Professional Documents
Culture Documents
BAR EXAMINATIONS
IN
LABOR LAW
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
and that their consent was ifreely given without any threat, violence,
the dialect known to the employees. There should be two (2) witnesses to the
execution of the quitclaim who must also sign the quitclaim. The document
attache in a foreign country. Such official shall assist the parties regarding the
1
II
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
Yes, Gregorio is Guaranteed's employee. The fact that Gregorio was
made to agree to a Code of Conduct and was supervised by a Unit Manager are
mentioned in the Makati Haberdashery case. Furthermore, the fact that he was
given a quota and can be terminated if he does not meet it all the more
v. NLRC Kasei Corporation G.R. No. 170087, August 31, 2006, the court added
lationship.
another element to ascertain employer-employee re This is whether
he alleged employer for
or not the worker is dependent on t his continued
s the economic dependence
employment. This was dubbed a test. The fact that
regorio if he does not meet
Guaranteed can terminate G
the quota of 20 insurance policies a month, means that the latter is
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
can be said to be doing a task which is necessary and desirable to the usual
business of Guaranteed. Article 295 of the Labor code provides that "(T)he
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
Yes. Article 219 (m) of the Labor Code defines a Managerial
employee as one who is vested with the powers or prerogatives to lay down and
Manager, the means and methods of accomplishing his goal come under the
3
III
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes. Pursuant to Article 128 (b) of the Labor Code, the DOLE may do
with the visitorial and enforcement power itself. Indeed, such determination is
Bombo Radyo Phils., Inc. v. Secretary of Labor, G.R. No. 179652, May 8, 2009).
ionship,
[b] If the DOLE finds that there is an employee-employer relat does
er considering that the
the case fall under the jurisdiction of the Labor Arbit claim of
Inggo is more than P5,000.00. Explain. (2.5%)
4
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No. As held in the case of Meteoro v. Creative Creatures, Inc., G.R. No.
171275, July 13, 2009, the visitorial and enforcement powers of the
IV
Hagibis Motors Corporation (Hagibis) has 500 regular employees in its car
assembly plant. Due to the Asian financial crisis, Hagibis experienced very low car
sales resulting to huge financial losses. It implemented several cost-
cutting measures such as cost reduction on use of office supplies, employment
hiring freeze, prohibition on representation and travel expenses, separation o f
casuals and reduced work week. As counsel of Hagibis, what are the measures the
company should undertake to implement a valid retrenchment? Explain.
(5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
complied with: (a) the retrenchment is necessary to prevent losses and such
losses are proven; (b) written notice to the employees and to the DOLE at
5
and is likely to be effective in preventing the expected losses x x x lastly; x x x
alleged losses if already realized, and the expected imminent losses sought to
be forestalled, must be proved by sufficient and convincing
evidence (Manatad v. Philippine Telegraph and Telephone Corporation,
G.R. No. 172363, March 7, 2008).
Hagibis should exercise its prerogative to retrench employees in good
faith. It must be for the advancement of its interest and not to defeat or
fitness, age, and financial hardship for certain workers in ascertaining who
The next day, waiters who are members of the Union came out of the
Union office sporting closely cropped hair or cleanly shaven heads. The next day, all
the male Union members came to work sporting the same hair style. The Hotel
prevented these workers from entering the premises, claiming that they violated
the company rule on Grooming Standards.
On January 16, 2015, the Union subsequently staged a picket outside the
Hotel premises and prevented other workers from entering the Hotel. The Union
members blocked the ingress and egress of customers and employees to the
Hotel premises, which caused the Hotel severe lack of manpower and forced the
Hotel to temporarily cease operations resulting to substantial losses.
6
Hotel committed an unfair labor practice (ULP) and a breach of the freedom of
speech.
