .as (een fixed for a s,ecific ,ro:ect or undertaDing t.e com,letion or termination of w.ic. .as (een determined at t.e time of engagement of t.e em,loyee or w.ere t.e worD or services to (e ,erformed is seasonal in nature and t.e em,loyment is for t.e duration of t.e season. @e need not de,art from t.e rulings of t.is court in t.e two aforementioned cases w.ic. indeed constitute stare decisis wit. res,ect to t.e em,loyment status of seafarers. L;ouglas 8illares v. 'L!C# et. al. 3/+ SC!A 2*# (/000 N <.erefore# <omas and CruG are contractual em,loyees. <.e ruling of t.e 'L!C is correct.
years cannot (ut (e a,,reciated as sufficient evidence of t.e necessity and indis,ensa(ility of ,etitionerPs service to t.e Lem,loyerPsN trade. Aerily# as ,etitioners .ad rendered /0 years of service# ,erforming activities t.at were necessary and desira(le in t.e trade (of t.e em,loyer # t.ey are# (y ex,ress ,rovision of Art. /+0 of t.e La(or Code# considered regular em,loyees. L8illares v. 'L!C# 3/+ SC!A 2* (/000 N
E?-*2& : C2"t#!;t)!* W2#G # 64= C!4)!* W2#G # (200,) Fow is t.e ,ro:ect worDer different from a casual or contractual worDerK $riefly ex,lain your answers. ALTERNATI9E ANSWER'
A CC9'<!AC<UAL @9!U&!C is a generic term used to designate any worDer covered (y a written contract to ,erform a s,ecific undertaDing for a fixed ,eriod. 9n t.e ot.er .and# a CP!9J&C< @9!U&!C is used to designate worDers in t.e construction industry# .ired to ,erform a s,ecific undertaDing for a fixed ,eriod# co-terminus wit. a ,ro:ect or ,.ase t.ereof determined at t.e time of t.e engagement of t.e em,loyee. (Policy Instruction 'o. )*# ;9L& In addition# to (e considered a true ,ro:ect worDer# it is reEuired t.at a termination re,ort (e su(mitted to t.e nearest ,u(lic em,loyment office u,on t.e com,letion of t.e construction ,ro:ect. (Aurora Land Pro:ects Cor,. v. 'L!C# %.!. 'o. ))6233# January /# )**2

'o. <.e ruling of t.e 'L!C is not correct. Suc. re,eated re-.iring# w.ic. continued for twenty
Page (, of 108
In contrast# t.ere is no suc. reEuirement for an ordinary contractual worDer. ALTERNATI9E ANSWER'
A P!9J&C< @9!U&! ,erforms :o( t.at is necessary and desira(le to t.e nature of t.e (usiness of t.e em,loyer. 9n t.e ot.er .and# a CASUAL @9!U&! ,erforms :o( t.at is not necessary or desira(le to t.e nature of t.e (usiness of t.e em,loyer. (Art. /+0# La(or Code A ,ro:ect worDer (ecomes a regular em,loyee if t.e em,loyer fails to su(mit as many re,orts to t.e ;9L& on terminations as t.ere were ,ro:ects actually finis.ed. (Audion &lectric Co. v. 'L!C# %.!. 'o. )0116+# June )2# )*** 9n t.e ot.er .and# a casual worDer (ecomes a regular em,loyee if .e .as rendered service for at least one () year w.et.er t.e same is continuous or (roDen. (Art. /+0# La(or Code
Dnown (y t.e em,loyer to t.e em,loyee at t.e time
E?-*2&
: /#2%!ti2"!#& E?-*2&
4 (1995)
<.e services of an em,loyee were terminated u,on t.e com,letion of t.e ,ro(ationary ,eriod of em,loyment for failure to Eualify# for t.e ,osition. <.e em,loyee filed a com,laint for Illegal ;ismissal on t.e ground t.at t.e em,loyer failed to inform .im in writing t.e reasona(le standards for regular em,loyment.
@ill t.e com,laint for Illegal ;ismissal ,ros,erK L4MN SUGGESTE7 ANSWER' Ies# t.e Com,laint for Illegal ;ismissal will ,ros,er. <.e La(or Code ,rovides5 Art. /+). P!9$A<I9'A!I &8PL9I8&'<# xxr <.e services of an em,loyee w.o .as (een engaged on a ,ro(ationary (asis may (e terminated xxx w.en .e fails to Eualify as a regular em,loyee in accordance wit. reasona(le standards made Dnown to t.e em,loyee at t.e time of .is engagement. <.e Su,reme Court in A.8. 9reta and Co.# Inc. v. 'L!C# )21 SC!A /)+ ()*+* # ruled5
<.e law is clear to t.e effect t.at in all cases involving em,loyees engaged on ,ro(ationary (asis# t.e em,loyer s.all maDe Dnown to t.e em,loyee at t.e time .e is .ired# t.e standards (y w.ic. .e will Eualify as a regular em,loyee.
<.e failure of t.e em,loyer to inform t.e em,loyee of t.e Eualification for regulariGation is fatal. <.e failure violates t.e rules of fair ,lay w.ic. is a c.eris.ed conce,t in la(or law. ANOT0ER SUGGESTE7 ANSWER'
<.e com,laint for illegal dismissal will ,ros,er. <.e La(or Code (in Article /+) ,rovides t.at a ,ro(ationary em,loyee may (e terminated w.en .e fails to Eualify as a regular em,loyee in accordance wit. reasona(le standards made
of t.e latterPs engagement. In t.e Euestion# t.e ,ro(ationary em,loyee was not informed of suc. reasona(le standards at t.e time .e was em,loyed. <.us# if .e is to (e legally terminated# it s.ould (e (ecause of gross and .a(itual neglect of duties.
E?-*2& : /#2%!ti2"!#& E?-*2& 4 (2001) @.at limitations# if any# do t.e law and :uris,rudence im,ose on an em,loyerPs rig.t to terminate t.e services of a ,ro(ationary em,loyeeK (/M SUGGESTE7 ANSWER'
<.e La(or Code Lin Art. /+) ,rovides t.at t.e services of an em,loyee w.o .as (een engaged on a ,ro(ationary (asis may (e terminated for a :ust cause or w.en .e fails to Eualify as a regular em,loyee in accordance wit. reasona(le standards made Dnown (y t.e em,loyer to t.e em,loyee at t.e time of .is engagement. If t.e ,ro(ationary em,loyee is (eing terminated for :ust cause# .e must# of course# (e given due ,rocess (efore .is termination#
,erform activities w.ic. are usually necessary or desira(le in t.e usual (usiness or trade of t.e em,loyer. 9n t.e ot.er .and# a P!9J&C< &8PL9I&& is one w.ose em,loyment is fixed for a s,ecific ,ro:ect or undertaDing- t.e com,letion or termination of w.ic. .as (een determined at t.e time of t.e engagement of t.e em,loyee. (See Art. /+0 of t.e La(or Code
E?-*2& : /#2A ;t E?-*2& C!4)!* E?-*2& 4 (200,)
4 64=
8ariano 8artillo was a mason em,loyed (y t.e A$C Construction Com,any. &very time t.at A$C .ad a ,ro:ect# it would enter into an em,loyment contract wit. 8artillo for a fixed ,eriod t.at coincided wit. t.e need for .is services# usually for a duration of t.ree to six mont.s. Since t.e last ,ro:ect involved t.e construction of a 60-storey (uilding# 8artillo was contracted for )6 mont.s. ;uring t.is ,eriod# A$C granted wage increases to its regular em,loyees# com,osed mostly of engineers and ranD-and-file construction worDers as a result of t.e :ust concluded C$A negotiations# feeling aggrieved and discriminated against# 8artillo and ot.er similarly-situated ,ro:ect worDers demanded t.at increases (e extended to t.em# inasmuc. as t.ey s.ould now (e considered regular em,loyees and mem(ers of t.e (argaining unit. $riefly ex,lain your answers. (1M
E?-*2& : /#2A ;t E?-*2& 64= R $)*!# E?-*2& (1996) ;istinguis. t.e ,ro:ect em,loyees from regular em,loyees. SUGGESTE7 ANSWER'
A !&%ULA! &8PL9I&& is one engaged to
Page ($ of 108
(a If you were A$CPs legal counsel# .ow would you res,ond to t.is demandK ALTERNATI9E ANSWER'
<.e demand is wit.out legal (asis. <.e sim,le fact t.at t.e em,loyment of ,etitioners as ,ro:ect em,loyees .ad gone (eyond one () year does not detract from# or legally dissolve# t.eir status as ,ro:ect em,loyees. <.e second ,aragra,. of Article /+0 of t.e La(or Code# ,roviding t.at an em,loyee w.o .as served for at least one () year s.all (e considered a regular em,loyee# relates to casual em,loyees# not to ,ro:ect em,loyees. (ALU<UCP v. 'L!C# %.!. 'o. )0**0/# August /# )**6 In t.e case of 8ercado# Sr. v. 'L!C# %.!. 'o. 2*+1*# Se,tem(er 4# )**)# t.e Su,reme Court ruled t.at t.e ,roviso in t.e second ,aragra,. of Article /+0 of t.e La(or Code relates only to casual em,loyees and is not a,,lica(le to t.ose w.o fall wit.in t.e definition of said ArticlePs first ,aragra,.# i.e.# ,ro:ect em,loyees. <.e familiar rule is t.at a ,roviso is to (e construed wit. reference to t.e immediately ,receding ,art of t.e ,rovision to w.ic. it is attac.ed# unless t.ere is clear legislative intent to t.e contrary. 'o suc. intent is o(serva(le in Article /+0 of t.e La(or Code.
anot.er tem,orary contract. S.e was told t.at .er
ALTERNATI9E ANSWER'
If I were A$CPs legal counsel# I will argue t.at t.e ,ro:ect worDers are not regular em,loyees (ut fixed-term em,loyees. Sti,ulation in em,loyment contracts ,roviding for term em,loyment or fixed ,eriod were agreed u,on Dnowingly and voluntarily (y t.e ,arties wit.out force# duress or im,ro,er ,ressure# (eing (roug.t to (ear u,on t.e em,loyee and a(sent any ot.er circumstances vitiating .is consent# or w.ere it satisfactorily a,,ears t.at t.e em,loyer and em,loyee dealt wit. eac. ot.er on more or less eEual terms wit. no moral dominance w.atever (eing exercised (y t.e former over t.e latter. (Pangilinan v. %eneral 8illing Cor,.# %.!. 'o. )6*3/*# July )/# /006
E?-*2& : R $)*!# E?-*2& : C2"4t#);ti6 7i4?i44!* (200,)

