I.

A.
NO. Rocket Corporation is not allowed to engage in the recruitment and
placement of workers locally and overseas.
The Labor Code of the Philippines requires that a corporation must have at
least 75% of its authorized capital stock is owned by Filipino citizens in order to be
permitted to engaged in recruitment and placement of workers locally or overseas.
In the present case, Rocket Corporation has only 70% of its authorized capital
stock is owned by Filipinos and 30% of its authorized capital stock is owned by
foreigners. Considering the fact that it did not reach the 75% required Filipino
ownership of its authorized capital stock, it cannot be allowed to engage in
recruitment and placement of workers locally and overseas.
B.
Recruitment of workers becomes an act of economic sabotage when it is an
illegal recruitment committed by a syndicate or in large scale.
Illegal recruitment is deemed committed by a syndicate if carried out by a
group of three or more persons conspiring and/or confederating with one another in
carrying out any unlawful or illegal transaction, enterprise or scheme defined under
the first paragraph hereof. Illegal recruitment is deemed committed in large scale if
committed against three or more persons individually or as a group.

II.
NO. Carding has no cause of action against LKG Garments Inc.
The Labor Code provides that the employer is free to regulate according to
his own discretion and judgment, all aspects of employment, including hiring, work
assignment, working methods, time, place and manner of work.
In the present case, even though the change of schedule adversely affected
Carding none of his rights as an employee was violated considering the fact that it
is in the discretion of the employer to change the time and manner of work if
necessary.

III.
NO. The payment arrangement between Benito and his employees are not
allowed.

The Labor Code provides that the form of payment of wage should be in legal
tender or money even if the employee expressly requested a different object as a
form of payment.
In the case at hand, considering that Benito will pay them with 3 sets of free
clothes of per week is a clear violation of the provision of Labor Code prohibiting
any object other than money as form of payment of wage. Therefore, the
arrangement is not allowed.

IV.
NO. The objection of Katrina is not justified.
Non-diminution rule of benefits does not apply to a benefit whose grant
depends on the existence of a certain conditions, so the benefit is not demandable
if those preconditions are absent. In the case of Philippine Duplicators, Inc. vs NLRC
the court held that if the bonus is paid only if profits are realized or a certain
amount of productivity achieved, it cannot be considered part of the wage.
In the light of the foregoing case, Katrina cannot object to the modification of
bonus scheme considering that productivity-based incentive is a contingent or
conditional benefit which will become part of the wage only if the certain amount of
productivity was achieved. Since the over-all performance was poor FEB has the
right to remove the productivity-based incentive.

V.
YES. Soledads defense is meritorious.
The Labor Code provides that no child below 15 years of age shall be
employed except when he works directly under the sole responsibility of his parents
or guardian and his employment does not in any way interfere with his schooling,
Considering the facts of the case, Soledad did not violate the law that
prohibits work by minor because Soledad is acting as Kikos guardian and the work
he is doing does not interfere in with his schooling. Also the chores were not
hazardous and Soledad did not give Kiko chores regularly but only intermittently as
the need may arise.

VI.
(a)

NO. There is no employer-employee relationship between Nico and Ador.

At the present case, Ador hired Nico to do the job of flower arrangement and
will be paid from the result of his service. It is clear that Ador is a piece rate worker
because he will be paid by the result of his work. The element of control as to the
means and methods by which the work is to be accomplished is not present.
Therefore, there is no employer-employee relationship that exists between Ador and
Nico.
(b)
There is no need for Nico to register with the Social Security System since
there is no employer-employee that exists.
VII.
I would decide in favor Don Don if I was the Labor Arbiter.
In the case of Purefoods Corp. vs NLRC, the petitioners scheme was ruled as
apparently designed to circumvent private respondents and their casual employees
from attaining the status of a regular employee. The Court went on to say that
where from the circumstances apparent that the periods have been imposed to
preclude acquisition of tenurial security by the employee, they should be struck
down or disregarded as contrary to public policy or morals.
In the present case, CALLHELP puts Don Don in a situation where he can
never attain the status of regular employee. While it is true that Don Don was hired
as a contractual employee, the repeated hiring of him for 3 straight contracts of 4
months each resulted to total of one year in service qualified him for attaining the
status of regular employee. The contract entered into by the respondent and
complainant is more of a scheme to evade its liability and obligation under the law.
The illegal dismissal case shall be decided in favor of Don Don.