[a] Was the picketi$ legal? Was the mass action of the Union officials and
members an illegal strike? Explain. (2.5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Chapter v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 163942 November 11 2008, the Supreme
Court ruled that the act of the Union was not merely an expression of
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
action was not an illegal strike. It was the Hotel administration which
7
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The Hotel is not guilty of ULP. The act of the hotel in suspending and
eventually dismissing the union officers who concertedly antagonized and
embarrassed the hotel management and, in doing so, effectively disrupted the
operations of the hotel, is an act of self-preservation. The law in
protecting the rights of the laborer authorizes neither oppression nor self-
destruction of the employer. The right of the employer to dismiss its erring
employees is a measure of self protection (Filipro v. NLRC, G.R. No. 70546,
October 16, 1966). The power to dismiss an employee is a recognized
prerogative that is inherent in the employee's right to freely manage and
regulate its business (Philippine Singapore Transport Service v. NLRC, G.R. No.
95449 [19971).
shaving their heads caused substantial losses to the hotel caused by the cessation
of its operations. The Supreme Court in one case held that the union's
hotel and was, therefore, not a protected action. The physical appearance
of the hotel employees directly reflect the character and well-being of the
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
Yes. The Hotel is guilty of Unfair Labor Practice under Art. 259 of the
Labor Code, specifically Art. 259 (1) To interfere with, restrain or coerce
he act
employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization. T of the
rk premises
Hotel in preventing the employees from entering the wo constitutes
8
VI
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The twin notice and hearing rule requires a directive that the
Transport, Inc. v. Santiago 0. Mamac, G.R. No. 166208, June 29, 2007). The
grounds for terminating an employee, again as explained in the Kings case,
must be a detailed narration of the facts and circumstances that will serve as
basis for the charge against him. Further, it should mention specifically
which company rule or provision of the Labor Code was violated. The
from the day the employee received the NTE. As to the hearing, in Perez v.
Philipjine Telegraph Company, 584 SCRA 110 120091, the Supreme Court
enunciated the rule that a hearing is only necessary if it was asked or
must be done by the employer where the employee must be afforded the
opportunity to adduce evidence and present witnesses in his behalf. Then the
employer must inform the employee in writing of its decision stating the
nt of
facts, the analysis of the evidence and stateme witnesses and the law or
the prior
[b] Did the Biyahe sa Langit Transport comply with
procedural requirements for dismissal? (2.5%)
9
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No. The notice given by Biyahe sa Langit Transport did not give
Pedro a minimum period lof five (5) days to submit a written explanation. He
was given only 48 hours to submit the same. The fact that he met the
deadline did not cure the lapse committed by Biyahe sa Langit Transport.
There being a violation, of procedural due process, Biyahesa Langit
Transport becomes liable for nominal damages even, assuming that there was
a valid ground for dismissal.
VII
Forbes Country Club (Club) owns a golf course and has 250 rank-and-file
employees who are members of the Forbes Country Club Union (Union). The
Club has a CBA with the Union and one of the stipulations is a Union Security
Clause, which reads: "All regular rank-and-file employees who are members of the
union shall keep their membership in good standing as a condition for their
continued employment during the lifetime of this agreement."
Peter, Paul and Mary were the Treasurer, Assistant Treasurer, and Budget
Officer of the Union, respectively. They were expelled by the Board of Directors of
the Union for malversation. The Union then demanded that the Club dismiss said
officials pursuant to the Union Security Clause that required maintenance of union
membership. The Club required the three officials to show cause in writing
why they should not be dismissed. Later, the Club called the three Union officials for
a conference regarding the charges against them. After considering the evidence
submitted by the parties and their written explanations, the Club dismissed the
erring officials. The dismissed officials sued the Club and the Union for illegal
dismissal because there was really no malversation based on the documents
presented and their dismissal from the Union was due to the fact that they were
organizing another union.
[a] Is the dismissal of Peter, Paul and Mary by the Club valid? (2.5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
10
Association v. Brillarts, G.R. no. 123782, September 16, 1997). In
expelled from the union. The Club then afforded them due process by ordering
them to show cause in writing why they should not be dismissed. Thereafter, a
conference was held in their behalf. Having complied with all the requirements
mentioned, itj can be said that the dismissal of Peter, Paul and Mary was made
validly.