Uitc.ie <em,o was one of a,,roximately 400 ,roduction o,erators at FI<&C Semiconductors# Inc.# and ex,ort-oriented enter,rise w.ose (usiness de,ended on orders for com,uter c.i,s from overseas. S.e was .ired as a contractual em,loyee four years ago. Fer contracts would (e for a duration of five (4 mont.s at a time# usually after a one-mont. interval. Fer re-.iring was contingent on .er ,erformance for t.e immediately ,receding contract. Six mont.s after t.e ex,iration of .er last contract# Uitc.ie went to FI<&CPs ,ersonnel de,artment to inEuire w.y s.e was not yet (eing recalled for
,erformance during .er last stint was C(elow average.C Since t.ere was no union to re,resent .er# Uitc.ie seeDs your advice as a la(or lawyer a(out .er c.ances of getting .er :o( (acD. @.at will your advice (eK (4M ALTERNATI9E ANSWER'
<.e re,eated re.iring and t.e continuing need of Uitc.iePs services for 6 years are sufficient evidence of t.e necessity and indis,ensa(ility of .er services to FI<&CPs (usiness or trade. (8agsalin v. 'ational 9rganiGation for @orDing 8en# et al.# %.!. 'o. )6+6*/# 8ay *# /003 @.ere a ,erson t.us engaged .as (een ,erforming t.e :o( for at least one year# even if t.e ,erformance is not continuous or is merely intermittent# t.e law deems t.e em,loyment as regular wit. res,ect to suc. activity and w.ile suc. activity exists. (Paguio v. 'L!C# %.!. 'o. )62+)1# 8ay *# /003 Fence# !itc.ie is considered a regular em,loyee of FI<&C and as suc.# s.e cannot (e terminated exce,t for cause and only after due ,rocess.
em,loyee.
E?-*2&
: R $)*!# E?-*2&
4 (1994)
Aldric. Qamora# a welder# was .ired on ?e(ruary )*2/ (y Asian Contractors Cor,oration (ACC for a ,ro:ect. Fe was made to sign a contract sti,ulating t.at .is services were (eing .ired for t.e com,letion of t.e ,ro:ect# (ut not later t.an ;ecem(er 30# )*2/# w.ic.ever comes first.
After ;ecem(er )*2/# Qamora# (eing a man of many talents# was .ired for different ,ro:ects of ACC in various ca,acities# suc. as car,enter# electrician and ,lum(er. In all of t.ese engagements# Qamora signed a contract similar to .is first contract exce,t for t.e estimated com,letion dates of t.e ,ro:ect for w.ic. .e was .ired.
@.at is QamoraPs status wit. ACCK Is .e a contract worDer# a ,ro:ect em,loyee# a tem,orary or a regular em,loyeeK State your reason.
ALTERNATI9E ANSWER'
I will advice Uitc.ie to file a case of constructive dismissal wit. t.e !egional Ar(itration (ranc. of t.e 'L!C .aving territorial :urisdiction over t.e worD,lace of t.e com,lainant (ecause t.e constant re-.iring of Uitc.ie maDes .er a regular
SUGGESTE7 ANSWER' Qamora could (e a ,ro:ect em,loyee if .is worD is coterminous wit. t.e ,ro:ect for w.ic. .e was .ired.
$ut in t.e case# Qamora was re.ired after t.e com,letion of every ,ro:ect t.roug.out t.e ,eriod of .is em,loyment wit. t.e com,any w.ic. ranged
Page (% of 108
for Euite a long time. <.us# .e s.ould (e considered a regular em,loyee# (P.ili,,ine 'ational Construction Cor,oration vs. 'ational La(or !elations Commission# et al# %.! 'o. *4+)1# /2 9cto(er )*2/. J. %rino-AEuino
,ro(ation# w.ic. .a,,ened in t.e case in Euestion
ALTERNATI9E ANSWER' a Qamora is a regular em,loyee (ecause .e was engaged to worD in various ,ro:ects of ACC for a considera(le lengt. of time# on an activity t.at is usually necessary desira(le in t.e usual (usiness or trade of ACC. (8e.ita(el ?urniture vs. 'L!C# //0 SC!A 10/
( Qamora is a regular em,loyee. Article /+0 of t.e La(or Code declares wit. unmistaDa(le clarity5 <F& P!9AISI9'S 9? @!I<<&' A%!&&8&'< <9 <F& C9'<!A!I '9<@I<FS<A';I'%# xxx an em,loyment s.all (e deemed to (e regular w.ere t.e em,loyee .as (een engaged to ,erform activities w.ic. are usually necessary or desira(le in t.e usual (usiness or trade of t.e em,loyer.C Fe is not a C9'<!AC< or <&8P9!A!I @9!U&! (ecause even t.e ,rovisions of t.e simulated contracts were not followed w.en .is :o( was used continuously. Fe is not a ,ro:ect em,loyee# as t.e term is understood in Art. /+0 or under Policy Instruction 'o. /0.
E?-*2&
: R $)*!# E?-*2&
4 (199,)
IL&C9 is an electric coo,erative w.ic. acce,ted fres. graduates from a vocational sc.ool as lineman trainees for six (1 mont.s after w.ic. t.ey were .ired as ,ro(ationary em,loyees for anot.er ten ()0 mont.s. <.ereafter# t.ey were made regular em,loyees. <.ese em,loyees t.en soug.t entitlement to salary increases under t.e existing Collective $argaining Agreement (C$A w.ic. were given at t.e time w.en t.ey were not yet regular em,loyees# .ence# not yet mem(ers of t.e em,loyeesP union. IL&C9 denied t.eir claims (ecause t.ey were not yet regular mem(ers w.en t.e C$A tooD effect and t.erefore not entitled to wage ad:ustments t.ereunder.
!esolve t.e Issue. ;iscuss fully. SUGGESTE7 ANSWER' In im,lementing a C$A t.at ,rovides for salary increases to regular em,loyees# it is (ut logical t.at said salary increases s.ould (e given to em,loyees only from t.e time t.ey are regular em,loyees.
%iven t.e facts mentioned in t.e Euestion# t.e lineman trainees t.at IL&C9 .ired (ecame regular em,loyees six (1 mont.s after t.ey were .ired. <.e La(or Code ,rovides t.at ,ro(ationary em,loyment s.all not exceed six (1 mont.s from t.e date t.e em,loyee started worDing. ;ou(le
w.en t.e line man trainees were given an additional ,ro(ationary ,eriod of anot.er ten ()0 mont.s# may (e considered as a circumvention of t.e rule on ,ro(ationary em,loyment.
August )**+# .is services were terminated. Fe worDed for a total of ten ()0 years ()*+2-)**+ in t.e five (4 se,arate ,ro:ects.
<.us# (ecause t.ey were already regular em,loyees after t.e first six (1 mont. ,eriod# from said date# t.ey are entitled to t.e C$A increases ,rovided for regular em,loyee. ALTERNATI9E ANSWER' <.ey are not entitled to t.e wage ad:ustments under t.e C$A t.at were given w.en t.ey were not yet regular em,loyees.
$ut if (y virtue of t.eir (ecoming regular em,loyees# t.ey are now ,art of t.e a,,ro,riate collective (argaining unit defined (y t.e C$A# t.eir not (eing union mem(ers is not a (ar to t.eir recei,t of any wage ad:ustments given under t.e C$A# after t.ey (ecome regular em,loyees.
Six mont.s after .is se,aration# t.e %rou, won a (id for a large construction ,ro:ect. <.e %rou, did not engage t.e services of &ngineer CAC as a Pro:ect &ngineer for t.is new ,ro:ectinstead# it engaged t.e services of &ngineer C$C. &ngineer CAC claims t.at (y virtue of t.e nature of .is functions# i.e.# &ngineer in a Construction %rou,# and .is long years of service .e .ad rendered to t.e %rou,# .e is a regular em,loyee and not a ,ro:ect engineer at t.e time .e was first .ired. ?urt.ermore# t.e .iring of &ngineer C$C s.owed t.at t.ere is a continuing need for .is services. Is t.e claim of &ngineer CAC correctK L4MN SUGGESTE7 ANSWER' <.e claim of &ngineer CAC t.at .e is a regular em,loyee and not a ,rotect em,loyee is not correct. <.e La(or Code ,rovides5
Art. /+0. R $)*!# !"d C!4)!* E?-*2&? "t . An em,loyment s.all (e deemed to (e regular w.ere t.e em,loyee .as (een engaged to ,erform activities w.ic. are usually necessary or desira(le in t.e usual (usiness or trade of t.e em,loyer# exce,t# w.ere t.e em,loyment .as (een fixed for a s,ecific ,ro:ect or undertaDing t.e com,letion of w.ic. .as (een determined at
E?-*2& E?-*2&
: R $)*!# E?-*2& (1995)
4 64= /#2A ;t
A Construction %rou, .ired &ngineer CAC as a Pro:ect &ngineer in )*+2. Fe was assigned to five (4 successive se,arate ,ro:ects. All five (4 Contracts of &m,loyment .e signed# s,ecified t.e name of t.e ,ro:ect# its duration# and t.e tem,orary-,ro:ect nature of t.e engagement of .is services. U,on com,letion of t.e fift. L4t. ,ro:ect in
Page (& of 108
t.e time of t.e engagement of t.e em,loyee.
(underscoring su,,lied
In all t.e five (4 successive contracts of em,loyment of &ngineer CAC t.e name of t.e ,ro:ect# its duration# and t.e tem,orary ,ro:ect nature of t.e engagement of .is services are
SUGGESTE7 ANSWER' Ies. <.e ,rinci,al test for determining w.et.er a
,articular em,loyee is a C,ro:ect em,loyeeC as distinguis.ed from a Cregular em,loyeeC is w.et.er or not t.e CP!9J&C< &8PL9I&&C was assigned to carry out a Cs,ecific ,ro:ect or undertaDing#C t.e duration and sco,e of w.ic. were s,ecified at t.e
time t.e em,loyee was engaged for t.e ,ro:ects.
clearly stated5 .ence# &ngineer CAC falls wit.in t.e

exem,tion of Art. /+0. <.e Su,reme Court .as ruled as follows5 8anansag v. 'L!C# /)+ SC!A
2// ()**3
<.e fact t.at t.e ,etitioners worDed for several ,ro:ects of ,rivate res,ondent com,any is no (asis to consider t.em as regular em,loyees.
In t.e ,ro(lem given# t.ere is no s.owing t.at 9mar was informed t.at .e was to (e assigned to
a Cs,ecific ,ro:ect or undertaDing.C 'eit.er .as it
(een esta(lis.ed t.at .e was informed of t.e
duration and sco,e of suc. ,ro:ect or undertaDing

at t.e time of .is engagement. LP.ilex 8ining Cor,. v. 'L!C# 3)/ SC!A ))* ()*** N
$y t.e very nature of t.eir em,loyerPs (usiness# t.ey will always remain ,ro:ect em,loyees
regardless of t.e num(er of ,ro:ects in w.ic. t.ey .ave worDed.
8oreover# t.e re-.iring of 9mar is sufficient evidence of t.e necessity or t.e indis,ensa(ility of
.is services to t.e com,anyPs (usiness. LAurora Land Pro:ects Cor, v. 'L!C# /11 SC!A 6+()**2TN Fence# 9mar is correct in claiming t.at .e is a regular em,loyee of ;esign Consultants# Inc. ANOT0ER SUGGESTE7 ANSWER'
;e 9cam,o v 'L!C# )+1 SC!A 31) ()**0N

