1.

Narciso filed a complaint against Norte University for the payment of retirement benefits after
having been a part-time professional lecturer in the same school since 1974. Narciso taught
for two semesters and a summer term for the school year 1974-1975, took a leave of absence
from 1975 to 1977, and resumed teaching until 2003. Since then, his contract has been
renewed at the start of every semester and summer, until November 2005 when he was told
that he could no longer teach because he was already 75 years old. Norte University also
denied Narciso's claim for retirement benefits stating that only full-time permanent faculty,
who have served for at least five years immediately preceding the termination of their
employment, can avail themselves of post-employment benefits. As part-time faculty
member, Narciso did not acquire permanent employment status under the Manual of
Regulations for Private Schools, in relation to the Labor Code, regardless of his length of
service.

(a) Is Narciso entitled to retirement benefits? (2.5%)

Yes, Narciso is entitled to retirement benefits. A part-time lecturer, with a fixed-term
employment, who did not attain permanent status, is entitled to retirement pay. This was
ruled by the Supreme Court in De La Salle Araneta University v. Bernardo, G. R. No. 190809,
February 13, 2017 as follows: Republic Act No. 7641 states that "any employee may be
retired upon reaching the retirement age x x x;" and "[i]n case of retirement, the employee
shall be entitled to receive such retirement benefits as he may have earned under existing
laws and any collective bargaining agreement and other agreements." The Implementing
Rules provide that Republic Act No. 7641 applies to "all employees in the private sector,
regardless of their position, designation or status and irrespective of the method by which
their wages are paid, except to those specifically exempted x x x." And Secretary
Quisumbing' s Labor Advisory further clarifies that the employees covered by Republic Act
No. 7641 shall "include part-time employees, employees of service and other job contractors
and domestic helpers or persons in the personal service of another."

(b) If he is entitled to retirement benefits, how should retirement pay be computed in the
absence of any contract between him and Norte University providing for such benefits?
(2.5%)

The retirement will be 22.5 days salary, exclusive of leave conversion benefits. According
to Capitol Wireless, Inc. v. Honorable Secretary Ma. Nieves R. Confessor, G.R. No. 117174,
November 13,1996:
For purposes of computing compulsory sand optional retirement benefits and to align
the current retirement plan with the minimum standards of Art. 287 of the Labor Code, as
amended by R.A. 7641, and Sec. 5 (5.2) of its implementing rules, “1/2 month salary” means
22.5 days salary, exclusive of leave conversion benefits.
 Unless the parties provide for broader inclusions, the term ‘one-half (1/2) month salary’
shall mean fifteen (15) days plus one-twelfth (1/12) of the 13th month pay and the cash
equivalent of not more than five (5) days of service incentive leaves x x x x (italics supplied).

2. Nayon Federation issued a charter certificate creating a rank-and-file Neuman Employees

Union. On the same day, New Neuman Employees Union filed a petition for certification
election with the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) Regional Office, attaching
the appropriate charter certificate.

a) The employer, Neuman Corporation, filed a motion to dismiss the petition for lack of legal
personality on the part of the petitioner union. Should the motion be granted? (2.5%)
The motion should be denied. For purposes of filing a petition for certification election,
New Neuman Employees has legal personality from the time it was issued with a charter
certificate. This clear under the Labor Code, which provides, The chapter shall acquire legal
personality only for purposes of filing a petition for certification election from the date it was
issued a charter certificate. (Article 241 [234-A], As inserted by Section 2, Republic Act No.
9481 which lapsed into law on May 25, 2007 and became effective on June 14, 2007)

b) The employer likewise filed a petition for cancellation of union registration against New
Neuman Employees Union, alleging that Nayon Federation already had a chartered local
rank-and-file union, Neuman Employees Union, pertaining to the same bargaining unit
within the establishment. Should the petition for cancellation prosper? (2.5%)

Under Article 247 of the Labor Code, the following are the relevant grounds for
cancellation of union registration:
(a) Misrepresentation, false statement or fraud in connection with the adoption or
ratification of the constitution and by-laws or amendments thereto, the minutes of
ratification, and the list of members who took part in the ratification;
(b) Misrepresentation, false statements or fraud in connection with the election of
officers, minutes of the election of officers, and the list of voters;
(c) Voluntary dissolution by the members.