[b] If the expulsion by the Union was found by the Labor Arbiter to be
baseless, is the Club liable to Peter, Paul and Mary? Explain. (2.5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes, the Club can be held , liable to Peter, Paul and Mary. Even if the
elements under (a) and (b), as mentioned above, are present, it behooves upon
the Club to ascertain in good faith the sufficiency of evidence that supports
the decision of expelling them from the union. The Club should have been
circumspect in the 1 sense that it should have determined the veracity of the
union's claim that Peter, Paul and Mary were indeed guilty of malversation.
accountable for it. Just as the Court has stricken down unjust exploitation of
by their own unworthy leaders. The Constitution enjoins the state to afford
11
VIII
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Learnership and apprenticeship are similar because they both mean
training periods for jobs requiring skills that can be acquired through
actual work experience. And because both a learner and an apprentice are
not as fully productive as regular workers, the learner and the apprentice
may be paid wages twenty-five percent lower than the applicable legal
minimum wage.
apprenticeship.
technical jobs.
IX
12
Each of the terminated employees executed a Quitclaim and Release
before Labor Arbiter Nocomora, to whom the case was assigned. After the
erstwhile employees received their separation pay, the Labor Arbiter declared the
labor dispute dismissed with prejudice on the ground of settlement.
Thereafter, Zienna sold all of its assets to Zandra Company (Zandra), which in turn
hired its own employees.
Nelle, one of the fifty (50) terminated employees, filed a case for illegal
dismissal against Zienna. She argued that Zienna did not cease from operating
since the corporation subsists as Zandra. Nelle pointed out that aside from the two
companies having essentially the same equipment, the managers and owners of
Zandra and Zienna are likewise one and the same.
For its part, Zienna countered that Nelle is barred from filing a complaint for
illegal dismissal against the corporation in view of her prior acceptance of
separation pay.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No. In SME Bank, Inc. v. De Guzman (G.R. No. 184517 and 186641,
October 8, 2013), there are two (2) types of corporate acquisitions: asset
sales and stock sales. In asset sales, the corporate entity sells all or
substantially all of its assets to another entity. In stock sales, the individual or
corporate shareholders sell a controlling block of stock to new or existing
dismiss its employees, but must pay separation pay. The buyer Zandra, is not
obliged to absorb the employees affected by the sale, nor is it liable for the
payment of their claims. The most that Zandra may do, for reasons of public
personnel of Zienna.
X
ion
Lazaro, an engineer, organized a union in Garantisado Construct
ediately filed a
Corporation (Garantisado) which has 200 employees. He imm
he signatures of 70
Petition for Certification Election, attaching thereto t
on, alleging that 25
employees. Garantisado vehemently opposed the petiti
visors. It submitted the
signatories are probationary employees, while 5 are super
n of the
contracts of the 25 probati9nary employees and the job descriptio
70, it gives a balance of 40
supervisors. It argued that if 30 is deducted from
13
valid signatures which is way below the minimum number of 50 signatories
needed to meet the alleged 25% requirement. If you are the Director of Labor
Relations, will you approve the holding of a Certification Election. Explain your
answer. (5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
70 signatories who signed means that it should be allowed. Note that out of the
labor organizations but they are not eligible for membership in a Labor
organization of the rank-and-file. Thus, they are the only ones, that should be
unit. Moreover the eligibility of probationary employees does not turn on the
proportion of such employee who, willingly or not, fails to continue to work for
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
credence.
has to file the
The only exception to this rule is where the employer
cle 270 of the Labor Code
petition for certification election pursuant to Arti
ectively; such exception does not
because it was requested to bargain coll apply
in this case.
14
XI
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
latter's daily time card is loth a wrongful conduct, grave in character and not
merely trivial or unimportant. The subject act involves dishonesty, and the
same portrays Dion's moral obliquity to make it appear that Mac was
working when actually he is not. The fact that he has rendered 20 years of
should be well-aware that Mac must personally punch his daily time card.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
No. Applying both 1he Proportionality Rule and the 1st offense rule,
dismissal was too harsh a consequence for the actions of Dion. Absent a
against him.