LPro:ect em,loyeesN are not considered regular
em,loyees# t.eir services# (eing needed only

w.en t.ere are ,ro:ects to (e undertaDen. <.e rationale for t.is rule# is t.at if a ,ro:ect .as already (een com,leted# it would (e un:ust to reEuire t.e em,loyer to maintain t.em in t.e ,ayroll w.ile t.ey are doing a(solutely not.ing exce,t waiting for anot.er ,ro:ect.
9mar is not correct 9mar is a ,ro:ect em,loyee as

defined (y Art. /+0 of La(or Code. Fe was .ired for a s,ecific ,ro:ect wit. fixed ,eriods of
em,loyment# s,ecifically5 two (/ years for t.e first

contract# and nine (* mont.s for t.e second contract. A ,ro:ect em,loyee w.o is .ired for a

<.e claim of &ngineer CAC is not correct. <.e fact
s,ecific ,ro:ect only is not a regular em,loyee

notwit.standing an extension of t.e ,ro:ect ,rovided t.at t.e contract of ,ro:ect em,loyment clearly s,ecifies t.e ,ro:ect and t.e duration t.ereof. LPalomares v. 'L!C# /22 SC!A 63* ()**2TN /# 4;#i-ti6 - #i2d: i** $!* di4?i44!* (1994)
t.at .e .as (een worDing for Construction %rou,
for a total of ten ()9 years does not maDe .im a

regular em,loyee w.en it is very clear from t.e Contracts of &m,loyment .e signed t.at .e was always (eing engaged as a ,ro:ect em,loyee. <.e tenure of a ,ro:ect em,loyee is co-terminous wit. t.e ,ro:ect in connection wit. w.ic. .is
9n 9cto(er 30# )*+0# A# an em,loyee# was served

notice of dismissal allegedly for gross dis.onesty. ?ort.wit.# t.e Union to w.ic. A was a mem(er raised APs dismissal wit. t.e grievance mac.inery as ,rovided for in its Collective $argaining
services were engaged. <.us# after t.e end of t.e

,ro:ect# t.e em,loyer-em,loyee relations.i,
ceases to exist. Suc. ,ro:ect em,loyee .as no legal rig.t to insist t.at .e s.ould (e em,loyed (y t.e Construction %rou, for a su(seEuent ,ro:ect of said %rou,.
Agreement (C$A . At t.at ,oint# negotiations for a new C$A was in ,rogress. Fence# (ot. t.e Union
and t.e Com,any .ad very little time to address APs grievance. In fact# said grievance# as it were# sle,t t.e slee, of t.e dead# (eing resolved only wit. finality on 'ovem(er /3# )*+3 w.en t.e
E?-*2&
: R $)*!# 64= /#2A ;t E?-*2&
(2002) ;esign Consultants# Inc. was engaged (y t.e P'CC to su,ervise t.e construction of t.e Sout.
&x,ressway &xtension. ;esign Consultants# Inc. .ired 9mar as a driver for two (/ years. After .is
two-year contract ex,ired# .e was extended
%eneral 8anager of t.e Com,any affirmed APs dismissal on t.e fift. and t.e last ste, of t.e
grievance mac.inery.
A filed an action for illegal dismissal wit. t.e
anot.er contract for nine (*
mont.s. <.ese
contracts were entered into during t.e various
Ar(itration $ranc. of t.e 'L!C on 'ovem(er /4#
stages and (efore t.e com,letion of t.e extension ,ro:ect. 9mar claims t.at (ecause of t.ese re,eated contracts# .e is now a regular em,loyee
of ;esign Consultants. Inc. Is .e correctK &x,lain
)*+3. <.e Com,any immediately filed a 8otion to ;ismiss on t.e ground of ,rescri,tion# invoDing
Article /*0 of t.e La(or Code.
(riefly. (4M
Page (' of 108
If you were t.e La(or Ar(iter# .ow would you resolve t.e Com,anyPs 8otion to ;ismissK SUGGESTE7 ANSWER'
As t.e La(or Ar(iter# I will deny t.e 8otion to ;ismiss. @.ere an em,loyee was dismissed and t.e matter of .is dismissal was t.en referred to t.e grievance mac.inery ,ursuant to t.e ,rovision in t.e existing collective (argaining agreement# and t.e grievance mac.inery .ad a final meeting after Euite a long w.ile t.ereafter# t.e com,laint for Illegal dismissal was t.en filed# t.e action was not (arred (y lac.es# as t.e ,endency of t.e matter (efore t.e grievance mac.inery affected t.e ri,eness of t.e cause of action for illegal dismissal. (!adio Communications of t.e P.ili,,ines# Inc. (!CPI # vs. 'ational La(or !elations Commission# et al %.! 'o. )0/*4+# /4 June )**3# J. ;avide# Jr. //3 SC!A 141.
distinct from a criminal action. &ac. may ,roceed inde,endently of eac. ot.er.
<.e rig.t to file an action for illegal dismissal is not de,endent u,on t.e outcome of t.e criminal case. %uilt or innocence in t.e criminal case is not determinative of t.e existence of a :ust or aut.oriGed cause for a dismissal. LPe,siCola $ottling Co. v. %uanGon )2/ SC!A 42)()*+* T
SUGGESTE7 ANSWER'
$. I agree wit. t.e statement. A case of illegal dismissal filed (y an em,loyee w.o .as (een terminated wit.out a :ust or aut.oriGed cause is not a money claim covered (y Art. /*) of t.e La(or Code. An em,loyee w.o is un:ustly dismissed from worD is entitled to reinstatement and to .is (acDwages. A case of illegal dismissal is (ased u,on an in:ury to t.e rig.t to security of tenure of an em,loyee. <.us# in accordance wit. Art ))61# it must (e instituted wit.in four years. LCallanta v. Carnation P.il. )64 SC!A /1+()*+1 $aliwag <ransit v. 9,le )2) SC!A /40()*+* International Farvester 8acleod# Inc. v. 'L!C# /00 SC!A +)2()**) N
ALTERNATI9E ANSWER' If I were t.e La(or Ar(iter# I will deny t.e motion to dismiss (ecause t.e action for Illegal dismissal .as not yet ,rescri(ed. <.e ,rescri,tive ,eriod for an action for illegal dismissal is four V6T years. (Callanta vs. Carnation #)64 SC!A /1+
/# 4;#i-ti6 - #i2d: i** $!* di4?i44!* (2002)

A. State your agreement or disagreement wit. t.e following statement and ex,lain your answer (riefly5 A criminal case filed against an employee does not ha"e the effect of suspending or interrupting the running of the prescripti"e period for the filing of an action for illegal dismissal (/M
$. State your agreement or disagreement wit. t.e following statement and ex,lain your answer (riefly5 <.e ,eriod of ,rescri,tion in Article /*) of t.e La(or Code a,,lies only to money claims so t.at t.e ,eriod of ,rescri,tion for ot.er cases of in:ury to t.e rig.ts of em,loyees is governed (y t.e Civil Code. <.us# an action for reinstatement for in:ury to an em,loyeePs rig.ts ,rescri(es in four (6 years as ,rovided in Article ))61 of t.e Civil Code. (3M SUGGESTE7 ANSWER'
A. I agree. <.e two (/ cases# namely5 t.e criminal case w.ere t.e em,loyee is t.e accused- and t.e case for illegal dismissal# w.ere t.e em,loyee would (e t.e com,lainant# are two (/ se,arate and inde,endent actions governed (y different rules# venues# and ,rocedures. <.e criminal case is wit.in t.e :urisdiction of t.e regular courts of law and governed (y t.e rules of ,rocedure in criminal cases. <.e action for t.e administrative as,ect of illegal dismissal would (e filed wit. t.e 'L!C and governed (y t.e ,rocedural rules of t.e La(or Code.
/# 4;#i-ti6 - #i2d: i** $!* di4?i44!* (199.) <.e general manager of JunD ?ood 8anufacturing Cor,oration dismissed Andrew <an# a ranD-and-file em,loyee# on t.e ground of insu(ordination. <.e general manager served on Andrew <an t.e letter of termination effective u,on recei,t w.ic. was on 0+ 8arc. )**/. S.ocDed (y .is unex,ected dismissal# Andrew <an confronted t.e general manager and .it t.e latter on t.e .ead wit. a lea, ,i,e.
JunD ?ood 8anufacturing filed a com,laint in court against Andrew <an for less serious ,.ysical in:uries. Some.ow# Andrew <an was acEuitted (y t.e court assigned to .ear t.e criminal case. A few days following .is acEuittal# or on 0) 8arc. )**1# Andrew <an filed com,laint against t.e com,any for illegal dismissal# reinstatement and t.e ,ayment of (acDwages and damages.
a
(
@as t.e com,laint filed (y Andrew <an for illegal dismissal wit.in t.e reglementary ,eriod granted (y lawK
@.at reliefs may Andrew <an (e entitled to if t.e La(or Ar(iter finds :ust cause for termination (ut t.at t.e reEuirements of notice and .earing are not com,lied wit.K
SUGGESTE7 ANSWER'
(a Ies. <.e com,laint was filed wit.in four (6 years from t.e date Andrew <an was dismissed (y .is em,loyer. Illegal dismissal# as a cause of action# ,rescri(es after four (6 years from t.e time t.e cause of action# namely# illegal dismissal tooD ,lace. <.is is ,ursuant to t.e Civil Code w.ic.