VIII.
NO. There is no employer-employee relationship between Star Craft and the
100 workers from People Plus.
Employer-employee relationship exists only between the 100 workers from
People Plus and People plus but not with the client company Star Craft considering
the fact that People Plus is a job contractor. There is no employer-employee
relationship that exists between Star Craft and the 100 workers form People Plus.
IX.
If I was Dindins legal counsel I will advise that her employer has the right to
transfer her and give her unsatisfactory evaluation for her refusal of offer of the
transfer and promotion.

Dindins refusal to a valid transfer constitute to willful disobedience of a

lawful order of her employer. In the present case, there is no showing of bad faith on
the part of the employer in effecting the transfer and promotion of Dindin.
Therefore, Dindin was validly terminated from work by reason of her willful
disobedience to her employer.

X.
Yes, the preventive suspension of Karina is valid.
The employer has the prerogative to instill discipline in his employees and to
impose reasonable penalties such as preventive suspension without pay.
At the present case, Karina Santos was charged for verbal abuse. Her
employer has the right to preventively suspend her without pay as a way of
discipline. After the investigation and found out that Karina is not guilty of the
offense charge she is entitled to receive pay during the period of her preventive
suspension.

XI.
Matatag Insurance can terminate Rico on the ground of loss of trust and
confidence.
The employer has the prerogative to isntill discipline in his employees and to
impose penalties including dismissal of the employees on reasonable grounds.
In the case present, Rico was validly terminated by Matatag Insurance on the
ground of loss of trust and confidence. The termination was done after notice and
hearing, there is no need of conviction to justify the termination of Rico. The
presumption of innocence does not apply in this case. The employer and his
business must be protected from employees who have an attitude like Rico.
XII.
a) I will decide the case in favor of the laid-off employees.
There was an unlawful termination of employees. Judging by the facts of the
case, the acquisition of BLANKs business by the BLEACH is designed in bad
faith to terminate workers without valid cause considering that BLANK and
BLEACH are sister companies with identical incorporators.

b) Successor employer doctrine involves a transfer of ownership of the business

to a new employer. Where the change of ownership is in bad faith or is used
to defeat the rights of labor, the successor-employer is deemed to have
absorbed the employees and is held liable for the transgressions of his or her
predecessor.
XIII.
Yes. Luisa can claim maternity benefits under the SSS Act.
Maternity Benefits under the SSS is available to every pregnant woman in the
private sector, whether married or unmarried provided on the following conditions
a) She has paid at least three monthly contributions within the 12-month period
immediately preceding the semester of her childbirth or miscarriage.
b) She has given the required notification of her pregnancy to SSS through her
employer if employed; or submitted the maternity notification directly to the
SSS if separated from employment, a voluntary or self-employed member.
Therefore, Luisa can claim maternity benefits under the SSS.
XIV
NO. GSIS is not correct.
Luis as a PNP officer and member of GSIS, his widow can claim death benefits
under the GSIS. It is not important whether the members death is service related or
not, what the law states is that when a member or pensioner dies, his or her
beneficiaries are entitled to cash and/or pension benefits, subject to the existing
rules and regulations on survivorship and policies on the maximum amount of
survivorship pension.
XV
a) Yes. I agree with Victor.
The employer must compensate an employee to injuries or disease that arise out
and/or in the course of employment.
In the present case , the employee developed tuberculosis in the course of
employment. He complained of it but there was no sufficient medical treatment
given to him only after the cruise when he went home and had himself found out
he has tuberculosis. Tuberculosis is an occupational disease and is compensable.
Therefore, Victor shall be given medical reimbursement, damages, and
attorneys fees

b) Yes. Victor can claim total permanent disability .

An employee is said to have permanent total disability if as a result of sickness
or injury he is unable to perform any gainful occupation for a continuous period
exceeding 120 days.
In the present case, due to Victors illness he was unable to work for more than
120 days which entitles him to claim permanent total disability.
XVI