XII
Amaya was employed as a staff nurse by St. Francis Hospital (SFH) on July
8, 2014 on a probationary status for six (6) months. Her probationary contract
required, among others, strict compliance with SFH's Code of Discipline.
On October 16, 2014, Dr. Ligaya,, filed a Complaint with the SFH Board of
Trustees against Amaya for uttering slanderous remarks against the former.
tient, who
Attached to the complaint was a letter of Minda, mother of a pa
confirmed the following remarks against Dr. Ligaya:
15
The SFH President asks you, being the hospital's counsel, which of these two
(2) options is the legal and proper way of terminating Amaya: a) terminate her for
a just cause under Article 288 of the Labor Code (Termination by
Employer); or b) terminate her for violating her probationary contract. Explain.
(5%)
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
I will advise the President of SFH to terminate Amaya for violating her
probationary contract. Part and parcel of the standards of her
employment is to strictly follow the Code of Conduct of SFH. The act of
defaming Dr. Ligaya is certainly a misdemeanor that is usually not
acceptable in any work environment. With such attitude Amaya displayed, she
cannot pass the company standard of SFH.
I will not suggest the dismissal of Amaya under Article 297. Though she
displayed misconduct, the same is not work-related, as spreading a rumor
against a Doctor does not go into the duties and responsibilities of a staff nurse.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
I will advise the President of SFH to terminate Amaya for a just cause
under Art. 297 of the Labor Code in relation to Art. 296. The Labor Code
standards made known by the employer to the employee at the time of his
engagement. An employee who is allowed to work after a probationary
The law does not preclude the employer from term inating the
that the probationary
probationary employment, if the employer finds
16
employee is not qualified for regular employment. As long as the
termination was made for reasons provided under Article 296 of the Labor
Code before the expiration of the six-month probationary period, the
employer is well within its rights to sever the employer-employee
relationship (Pasamba v. NLRC, G.R. No. 168421, 8 June 2007).
XIII
Matibay Shoe and Repair Store, as added service to its customers, devoted a
portion of its store to a shoe shine stand. The shoe shine boys were tested for their
skill before being allowed to work and given ID cards. They were told to be present
from the opening of the store up to closing time and were required to follow the
company rules on cleanliness and decorum. They bought their own shoe shine
boxes, polish, and rags. The boys were paid by their customers for their services
but the payment is coursed through the store's cashier, who pays them before
closing time. They were not supervised in their work by any managerial
employee of the store but for a valid complaint by a customer or for violation of any
company rule, they can be refused admission to the store. Were the boys employees
of the store? Explain. (5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes. The elements to determine the existence of an employment
relationship are: (a) the selection and engagement of the employee; (b) the
The first element is present, as Matibay Shoe allowed shoe shine boys in its
shoe shine stand to render services that are desirable in the line of business
of Matibay Shoe. In issuing ID's to the shoe shine boys, the same signifies that
they can represent themselves as part of the work force of Matibay Shoe.
17
anywhere else but inside the store of Matibay Shoe, hence, their means and
methods of accomplishing the desired services for the customers of Matibay Shoe
was controlled by it.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
The first element is absent. The mere issuance of an ID to the boys is not
conclusive of the power of selection of Matibay Shoe. They may be given IDs
Furthermore, using the control test, the boys have exclusive power
over the means and method by which the shoe shining activity is to be
conducted.
XIV
Tess filed a complaint for illegal dismissal. The company's defense: she
was legally dismissed because of her numerous absences without leave and not
because of her pregnancy. On the other hand, Tess argues that her dismissal was an
act of discrimination, based as it was on her pregnancy which the company treated
Tess'?
as a disease. Whose position is meritorious-the company's or Explain.
(5%)
18
SUGGESTED ANSWER'
The position of Tess is meritorious because the dismissal was based on the
alleged failure of Tess to file a leave of absence. She filed the said leave but was
denied by Mariit Clothing Factory. Under the present law, a pregnant
worker is entitled to go on maternity leave. She asked for leave of absence only
to be denied and yet she was terminated for absence without leave. This is an
act that flagrantly violates Tess' right which translates to discrimination.