I agree. An action for illegal dismissal is an administrative case w.ic. is entirely se,arate and
,rovides t.at actions u,on an in:ury to t.e rig.ts of
Page 99 of 108
a ,erson s.ould (e initiated wit.in four years from t.e time t.e rig.t of t.e action accrues. (Art. ))61 of t.e Civil Code (( Andrew <an would (e entitled to an indemnity
of P)#000 to P)0#000 from .is em,loyer for t.e latterPs non-com,liance of t.e reEuirements of notice and .earing in cases of termination of em,loyment. (@en,.il P.ili,,ines v. 'L!C# )21 SC!A 11
was merely a merger# (ut it really was a ,ro:ected

(uy-out. @.ile dire necessity as a reason for
signing a Euitclaim is not acce,ta(le reason to set

aside a Euitclaim in t.e a(sence of s.owing t.at
t.e em,loyee .as (een forced to execute it# suc. reason gains im,ortance if t.e consideration is
unconsciona(le# low and t.e em,loyee .as (een tricDed Into acce,ting it. (@yet.-Suaco v. 'L!C# /)* SC!A 341 R 4i$"!ti2": 92*)"t!#&: Q)it;*!i?4 (1999) ?AC<S5 International 8otors Cor,oration (I8C undertooD a reorganiGation of t.e com,any and
R 4i$"!ti2": 92*)"t!#&: Q)it;*!i? (1994)

'onoy Santos was em,loyed as a middle management em,loyee in Com,any A. In t.e
course of .is em,loyment .e was told (y .is
su,eriors
lose .is
of
Jo(
t.e
u,on
,ossi(le
t.e
merger
of
(etween
t.e two
Com,any A and Com,any $. ?earing t.at .e mig.t

merger
rig.t-siGing of its ,ersonnel com,lement due to t.e current financial crisis. <.e affected em,loyees were given t.e o,tion to resign wit. corres,onding generous (enefits attending suc. o,tion. <.e said
em,loyees o,ted to resignation on account of t.ese negotiated (enefits- and after recei,t of w.ic.# t.ey executed Euitclaims in favor of I8C. Immediately t.ereafter# t.e em,loyees voluntarily resigned for valua(le consideration and t.at# in any
com,anies# .e looDed for and found anot.er :o(.
U,on resignation .e was given se,aration ,ay eEuivalent to one mont.Ps ,ay ,er year of service# alt.oug. tec.nically s,eaDing# .e is not entitled t.ereto (eing a resigned em,loyee. 8r. Santos
executed a Euitclaim and @aiver u,on recei,t of
case# t.ey .ave executed Euitclaims in favor of t.e

com,any. <.e em,loyees# .owever# claimed t.at
.is se,aration ,ay (enefits. <.e merger (etween t.e two com,anies turned out to (e a (uy-out (y t.e latter of t.e former. At t.is ,oint# Com,any APs em,loyees# save for a .andful#
were dismissed u,on ,ayment of se,aration ,ays eEuivalent to t.ree (3 mont.s for every year of service (ecause of t.e UnionPs efforts on t.e worDersP (e.alf. ?eeling aggrieved# Santos su(seEuently c.arged Com,any A wit. discrimination# dismissal# constructive under,ayment# resignation# se,aration (enefits and reinstatement. <.e La(or Ar(iter and 'L!C sustained Com,any
t.ey were forced to resign# and t.at t.ey executed

t.e Euitclaims only (ecause of dire necessity. Is t.e com,any guilty of Illegal dismissalK @.yK (3M SUGGESTE7 ANSWER' '9. <.e com,any is not guilty of illegal dismissal
since t.e facts clearly indicate t.at t.e Cem,loyees were given t.e o,tion to resign wit. corres,onding
generous (enefits attending suc. o,tionC and t.at
t.ese em,loyees Co,ted for resignation on account

of t.ese negotiated (enefitsC. 'ot.ing in t.e facts
indicate t.at t.eir consent to t.e waiver of (enefits

under t.e La(or Code was vitiated (y fraud#
violence# undue influence or any ot.er vice or APs ,osition t.at SantosP Euitclaim is valid# and t.at as a manager .e Dnew t.e im,ort of w.at .e was
signing and# t.erefore# esto,,ed from claiming defect. ALTERNATI9E ANSWER'
<.e com,any is not guilty of Illegal dismissal.
According to t.e facts of t.e case# t.e em,loyees

o,ted to resign voluntarily# considering t.e
ot.erwise.
Are t.e La(or Ar(iter and t.e 'L!C correctK
generous (enefits given to t.em in connection wit.

suc. resignation. !&SI%'A<I9' A9LU'<A!I cannot (e considered as illegal dismissal. (SamanIego v. 'L!C# )*+ SC!A )))
SUGGESTE7 ANSWER'
<.e La(or Ar(iter and t.e 'L!C are correct. Santos was not coerced into resigning. Fe voluntarily resigned. <.en# u,on recei,t of t.e
se,aration ,ay t.at tec.nically .e was not entitled to receive# .e voluntarily executed a Euitclaim and waiver. <.ese facts s.ow (eyond dou(t t.at .e is esto,,ed from claiming .e was a victim of discrimination. (&nieda 8onttUa vs. 'ational La(or
!elations Commission# et al# %.! 'o# 2)406# )2
C!" t< H)it;*!i? % !"")** d 2" t< $#2)"d 23

Fdi# " ; 44it&FM W<&M P2NQ SU%%&S<&; A'S@&!5
A Euitclaim case can (e annulled on t.e ground of

its (eing entered into involuntarily (y em,loyees (ecause of Cdire necessityC. <.us# if it was dire
necessity t.at forced a worDer to sign a Euitclaim even if t.e amount of money given to .im (y t.e
;ecern(er )**3# J. 'ocon# //+ SC!A 43+ ALTERNATI9E ANSWER:

$ot. t.e La(or Ar(iter and 'L!C are not correct. Santos resigned (ecause of t.e uncertainty as to
em,loyer was very muc. less t.an w.at t.e
t.e future of Com,any A# .e was made to (elieve t.at t.e deal (etween Com,any A and Com,any $
worDers was entitled to receive# t.en t.e Euitclaim

was not voluntary# and t.us# t.e said Euitclaim is
Page
)) of 108
null and void. In a case (Aeloso v. ;9L&# /00 SC!A /0) t.e Su,reme Court .eld t.at Cdire necessityC is not an acce,ta(le ground for annulling t.e releases# es,ecially since it .as not (een s.own t.at t.e em,loyees .ad (een forced to execute t.em. It .as not (een ,roven t.at t.e considerations for t.e Euitclaims were unconsciona(ly low and t.at t.e ,etitioners .ad (een tricDed into acce,ting t.em.
receive said retirement (enefits regardless of age or service record wit. t.e com,any or to t.e a,,lica(le se,aration ,ay ,rovided (y law#
R ti# ? "t: O-ti2"!* R ti# ? "t (200,)

() !icDy 8arvin .ad worDed for more t.an ten
()0 years in I%$ Cor,oration. Under t.e terms of t.e ,ersonnel ,olicy on retirement# any em,loyee w.o .ad reac.ed t.e age of 14 and com,leted at least ten ()0 years of service would (e com,ulsorily retired and ,aid 30 daysP ,ay for every year of service.
!icDy 8arvin# w.ose immigrant visa to t.e USA .ad :ust (een a,,roved# cele(rated .is 10t. (irt.day recently. Fe decided to retire and move to California w.ere t.e son w.o ,etitioned .im .ad settled. <.e com,any refused to grant .im any retirement (enefits on t.e ground t.at .e .ad not yet attained t.e com,ulsory retirement age of 14 years as reEuired (y its ,ersonnel ,olicy- moreover# it did not .ave a ,olicy on o,tional or early retirement.
<aDing u, t.e cudgels for !icDy 8arvin# t.e union raised t.e issue in t.e grievance mac.inery as sti,ulated in t.e C$A. 'o settlement was arrived at# and t.e matter was referred to voluntary ar(itration. If you were t.e Aoluntary Ar(itrator# .ow would you decideK $riefly ex,lain t.e reasons for your award. (4M SUGGESTE7 ANSWER'
I will decide t.e case in accordance wit. t.e !etirement Law. (!.A. 'o. 216) Under t.e law# !icDy 8arvin is entitled to 9,tional !etirement at age 10 since .e .as served t.e Com,any for at least 4 years# in fact )0 years already. Fe will also receive //.4 days for every year of service. (Ca,itol @ireless v. Confesor# %.!. 'o. ))2)26# 'ovem(er )3# )**1
R ti# ? "t: R ti# ? "t B " 3it4 (1994)

A Collective $argaining Agreement (C$A (etween Com,any A and its em,loyees ,rovides for o,timal retirement (enefits for em,loyees w.o .ave served t.e com,any for over /4 years regardless of age# eEuivalent to one-and-one-.alf mont.s ,ay ,er year of service (ased on t.e em,loyeePs last ,ay. <.e C$A furt.er ,rovides t.at Cem,loyees w.ose services are terminated# exce,t for cause# s.all
w.ic.ever is .ig.er.C <.e Com,any# due to ,oor (usiness conditions# decided to cease o,erations and gave its em,loyees t.e reEuired one mont.Ps advance notice as well as notice to ;9L&# wit. t.e furt.er advice t.at eac. em,loyee may claim .is corres,onding se,aration or retirement (enefits w.ic.ever is .ig.er after executing t.e reEuired waiver and Euitclaim.
;ino !amos and .is co-em,loyees w.o .ave all rendered more t.an /4 years of service# received t.eir retirement (enefits. Soon after# !amos and ot.ers similarly situated demanded for t.eir se,aration ,ay. <.e Com,any refused# claiming t.at under t.e C$A t.ey cannot receive (ot. (enefits. @.o is correct# t.e em,loyees or t.e Com,anyK SUGGESTE7 ANSWER' <.e em,loyees are correct. In t.e a(sence of a categorical ,rovision in t.e !etirement Plan and t.e C$A t.at an em,loyee w.o receives se,aration ,ay is no longer entitled to retirement (enefits# t.e em,loyee is entitled to t.e ,ayment of (ot. (enefits ,ursuant to t.e social :ustice ,olicy. (Conrado 8. AEuino# et al v. 'ational La(or !elations Commission# et al# %.! 'o. +2143# )) ?e(ruary )**/ ALTERNATI9E ANSWER'
a <.e Com,any is correct. <.e C$A clearly ,rovides t.at em,loyees w.o are terminated are
entitled to retirement (enefits or se,aration ,ay# w.ic.ever is .ig.er. <.e C$A# t.erefore# does not give t.e em,loyees a rig.t to (ot. retirement ,ay and se,aration ,ay. Fence# t.ey cannot (e entitled to (ot.. <.e exclusion of one (y t.e ot.er is deducti(le not only from t.e term CorC (ut also (y t.e Eualifying ,.rase Cw.ic.ever is .ig.erC. <.is ,.rase would (e immaterial if t.e em,loyees were entitled to (ot..
( ;ino and .is co-em,loyees were correct. In t.e case of University of t.e &ast vs. 'L!C# it was clarified t.at t.e retirement (enefits arising from t.e C$A is an 9(ligation &x Contractu w.ile se,aration ,ay under Art. /+6 is an 9(ligation &x- Lege. <.us# t.e Com,any s.ould grant (ot. (enefits to t.ose w.o were se,arated due to CL9SU!& and at t.e same time were Eualified to retire. (Ci,riano v. San 8iguel# /6 SC!A 203
R ti# ? "t: R ti# ? "t /!& (2001)