However, I do not agree with Tess' contention that her pregnancy was
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
The position of Tess is meritorious. Art. 133 (2) of the Labor Code
XV
After five (5) months of the lease and payment of the rentals, Nick
as
became delinquent in the payment of the rentals for two (2) months. Jim,
tract and
authorized by the contract, sent a letter of demand rescinding the con
the NLRC
asked for the arrearages. Nick responded by filing a complaint with
19
for illegal dismissal, claiming that the contract is illegal and he was just forced by
Jim to sign it so he can drive. He claims he is really a driver of Jim on a
boundary system and the reason he was removed is because he failed to pay the
complete daily boundary of one thousand (P1,000.00) for 2 months due to the
increase in the number of tricycles.
[a] Jim files a motion to dismiss the NLRC case on the ground that the
regular court has jurisdiction since the agreement is a lease contract. Rule on the
motion and explain. (2.5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Jim's Motion to Dismiss must be denied. Although Jim and Nick
The fact that the drivers do not receive fixed wages but get only that in
excess of the so-called boundary they pay to the owner/operator does not
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes. For failing to remit five (5) months worth of boundary, Nick
Fermin, G.R. No. 193676 and Fermin v. Cosmos Bottling Corporation, (G.R. No.
194303, 20 June 2012), it was ruled that theft committed against a co-
employee is considered as a case analogous to serious misconduct, for which the
the erring
penalty of dismissal from service may be meted out to employee.
XVI
20
as unpaid service incentive leave pay; 5) P50,000.00 as moral damages; and 6)
P10,000.00 as exemplary damages. Attorney's fees of ten percent (10%) of all the
amounts covered by items 1 to 6 inclusive, plus interests of 6% per annum from the
date the same were unlawfully withheld, were also awarded.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
compensation paid to a lawyer by his client for the legal services he has
rendered to the latter. The basis of this compensation is the fact of his
these may be awarded are those enumerated in Article 2208 of the Civil
wages, and is payable not to the lawyer but to the client, unless they have
fees is the one contemplated in Article 111 of the Labor Code, which
provides:
the awarding of attorneys fees. Although an express finding of facts and law is
be any
still necessary to prove the merit of the award, there need not showing
n bad faith when it
that the employer acted maliciously or i withheld the
ing that the lawful wages
wages. There need only be a show were not paid
21
In carrying out and interpreting the Labor Code's provisions and its
and substance to the liberal and compassionate spirit of the law as provided in
Article 4 of the Labor Code which states that all doubts in the
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
It is now well-settled that generally, legal interest may be imposed
discretionary upon the courts (Conrado A. Lim v. HMR Philippines G.R. No.
189871, August 13, 2013). Legal interest was imposed on all the monetary
awards by the SC in the case of Bani Rural Bank v. De Guzman (G.R. No. 170904
November 13, 2013). The Court therein declared that imposition of legal
interest in any final and executory judgment does not violate the
immutability principle. The court ruled that once a decision in a labor case
becomes final, it becomes a judgment for money from which another
XVII
on Dencio's
Baldo, a farm worker on pakyaw basis, had been working land
a, and clearing weeds
by harvesting abaca and coconut, processing copr from year
to year starting January 1993 up to his death in 2007. He worked continuously in
the sense that it was done for more than one harvesting season.
22
[a] Was Dencio required to report Baldo for compulsory social security
coverage under the SSS law? Explain. (2.5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWERS:
[b] What are the liabilities of the employer who fails to report his
employee for social security coverage? Explain. (2.5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The employer is subject to the following liabilities: It shall pay to the SSS
damages equivalent to the benefit which the employee would have been entitled
had his name been reported on time to the SSS, except that in case of pension
benefits, the employer shall be liable to pay the SSS damages equivalent to
five years monthly pension; however, if the contingency occurs within thirty
(30) days from date of employment, the employer shall be relieved of his liability
for damages (Sec. 24 (a), R.A. 1161, as amended). It shall pay the corresponding
amended).