$. UDol was com,ulsorily retired (y .is em,loyer# Uurot $ottling Cor,oration# u,on t.e formerPs reac.ing 14 years of age# .aving rendered 30 years of service. Since t.ere was no C$A# $. UDol was ,aid .is retirement (enefits com,uted )4 daysP ,ay for every year of service# (ased on $. UDolPs .ig.est salary during eac. year of .is
Page
) of 108
em,loyment. 'ot satisfied# $. UDol filed action wit. t.e Ar(itration $ranc. of t.e 'L!C claiming t.at .is retirement (enefits were not com,uted ,ro,erly. Is $. UDolPs claim meritoriousK @.at are t.e com,onents of .is retirement (enefitsK (/M #
for disa(ility (enefits under Presidential ;ecree
SUGGESTE7 ANSWER'
UDolPs claim is meritorious. Fis retirement (enefit is to (e com,uted in accordance wit. Article /+2# w.ic. reads5 CIn t.e a(sence of a retirement ,lan or agreement ,roviding for retirement (enefits of em,loyees in t.e esta(lis.ment# an em,loyee may retire ... and s.all (e entitled to retirement ,ay eEuivalent to at least one-.alf ()7/ mont. salary for every year of service# a fraction of at least six mont.s (eing considered as one w.ole year. <.e same Article t.en ex,lains t.at t.e term one-.alf ()7/ mont. salary means fifteen days ,lus one- twelft. ()7)/ of t.e )3t. mont. ,ay and t.e cas. eEuivalent of not more t.an five (4 days of service incentive leaves.
<.e com,onents of retirement ,ay are5 1. )4 days ,ay 2. )7)/ of t.e )3t. mont. ,ay. and +. cas. eEuivalent of not more t.an five (4 days of service incentive leave. (%) W<!t D; -ti2"(4) d2( 4) t< *!8 2" # ti# ? "t % " 3it4 -#26id (4) i3 !"&M (>N)= SUGGESTE7 ANSWER' !etail# service and agricultural esta(lis.ments or o,erations em,loying not more t.an ten ()0 em,loyees or worDers are exem,ted from t.e coverage of t.e ,rovision on retirement (enefits in t.e La(or Code. Also# w.ere t.ere is a retirement ,lan of t.e em,loyer t.at grants more t.an w.at t.e La(or Code grants.
SOCIAL LEGISLATIONS
E?-*2& 4 C2?- "4!ti2" A;t: W2#GB C2"" ;t d 7i4!%i*it& (1996) &frenia !eyes was a classroom teac.er assigned (y t.e ;e,artment of &ducation# Culture and S,orts (;&CS in Panitan# Ca,iG. S.e .as (een in t.e government service since )*4) u, to 'ovem(er# )*+4 w.en s.e retired at 44 due to ,oor .ealt..
In 8arc.# )*+/# w.ile s.e was teac.ing .er %rade ) ,u,ils t.e ,ro,er way of scru((ing and swee,ing t.e floor# s.e accidentally sli,,ed. Fer (acD .it t.e edge of a desD. S.e later com,lained of weaD lower extremities and difficulty in walDing. After an O-ray examination# s.e was found to (e suffering from PottPs disease and was advised to undergo an o,eration. In )*+4# s.e filed wit. t.e %SIS a claim
'o. 1/1# as amended. <.e %SIS granted t.e claim and awarded &frenia ,ermanent ,artial disa(ility (enefits.
After s.e underwent a surgical o,eration on .er s,ine in 'ovem(er# )*+4# .er condition worsened.
In )**0# &frenia filed wit. t.e %SIS a ,etition for conversion of .er disa(ility status to ,ermanent total disa(ilities wit. corres,onding ad:ustment of (enefits. %SIS denied t.e claim stating t.at after &freniaPs retirement# any ,rogression of .er ailment is no longer com,ensa(le.
of a,,lying t.e a(ove ,rovision of t.e La(or CodeK Li(erally construing said ,rovision. !eyes may (e considered still as an em,loyee so t.at s.e could receive additional (enefits for t.e ,rogression of .er ailment. ALTERNATI9E ANSWERS'
a 'o. @.en an em,loyee is constrained to retire at an early age due to .is illness and t.e illness ,ersists even after retirement# resulting in .is continued unem,loyment# suc. condition amounts to total disa(ility w.ic. s.ould entitle .im to t.e maximum (enefits allowed (y law. Fer disa(ility w.ic. s.ould entitle .er to t.e maximum falls wit.in t.e definition of ,ermanent total disa(ility. ( 'o# t.e %SIS erred in denying t.e claim. 'ote# t.at t.e original claim and grant of (enefits was (ased on Presidential ;ecree 'o# 1/1# or $ooD IA# <itle II of t.e La(or Code5 &m,loyees Com,ensation and State Insurance ?und. <.e same law does not ,rovide for se,aration fee from em,loyment as a (asis for denial of (enefits.
Is t.e %SIS correct in denying t.e claim. &x,lain. SUGGESTE7 ANSWER' Considering t.at t.e disa(ility of !eyes is worD connected# t.e ,rovisions of t.e La(or Code dealing wit. em,loyees com,ensation s.ould determine .er rig.t to (enefits. According to said ,rovisions# if any em,loyee under ,ermanent ,artial disa(ility suffers anot.er in:ury w.ic. results in a com,ensa(le disa(ility greater t.an t.e ,revious in:ury# t.e State Insurance ?und s.all (e lia(le for t.e income (enefit of t.e new disa(ility even after .er retirement. @as !eyes still an Cem,loyeeC for t.e ,ur,ose
<.e worsening of t.e sc.ool teac.erPs condition is a direct result# or a continuing result of t.e first in:ury w.ic. was deemed worD-connected (y t.e %SIS and .ence com,ensa(le.
In ;io,enes vs. %SIS# /04 SC!A 33) ()**/ # t.e Su,reme Court cautioned against a too strict
Page
)" of 108
inter,retation of t.e law w.ic. may (e detrimental

to claimants and advised t.e %SIS of t.e
;A8 on or (efore t.e sc.eduled date of t.e
contest.C
constitutional mandate on ,rotection to la(or and t.e ,romotion of social Justice. Said t.e Court5
8ordero com,lied wit. .is su,eriorPs instruction

and constructed an im,rovised electric microdam#
<.e %SIS and t.e &CC s.ould (e commended for t.eir vigilance against un:ustified claims t.at
will only de,lete t.e funds intended to (e dis(ursed for t.e (enefit only of deserving
w.ic. .e tooD .ome to ena(le .im to finis. it

(efore t.e deadline. 9n 8ay /2# )**2# w.ile
worDing on t.e 89;&L ;A8 Pro:ect in .is .ouse#

.e came to contact wit. a live wire and was
disa(led em,loyees. 'evert.eless# we s.ould

caution against a too strict inter,retation of t.e
electrocuted. Fe was immediately (roug.t to a

clinic for emergency treatment (ut was ,ronounced
rules t.at will result in t.e wit..olding of full

assistance from t.ose w.ose ca,a(ilities .ave
(een diminis.ed if not com,letely im,aired as a com,ensation of t.eir service in t.e government. A .umanitarian im,ulse dictated (y no less t.an t.e Constitution itself under t.e
social :ustice ,olicy# calls for a li(eral and
dead on arrival. <.e deat. certificate s.owed t.at .e died of cardiac arrest due to accidental
electrocution. Pe,ay Palay,ay (Pitoy 8onderoPs common-law
wife for more t.an twenty years and a Pitoy
sym,.at.etic a,,roac. to t.e legitimate a,,eals

of disa(led ,u(lic servants. Com,assion for t.em is not a dole (ut a rig.t. GSIS: B " 3it4 (2004) $. Atty. CL8# a dedicated and efficient ,u(lic
8ordero Jr. (.is only son filed a claim for deat. (enefits wit. t.e %overnment Service Insurance System (%SIS # w.ic. was denied on t.e ground
t.at Pitoy 8ordenoPs deat. did not arise out of and in t.e course of em,loyment and t.erefore not com,ensa(le (ecause t.e accident occurred in .is
.ouse and not in t.e sc.ool ,remises. I4 / -!& /!*!&-!& "tit* d t2 3i* ! ;*!i? 32# d !t< % " 3it4 8it< t< GSISM W<&M (2N) SUGGESTE7 ANSWER' <.e (eneficiaries of a mem(er of t.e %SIS are entitled to t.e (enefits arising from t.e deat. of said mem(er. ;eat. (enefits are called survivors.i, (enefits under t.e %SIS Law. 'ot (eing a (eneficiary# Pe,ay Palay,ay to not
official# was t.e to, executive of a government owned and controlled cor,oration (%9CC . @.ile ins,ecting an ongoing ,ro:ect in a remote village in
8indanao# s.e suffered a stroDe and since t.en .ad (een confined to a w.eelc.air. At t.e time
s.e sto,,ed worDing (ecause of .er illness in line of duty# Atty. CL8 was only sixty years old (ut s.e .ad (een an active mem(er of t.e %SIS for t.irty
years wit.out any (reaD in .er service record.
@.at (enefits could s.e claim from t.e %SISK

Cite at least five (enefits. (4M
entitled to receive survivors.i, (enefits. S.e is not

a (eneficiary (ecause s.e to a common-law wife and not a legal de,endent s,ouse.
SUGGESTE7 ANSWER' <.e (enefits Atty. CL8 could claim from t.e %SIS
are5 () &m,loyees com,ensation w.ic. s.all include
(ot. income and medical and related (enefits# including re.a(ilitation(/ <em,orary total disa(ility (enefit(3 Permanent total disa(ility (enefit(6 Se,aration (enefit- and (4 !etirement (enefit.
I4 t< ;!)4 23 d !t< 23 /it2& M2#d "2 (;!#di!; !## 4t d) t2 !;;id "t!* * ;t#2;)ti2" i" <i4
<2)4 ) ;2?- "4!%* M W<&M (>N)= SU%%&S<&; A'S@&!5
Ies. <o (e com,ensa(le under t.e %SIS Law# t.e

deat. need not (e worD connected. GSIS: 7 !t< B " 3it4: 7 - "d "t: 24B<2)# 7)t& R)* (200,) 9decD# a ,oliceman# was on leave for a mont.. @.ile resting in t.eir .ouse# .e .eard two of .is neig.(ors fig.ting wit. eac. ot.er. 9decD rus.ed to t.e scene intending to ,acify t.e ,rotagonists.
GSIS: 7 !t< B " 3it (1999) ?AC<S5 Pitoy 8ondero was em,loyed as a ,u(lic sc.ool teac.er at t.e 8arinduEue Fig. Sc.ool from July )# )*+3 until .is untimely demise on 8ay /2# )**2.
9n A,ril /2# )**2# a memorandum was issued (y t.e sc.ool ,rinci,al# w.ic. reads5 CIou are .ere(y
designated to ,re,are t.e 89;&L ;A8 ,ro:ect#
Fowever# .e was s.ot to deat. (y one of t.e

,rotagonists. Q.o,# a .ousemaid# was 9decDPs
surviving s,ouse w.om .e .ad a(andoned for

anot.er woman years (acD. @.en s.e learned of 9decDPs deat.# Q.o, filed a claim wit. t.e %SIS for
w.ic. will (e t.e official entry of or sc.ool t.e

fort.coming ;ivision Searc. for 9utstanding
deat. (enefits. Fowever# .er claim was denied

(ecause5 (a w.en 9decD was Dilled# .e was on
Im,rovised Secondary Science &Eui,ment for

<eac.ers to (e .eld in 8anila on June 6# )**2.
leave- and (( s.e was not t.e de,endent s,ouse

of 9decD w.en .e died.
Iou are .ere(y instructed to com,lete t.is 89;&L
Page
)# of 108
!esolve wit. reasons w.et.er %SIS is correct in
Fow many times may a male em,loyee go on

Paternity LeaveK Can .e avail .imself of t.is
denying t.e claim. (4M ALTERNATI9E ANSWER'

Ies# (ecause under t.e law# a de,endent is one w.o is a legitimate s,ouse living wit. t.e em,loyee. (Article )12LiN# La(or Code In t.e ,ro(lem given# Q.o, .ad (een a(andoned (y 9decD w.o was t.en living already wit. anot.er woman at t.e time of .is deat.. 8oreover# 9decD was on leave w.en .e was
(enefit for exam,le# 40 days after t.e first delivery

(y .is wifeK (3M SUGGESTE7 ANSWER'
A male em,loyee may go on Paternity Leave u, to

four (6 c.ildren. (Sec. /# !A +)+2 9n t.e
Euestion of w.et.er or not .e can avail .imself of

t.is (enefit 40 days after t.e delivery of .is wife#
t.e answer is5 Ies# .e can (ecause t.e !ules Im,lementing Paternity Leave Act says t.at t.e
availment s.ould not (e later t.an 10 days after t.e date of delivery. /!t #"it& L !6 : M!t #"it& L !6 (200,) 8ans @eto .ad (een an em,loyee of 'o,olt Assurance Com,any for t.e last ten ()0 years. Fis
Dilled. <.e /6-.our duty rule does not a,,ly w.en

t.e ,oliceman is on vacation leave. (&m,loyeesP Com,ensation Commission v. Court of A,,eals#
%.!. 'o. )/)464# 'ovem(er )6# )**1 <aDing toget.er :uris,rudence and t.e ,ertinent guidelines
of t.e &CC wit. res,ect to claims for deat.
(enefits# namely5 (a t.at t.e em,loyee must (e at t.e ,lace w.ere

.is worD reEuires .im to (e(( t.at t.e em,loyee must .ave (een ,erforming .is official functions- and (c t.at if t.e in:ury is sustained elsew.ere# t.e
wife of six (1 years died last year. <.ey .ad four (6 c.ildren. Fe t.en fell in love wit. Jovy# .is coem,loyee# and t.ey got married.
In 9cto(er t.is year# @etoPs new wife is ex,ected

to give (irt. to .er first c.ild. Fe .as accordingly
em,loyee must .ave (een executing an order for t.e em,loyer# it is not difficult to understand
t.en w.y Q.o,Ps claim was denied (y t.e
filed .is a,,lication for ,aternity leave# conforma(ly
wit. t.e ,rovisions of t.e Paternity Leave Law

w.ic. tooD effect in )**1. <.e F!; manager of t.e assurance firm denied .is a,,lication# on t.e
%SIS.
(<ancinco
v.
%overnment
Service
Insurance
System#
%.!.
'o.
)3/*)1#
ground t.at @eto .ad already used u, .is

entitlement under t.e law. @eto argued t.at .e
'ovem(er )1# /00)
In t.e ,resent case# 9decD was resting at .is

.ouse w.en t.e incident .a,,ened- t.us# .e was
.as a new wife w.o will (e giving (irt. for t.e first
time# t.erefore# .is entitlement to ,aternity leave (enefits would (egin to run anew. (1M (a) Whose $ontention is $orre$t, Weto or the 5R6 %ana*er ALTERNATI9E ANSWER' <.e contention of @eto is correct. <.e law ,rovides t.at every married male is entitled to a
,aternity leave of seven (2 days for t.e first four
not at t.e ,lace w.ere .is worD reEuired .im to (e.

Alt.oug. at t.e time of .is deat. 9decD was
,erforming a ,olice function# it cannot (e said t.at .is deat. occurred elsew.ere ot.er t.an t.e ,lace
w.ere .e was su,,osed to (e (ecause .e was
executing an order for .is em,loyer. ALTERNATI9E ANSWER'

%SIS is correct in denying t.e claim not on t.e
(6 deliveries of t.e legitimate s,ouse wit. w.om
.e is co.a(iting. Jovy is @etoPs legitimate s,ouse

wit. w.om .e is co.a(iting. <.e fact t.at Jovy is
grounds ,rovided in t.e ,ro(lem (ut for t.e reason

t.at uniformed mem(ers of t.e P'P are not covered (y !.A. 'o. +/*) or t.e %SIS Law of )**2. M!t #"it& B " 3it4 (2000)
.is second wife and t.at @eto .ad 6 c.ildren wit. .is first wife is (eside t.e ,oint. <.e im,ortant fact is t.at t.is is t.e first c.ild of Jovy wit. @eto. <.e law did not distinguis. and we s.ould t.erefore not
distinguis.. <.e ,aternity leave was intended to ena(le t.e .us(and to effectively lend su,,ort to .is wife in
8s. Sara 8ira is an unwed mot.er wit. t.ree

c.ildren from t.ree different fat.ers. In )***# s.e
(ecame a mem(er of t.e Social Security System.

In August /000# s.e suffered a miscarriage# also
out of wedlocD# and again (y a different fat.er. Can 8s. 8ira claim maternity (enefits under t.e Social
Security Act of )**2K !eason. (4M
.er ,eriod of recovery and7or in t.e nursing of t.e newly (orn c.ild. (Sec. 3# !A. 'o. +)+2 <o deny
@eto t.is (enefit would (e to defeat t.e rationale
SUGGESTE7 ANSWER'
Ies# s.e can claim maternity (enefit. &ntitlement t.ereto is not de,endent on t.e claimantPs (eing legally married. (Sec. )6-A# Social Security Act of
for t.e law. 8oreover# t.e case of @eto is a gray area and t.e dou(t s.ould (e resolved in .is favor. ALTERNATI9E ANSWER'
@etoPs contention is correct. !.A. 'o. +)+2

,rovides t.at ,aternity leave of (2 days wit. full ,ay s.all (e granted to all married em,loyees in
t.e ,rivate and ,u(lic sectors for t.e first four (6
)**2 .
/!t #"it& L !6 (2002)
deliveries of t.e legitimate s,ouse wit. w.om .e is
Page
), of 108
co.a(iting. @it. t.e deat. of @etoPs first wife# t.e first (6 deliveries ,rovided (y law# s.all a,,ly to t.e new legitimate s,ouse of @eto wit. w.om .e is co.a(iting. ALTERNATI9E ANSWER' Since !.A. 'o. +/+/ is silent on t.e matter# t.e dou(t s.ould (e resolved in favor of t.e second wife. (!) Is 7ov& entitled to %aternit& leave !ene)its Ies# JovyPs maternity (enefit is ,ersonal to .er and s.e is entitled under t.e law to avail .erself of t.e same for t.e first four times of .er deliver. (!.A. 'o. +/+/
o(servance of clu( rules# .e can (e disci,lined (y (eing (arred from t.e ,remises of $arili %olf. Is 8arvin wit.in t.e com,ulsory coverage of t.e Social Security SystemK @.yK (4M SUGGESTE7 ANSWER'
$ecause .e is not an em,loyee of t.e $arili %olf = Country Clu(# 8arvin is not wit.in t.e com,ulsory coverage of t.e Social Security System. 8arvin is not an em,loyee of t.e clu( (ecause under t.e s,ecific circumstances of .is relations wit. t.e clu(# .e is not under t.e orders of t.e clu( as regards em,loyment w.ic. would .ave made .im an em,loyee of t.e clu(. (See 8anila %olf = Country Clu(# Inc. v. IAC# /32 SC!A /02
SSS: C2?-)*42#& C26 #!$ (199,) $ig ?oot Com,any of Paete# Laguna# .as (een in t.e (usiness of manufacturing wooden sandals for ex,ort since 4 'ovem(er )*+0. 9n 4 January )**6 it em,loyed an additional la(or com,lement of t.irty worDers# two su,ervisors and two de,artment managers. 9n 4 ?e(ruary )**6 it .ired five car,enters to fix t.e roof and walls of its factory w.ic. were destroyed (y ty,.oon CFuaning.C
@.o among t.e aforementioned ,ersons are com,ulsorily covered (y t.e Social Security Law and w.en s.ould t.ey (e considered effectively coveredK ;iscuss fully. SUGGESTE7 ANSWER'
Assuming t.at all of t.em were not yet over sixty years of age# t.e additional la(or com,lement of t.irty worDers# two su,ervisors and two de,artment managers were com,ulsorily covered (y t.e Social Security Law on 4 January )**6# w.en t.ey were em,loyed. According to said law# worDers are covered on t.e day of t.eir em,loyment.
$ut 8arvin is wit.in t.e com,ulsory coverage of t.e SSS as a self-em,loyed ,erson. (See Section *-A# Social Security Law of )*42
SSS: C2?-)*42#& C26 #!$ (2000)