XVIII
ion
Empire Brands (Empire) contracted the services of Style Corporat
hing line. Under the contract,
(Style) for the marketing and promotion of its clot
dising Representatives (TMRs)
Style provided Empire with Trade Merchan
04 and ended on June 6, 2007, when
whose services began on September 15, 20
ith Style.
Empire terminated the promotions contract w
23
Empire then entered into an agreement for manpower supply with Wave
Human Resources (Wave). Wave owns its condo office, owns equipment for the use
by the TMRs, and has assets amounting to P1,000,000.00. Wave provided the
supervisors who supervised the TMRs, who, in turn, received orders from the
Marketing Director of Empire. In their agreement, the parties stipulated that Wave
shall be liable for the wages and salaries of its employees or workers, including
benefits, and protection due them, as well as remittance to the proper government
entities of all withholding taxes, Social Security Service, and Philhealth
premiums, in accordance with relevant laws.
When the TMRs' 5-month contracts with Wave were about to expire, they
sought renewal thereof, but were refused. Their contracts with Wave were no
longer renewed as Empire hired another agency. This prompted them to file
complaints for illegal dismissal, regularization, non-payment of service incentive
leave and 13th month pay against Empire and Wave.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:'
Yes. From the time Empire contracted the services of Style, both
FUBU v. BPI, (G.R. No. 174912, July 24, 2013), it was ruled that where any of the
24
clothing line. The second element is present as it is inevitable for Empire to
direct the activities of the TMRs to properly market and promote its
product line. The subsequent contract of Empire with Wave did not affect the
regular employment of the TMRs with Empire as, through the Marketing
Director of Empire, the TMRs were under the control of Empire. Thus, the
five-month employment contract entered into by the TMRs with Wave did not
divest them of their regular employment status with Empire. In addition, such
scheme undermined the security of tenure of the TMRs which is
constitutionally guaranteed, hence, the contract of the TMRs with Wave is void
ad initio.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No. As the TMRs are employees of Empire, Wave did not have the
power of dismissal; thus, even if Wave dismissed the TMRs the same has no
consequence.
XIX
Filmore Corporation was ordered to pay P49 million to its employees by the
Labor Arbiter. It interposed an appeal by filing a Notice of Appeal and paid the
corresponding appeal fee. However, instead of filing the required appeal bond
equivalent to the total amount of the monetary award, Filmore filed a Motion to
Reduce the Appeal Bond to P4,000,000.00 but submitted a surety bond in the
amount of P4.9 million. Filmore cited financial difficulties as
justification for its inability to post the appeal bond in full owing to the
g
shutdown of its operations. It submitted its audited financial statements showin a
e also
loss of P40 million in the previous year. To show its good faith, Filmor filed
its Memorandum of Appeal.
he ground that
The NLRC dismissed the appeal for non-perfection on t
y award is indispensable for
posting of an appeal bond equivalent to the monetar the
f the appeal bond, absent any
perfection of the appeal and the reduction o showing
e, is not warranted. Is the
of meritorious ground to justify the sam dismissal of the
appeal correct? Explain. (5%)
25
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
XX
26
[a] Mario Brothers claims the 3 workers are project employees. It
explains that the agreement is, if the works contract is cancelled due to the fault of
the client, the period of employment is automatically terminated. Is the
contractor correct? Explain. (2.5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No. In GMA Network, Inc v. Pabriga, (G.R. No. 176419, November 27, 2013,
the requirements to qualify an employment as project-based was set as follows:
1) employers claiming that their workers are project employees
should not only prove that the duration and scope of the employment was
specified at the time they were engaged, but also that there was indeed a
project; and
Tristan, Arthur and Jojo are its regular employees. The cancellation of its
[b] Can Axis be made solidarily liable with Mario Brothers to pay the
unpaid wages and 13th month pay o f Tristan, Arthur, and Jojo? Explain. (2 .5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
io Brothers.
Yes, Axis can be made solidarily liable with Mar
ntractors for the wages and
Principals are solidarily liable with their co
rkers.
other money benefits of their contractors' wo
- oOo -
27