<.e Collective $argaining Agreement of t.e %olden Cor,oration Inc. and t.e %olden Cor,oration @orDers Union ,rovides a ,acDage of welfare (enefits far su,erior in com,arison wit. t.ose ,rovided for in t.e Social Security Act of )**2. <.e welfare ,lan of t.e com,any is funded solely (y t.e em,loyer wit. no contri(utions from t.e em,loyees. Admittedly# it is t.e (est welfare ,lan in t.e P.ili,,ines. <.e com,any and t.e union :ointly filed a ,etition wit. t.e Social Security System for exem,tion from coverage. @ill t.e ,etition for exem,tion from coverage ,ros,erK !eason. (4M
SUGGESTE7 ANSWER'
'o# (ecause coverage under t.e SSS is com,ulsory w.ere em,loyer-em,loyee relations exist. Fowever# if t.e ,rivate ,lan is su,erior to t.at of t.e SSS# t.e ,lan may (e integrated wit. t.e SSS ,lan. Still# it is integration and not exem,tion from SSS law. (P.ili,,ine $looming 8ills Co.# Inc. v. Social Security System# )2 SC!A )02()*11 - !A. 'o. ))1) as amended (y !A 'o. +/+/T.
$ut t.e five car,enters w.ic. t.e com,any .ired to fix t.e roof and walls of its factory were not under t.e com,ulsory coverage of t.e Social Security Law (ecause said car,enters are casual em,loyees. <.e Social Security Law ,rovides t.at em,loyment ,urely casual and not for t.e ,ur,ose of occu,ation or t.e (usiness of t.e em,loyer are not under its com,ulsory coverage.
SSS: C2?-)*42#& C26 #!$ (2002)

<.e owners of ?ALC9' ?actory# a com,any engaged in t.e assem(ling of automotive com,onents# decided to .ave t.eir (uilding renovated. ?ifty (40 ,ersons# com,osed of engineers# arc.itects and ot.er construction worDers# were .ired (y t.e com,any for t.is ,ur,ose. <.e worD was estimated to (e com,leted in t.ree (3 years. <.e em,loyees contended t.at since t.e worD would (e com,leted after more t.an one () year# t.ey s.ould (e su(:ect to com,ulsory coverage under t.e Social Security Law. ;o you agree wit. t.eir contentionK &x,lain your answer fully. (4M
SSS: C2?-)*42#& C26 #!$ (1999)

8arvin Patrimonio is a caddy rendering caddying services for t.e mem(ers and guests of t.e $arili %olf = Country Clu(. As suc. caddy# .e is su(:ect to $arili golfs rules and regulations governing Caddies regarding conduct# dress# language# etc. Fowever# .e does not .ave to o(serve any worDing .ours# .e is free to leave anytime .e ,leases- and .e can stay away for as long as .e liDes. 'onet.eless# if .e is found remiss in t.e
SUGGESTE7 ANSWER'
Page
)$ of 108
'o. Under Section + (: of !A ))1)# as amended# em,loyment of ,urely casual and not for t.e ,ur,ose of t.e occu,ation or (usiness of t.e em,loyer are exce,ted from com,ulsory coverage. An em,loyment is ,urely casual if it is not for t.e ,ur,ose of occu,ation or (usiness of t.e em,loyer. In t.e ,ro(lem given# ?alcon ?actory is a com,any engaged in t.e assem(ling of automotive com,onents.
<.e fifty (40 ,ersons (engineers# arc.itects and construction worDers were .ired (y ?alcon ?actory to renovate its (uilding. <.e worD to (e ,erformed (y t.ese fifty (10 ,eo,le is not in connection wit. t.e ,ur,ose of t.e (usiness of t.e factory. Fence# t.e em,loy of t.ese fifty (40 ,ersons is ,urely casual. <.ey are# t.erefore# exce,ted from t.e com,ulsory coverage of t.e SSS law.
sector to anot.er or is em,loyed in (ot.
ANOT0ER SUGGESTE7 ANSWER' I agree wit. t.e contention t.at t.e em,loyees .ired (y t.e owners of ?ALC9' factory as construction worDers in t.e renovation of its (uilding s.ould (e under t.e com,ulsory coverage of t.e Social Security Law.
It is true t.at in connection wit. ?ALC9' ?actory# w.ic. is engaged in t.e assem(ling of automotive com,onents# t.e construction worDers may (e considered casual em,loyees (ecause t.eir em,loyment is not for t.e ,ur,ose of occu,ation of (usiness of ?ALC9' ?actory. As suc.# in accordance wit. Section +V: of t.e Social Security Law# t.ey are exce,ted form t.e com,ulsory coverage of t.e Social Security System.
$ut t.ey could also (e considered ,ro:ect em,loyees of ?ALC9' ?actory and as suc. could (e under t.e com,ulsory coverage of t.e SSS# a,,lying Art 6 of t.e La(or Code t.at ,rovides t.at all dou(ts in t.e Im,lementation and inter,retation of t.e ,rovisions of La(or Law s.all (e resolved in favor of la(or. <.e em,loyees .ere t.erefore# s.ould (e considered as under t.e com,ulsory coverage of t.e SSS.
SSS: GSIS: B " 3i;i!*it&: /2#t!%i*it& /#26i4i2"4 23 RA .699 (200,) Fow are t.e C,orta(ilityC ,rovisions of !e,u(lic Act 'o. 21** (eneficial or advantageous to SSS and %SIS mem(ers in terms of t.eir credita(le em,loyment services in t.e ,rivate sector or t.e government# as t.e case may (e# for ,ur,oses of deat.# disa(ility or retirementK Please ex,lain your answer (riefly. (3M SUGGESTE7 ANSWER'
Porta(ility ,rovisions of !.A. 'o. 21** s.all (enefit a covered worDer w.o transfers em,loyment from one
sectors# w.ose credita(le services or contri(utions in (ot. systems credited to .is service or contri(ution record in eac. of t.e system and s.all (e totaliGed for ,ur,oses of old-age# disa(ility# survivors.i, and ot.er (enefits. (Sec. 3# !.A. 'o. 21** <.e C,orta(ilityC ,rovisions of !.A. 'o. 21** allow t.e transfer of funds for t.e account and (enefit of t.e worDer w.o transfers from one system to anot.er. <.is is advantageous to t.e SSS and %SIS mem(ers for ,ur,oses of deat.# disa(ility or retirement (enefits. In t.e event t.e em,loyees transfer from t.e ,rivate sector to t.e ,u(lic sector# or vice-versa# t.eir credita(le em,loyment services and contri(utions are carried over and transferred as well.
In t.e event t.at t.e claim is denied on t.e SSS7%SIS level# claimant may a,,eal to t.e &m,loyees Com,ensation Commission w.ere .e may ,rove t.e causal connection (etween in:ury and nature of worD.
SSS: /# 4;#i-ti6 / #i2d: B " 3it C*!i?4 (2001)

(( In )*10# Juan .ired Pa(lo to drive for t.e formerPs lum(er com,any. In )*20# Pa(lo got sicD and was tem,orarily laid-off. In )*2/# Pa(lo recovered and resumed worDing for t.e same lum(er com,any# now run (y JuanPs wife since Juan .ad already ,assed away. In )**1# Pa(lo retired. @.en Pa(lo a,,lied for retirement (enefits wit. t.e SSS t.at same year# .e discovered t.at t.e lum(er com,any never enrolled .im as an em,loyee# muc. less remitted .is contri(utions t.at were deducted from .is salary. <.e lum(er com,any agreed to ,ay for Pa(loPs contri(utions ,lus ,enalties (ut maintained t.at most of Pa(loPs claims .ad already ,rescri(ed under Art# ))40 of t.e Civil Code. (Art. ))40 ,rovides C<.e time for ,rescri,tion of all Dinds of actions# w.en t.ere is no s,ecial ,rovision w.ic. ordains ot.erwise# s.all (e counted from t.e day t.ey may (e (roug.t.C . Is t.e Lum(er com,anyPs contention correctK @.yK (3M #
SSS: GSIS: ()#i4di;ti2": B " 3it C*!i?4 (199,) Is it necessary for an em,loyee to litigate in order to esta(lis. and enforce .is rig.t to com,ensationK &x,lain. SUGGESTE7 ANSWER' 'o. All t.at an em,loyee does to claim em,loyeePs com,ensation is to file a claim for said (enefits wit. t.e SSS (for t.ose in t.e ,rivate sector or %SIS (for t.ose in t.e ,u(lic sector .
SUGGESTE7 ANSWER'
Page
)% of 108
<.e lum(er com,anyPs contention is not correct. <.e Social Security Law (in Sec. //(( ,rovides t.at t.e rig.t to institute t.e necessary action against an em,loyer may (e commenced wit.in twenty (/0 years from t.e time t.e delinEuency is Dnown or t.e assessment is made (y t.e SSS# or from t.e time t.e (enefit accrues# as t.e case may (e.
SSS:GSIS: E?-*2& 4 C2?- "4!ti2" A;t (199.) State t.e res,ective coverages of VaT t.e Social Security Law5 (( t.e !evised government Service Insurance Act and (c t.e &m,loyees Com,ensation Act. SUGGESTE7 ANSWER' (a C26 #!$ 23 SSS (Sec. *. !A +/+/ s.all (e com,ulsory u,on all em,loyees not over sixty years of age and t.eir em,loyers. ?ili,inos recruited in t.e P.ili,,ines (y foreign(ased em,loyers for em,loyment a(road may (e covered (y t.e SSS on a voluntary (asis. Coverage in t.e SSS s.all also (e com,ulsory u,on all self-em,loyed ,ersons earning P)#+00 or more ,er annum.
(( M ?% #4<i- i" t< G26 #"? "t S #6i; I"4)#!"; S&4t ? (Art. 3# !A+/*) s.all (e com,ulsory for all ,ermanent em,loyees (elow 10 years of age u,on a,,ointment to ,ermanent status# and for all elective officials for t.e duration of t.eir tenure. Any ,erson# w.et.er elected or a,,ointed# in t.e service of an em,loyer is a covered em,loyee if .e receives com,ensation for suc. service. (c C26 #!$ i" t< St!t I"4)#!"; 1)"d (Art# )1+# La(or Code s.all (e com,ulsory u,on all em,loyers and t.eir em,loyees not over sixty (10 years of age- Provided# t.at an em,loyee w.o is over (10 years of age and ,aying contri(utions to Eualify for t.e retirement or life insurance (enefit administered (y t.e System s.all (e su(:ect to com,ulsory coverage. <.e &m,loyees Com,ensation Commission s.all ensure adeEuate coverage of ?ili,ino em,loyees em,loyed a(road# su(:ect to regulations as it may ,rescri(e. (Art# )20T
Any ,erson com,ulsorily covered (y t.e %SIS including t.e mem(ers of t.e Armed ?orces of t.e P.ili,,ines# and any ,erson em,loyed as casual# emergency# tem,orary# su(stitute or contractual# or any ,erson com,ulsorily covered (y t.e SSS are covered (y t.e &m,loyees Com,ensation Program.
Samson Security Agency LSA8S9' undertooD to ,rovide /6 .ours security service to Jarillo !ealty (JA!ILL9 in t.e latterPs construction o,erations. <.e contract (etween SA8S9' and JA!ILL9 ex,ressly sti,ulated t.at SamsonPs security guards are its em,loyees and not t.at of JA!ILL9. SA8S9' undertooD to .old JA!ILL9 free from any lia(ility w.atsoever resulting from in:uries w.ic. its (SA8S9'Ps guards may suffer or (e ex,osed to suffer as guards of JA!ILL9Ps construction o,erations. <o facilitate ,ayment. JA!ILL9 undertooD to ,ay directly to t.e guards t.e agreed wages# w.ic. are su(seEuently deducted from t.e mont.ly ,ayments to SA8S9' under its contract wit. JA!ILL9. JA!ILL9# in turn# c.arges SA8S9' for t.e eEui,ment su,,lied to t.e guards suc. as uniforms# ,istols and ammunition and cost of training of guards JA!ILL9 wants re,laced.
;uring a storm# several scaffoldings of JA!ILL9 fell and Dilled two (/ guards w.ose families later sued JA!ILL9. JA!ILL9# in turn# im,leaded SA8S9' as t.ird-,arty defendant (efore t.e Ar(iter. ;ecide w.o s.ould (e .eld lia(le. SUGGESTE7 ANSWER' Lia(ility lies against t.e State Insurance ?und administered (y t.e SSS. <.is is a case of deat. in connection wit. t.e em,loyeesP worD. Jarillo is deemed to (e t.e em,loyer of t.e guards in view of t.e direct ,ayment of wages to t.e guards. <.us# if t.ere are (enefits arising from em,loyer-em,loyee relations.i,# Jarillo s.ould (e .eld answera(le.
NOTE< The aw in(o (ed* na"e $ the aw on e"& o$ees !o"&ensation and +tate Ins'ran!e H'nd was e)&ress $ e)! 'ded fro" this $ears %ar e)a"ination in @a%or and +o!ia @egis ation#
St!t I"4)#!"; 1)"d (199,) @.at is t.e extent of an em,loyerPs intervention in t.e com,ensation ,rocess and t.e ,ayment of (enefits to em,loyees under t.e State Insurance ?undK &x,lain. SUGGESTE7 ANSWER'
<.e new law esta(lis.es a State Insurance ?und (uilt u, (y t.e contri(utions of em,loyers (ased on t.e salaries of t.eir em,loyees. <.e em,loyer does not intervene in t.e com,ensation ,rocess and it .as no control over t.e ,ayment of (enefits.
UnliDe under t.e em,loyers are no income and medical (e ,aid to covered @orDmenPs Com,ensation Act# longer directly lia(le for t.e and related (enefits t.at are to em,loyees if t.ey s.ould suffer
St!t I"4)#!"; 1)"d (1994)
from worD connected in:ury or sicDness or deat..
<.e ,ayment of em,loyees com,ensation is
Page
)& of 108
now from t.e State Insurance ?und w.ic. is constituted from t.e contri(utions collected from em,loyers.
St#!& Q) 4ti2"4
St#!& /#2%* ?: /2*iti;!* L!8: /28 # 23 t< /# 4id "t: 1TAA (2006)
Armstrong Cor,oration# a foreign cor,oration# intends to engage in t.e ex,loration of P.ili,,ine natural resources. 8r. Antonio !eyes offered t.e forest land .e owns to t.e ,resident of t.e cor,oration. 8ay Armstrong Cor,oration enter into a financial and tec.nical assistance agreement
(?<AA wit. 8r. !eyes to ex,lore# develo,# and utiliGe t.e landK &x,lain. (4M SUGGESTE7 ANSWER' NO. 9nly t.e President may enter into financial and tec.nical assistance agreements for large- scale ex,loration develo,ment and utiliGation of natural resources (Art. OII# Sec. /# )*+2 Consti- tution . 8oreover# forest lands are inaliena(le lands of t.e state (La $ugal R $Plaran <ri(al Association# Inc. v. !amos# %.!. 'o. )/2++/# ;ecem(er )# /006 . N#B# This a&&ears to %e a &ro&er G'estion for Po iti!a @aw#
Page )' of 108

Print - Siliman Labor Qnaw

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

Print - Siliman Labor Qnaw

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

LABOR LAW Bar Q & A (as arranged by Topics) 1994-2006

ANSWERS TO BAR EXAMINATION QUESTIONS

Atty. Janette Laggui-Icao and Atty. Alex Andrew P. Icao

!omualdo L. Se"eris II# LL$.

From the ANSWERS TO BAR EXAMINATION QUESTIONS in POLITICAL LAW by the

LABOR LAW Bar Q & A (as arranged by Topics) 1994-2006

Page " of 108

LABOR LAW Bar Q & A (as arranged by Topics) 1994-2006

T!%* 23 C2"t "t4

LABOR LAW Bar Q & A (as arranged by Topics) 1994-2006

LABOR LAW Bar Q & A (as arranged by Topics) 1994-2006

LABOR LAW Bar Q & A (as arranged by Topics) 1994-2006

LABOR LAW Bar Q & A (as arranged by Topics) 1994-2006

LABOR LAW Bar Q & A (as arranged by Topics) 1994-2006

83 84 84 85 85 88 88 88 86 86 86 60 60 60 61 61 60 61 61 62 62 63 63 63 63 64 64 65 65 68 68 66 66 100 100 101 101 101

LABOR LAW Bar Q & A (as arranged by Topics) 1994-2006

LABOR LAW Bar Q & A (as arranged by Topics) 19942006

of la(or to its of ,roduction enter,rises to investments# and

I"t #-# t!ti2" 23 L!%2# L!84 (1995)

I"t #-# t!ti2" 23 L!%2# L!84: Li% #!* A--#2!;< (2006)

LABOR LAW Bar Q & A (as arranged by Topics) 19942006

LA$9! !&LA<I9'S law focuses its ,rovisions on

,rovides t.at Call dou(ts in t.e im,lementation and

.ave more in law (PAL v. Santos# %.!. 'o. 22+24#

L!%2# L $i4*!ti2"4: /)#-24 (2006)

or for t.e com,utation of a .ig.er overtime ,ay or

L!%2# St!"d!#d 64= L!%2# R *!ti2" (199.)

,rescri(es terms and conditions of em,loyment

(argaining# unfair la(or ,ractices# striDes# locDouts

LA$9! S<A';A!;S are t.ose la(or statutes t.at

S9CIAL S&CU!I<I Laws are t.ose la(or statutes

to mem(ers of .is family in case of loss of income

LABOR LAW Bar Q & A (as arranged by Topics) 19942006

State Insurance ?und# and t.e 'ational Fealt.

L!%2# St!t)t 4: /#i";i-* 23 S2*)ti2 I"d %iti:

Conce,cion <extile Co. included t.e overtime ,ay#

Fis em,loyment is not merely a contractual

decision of t.e Su,reme Court in t.e case of San

over,ayment of its em,loyeesP )3t.-mont. ,ay# (y

de,rivation of .is :o( (P.ili,s Semi Conductors

Ri$<t4 23 E?-*2& #@E?-*2&

@.at are t.e rig.ts of an em,loyer and an

<.e Constitution in Art. OIII# Section 3 ,rovides for

<.e Com,anyPs action would (e tena(le if

,ayment was done (y mistaDe# In w.ic. case

recovery can (e done under t.e ,rinci,le of solutio

!ig.t to self organiGation# collective (argaining

would violate Article )00 of t.e La(or Code w.ic.

activities# including t.e rig.t to striDe in

,rocesses affecting t.eir rig.ts and (enefits as

SUGGESTE7 ANSWER' LA$9! L&%ISLA<I9' is sometimes distinguis.ed

la(or statutes# liDe La(or !elations Law and La(or

t.e em,loyment. 9n t.e ot.er .and# it is t.e rig.t

,rotection# (ut also t.ose t.at .el, t.e worDer

a An exclusive sc.ool for girls# run (y a religious

les(ians. Is t.e ,olicy violative of any ,rovision of

mem(ers on account of ,regnancy out of wedlocD.

LABOR LAW Bar Q & A (as arranged by Topics) 19942006

management function. Considering t.e nature and

suc. ,olicy as will advance its lauda(le o(:ectives.

reasons of its own w.ic. reason does not DnowC# a

P.ili,,ines v. 'L!C# %.!. 'o. )0020)# 8arc. /+#

()**0 N. SUGGESTE7 ANSWER' ( 'o# (ecause to tolerate ,regnancy out of

Ri$<t4 23 E?-2& #@E?-2&

Secretary of La(or# )1 8arc. )+ . ANOT0ER SUGGESTE7 ANSWER'

.&scayo# %.!. 'os# +//))-)/# 8arc. /). )+