Unless the employer can prove that any of the foregoing grounds are present the
petition for cancellation will not prosper.
3. Due to his employer's dire financial situation, Nicanor was prevailed upon by his employer to
voluntarily resign. In exchange, he demanded payment of salary differentials, 13th month
pay, and financial assistance, as promised by his employer. Management promised to pay
him as soon as it is able to pay off all retrenched rank-and-file employees. Five years later,
and before management was able to pay Nicanor the amount promised to him, Nicanor died
of a heart attack. His widow, Norie, filed a money claim against the company before the
National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), including interest on the amount of the unpaid
claim. She also claimed additional damages arguing that the supposed resignation letter was
obtained from her spouse through undue pressure and influence. The employer filed a motion
to dismiss on the ground that (A) the NLRC did not have jurisdiction over money claims, and
(8) the action has prescribed.

(a) Does the NLRC have jurisdiction to award money claims including interest on the amount
unpaid? (2.5%)

Jurisdiction will depend on the amount being claimed by Nicanor’s surviving spouse. If
the amount exceeds Five Thousand Pesos (PhP5,000.00) as provided in Article 224 (a [6]) of
the Labor Code then jurisdiction belongs to the Arbitration Branch of the NLRC. However, if
the amount did not exceed Five Thousand Pesos (PhP5,000.00) and then jurisdiction belongs
to the Regional Director under Article 129 of the Labor Code involving recovery of wages,
simple money claims and other benefits. Either of the said quasi-judicial body can award
interest in the concept of actual and compensatory damages in accordance. The award of
interest in money claim was explained in Limlingan v. Asian Institute Management, Inc., G.R.
No. 220481, February 17, 2016, that the rate of interest in the concept of actual and
compensatory damages as well as its accrual are as follows:

1. When the obligation is breached, and it consists in the payment of a sum of money, i.e., a
loan or forbearance of money, the interest due should be that which may have been stipulated
in writing. Furthermore, the interest due shall itself earn legal interest from the time it is
judicially demanded. In the absence of stipulation, the rate of interest shall be 6% per annum
to be computed from default, i.e., from judicial or extrajudicial demand under and subject to
the provisions of Article 1169 of the Civil Code.

2. When an obligation, not constituting a loan or forbearance of money, is breached, an

interest on the amount of damages awarded may be imposed at the discretion of the court
at the rate of 6% per annum. No interest, however, shall be adjudged on unliquidated claims
or damages, except when or until the demand can be established with reasonable certainty.
Accordingly, where the demand is established with reasonable certainty, the interest shall
begin to run from the time the claim is made judicially or extrajudicially (Art. 1169, Civil Code),
but when such certainty cannot be so reasonably established at the time the demand is made,
the interest shall begin to run only from the date the judgment of the court is made (at which
time the quantification of damages may be deemed to have been reasonably ascertained).
The actual base for the computation of legal interest shall, in any case, be on the amount
finally adjudged.
3. When the judgment of the court awarding a sum of money becomes final and executory,
the rate of legal interest, whether the case falls under paragraph 1 or paragraph 2, above,
shall be 6% per annum from such finality until its satisfaction, this interim period being
deemed to be by then an equivalent to a forbearance of credit.

(b) Assuming that the NLRC has jurisdiction, has the action prescribed? (2.5%)

The action has not prescribed. This is because Nicanor’s surviving spouse’s cause of action
will accrue upon the categorical denial of the claim. In this case, there was demand for its
payment, however, the management had promsied to pay as soon as it is able to pay off all
retrenched rank-and-file employees. However, it is was only after five (5) years that the
management was able to pay. Moreover, there was no denial of the claim. Therefore,
prescription did not set in. In the Degamo v. Avantgarde Shipping Corp., G.R. No. 154460,
November 22, 2005 and Serrano v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 139420, August 15, 2001,
following cases, the Supreme Court explained the accrual of a cause of action under Article
306 [291].

(c) May Nicanor's spouse successfully claim additional damages as a result of the alleged
undue pressure and influence? (2.5%)

Yes, Nicanor’s spouse can successfully claim additional damages as a result of the alleged
undue pressure and influence. This is provided under Article 224 (a [4] of the Labor Code
which provides for claims for actual, moral, exemplary and other forms of damages arising
from employer-employee relationship within the jurisdictional authority of the Arbitration
Branch of the NLRC.

In the alternative, it can be argued that Nicanor’s spouse cannot successfully claim
additional damages because it is the jurisdictional authority of the Arbitration Branch of the
NLRC. The employer-employee relationship is only incidental and the cause of action arises
from other sources like torts and damages. Therefore, jurisdiction belongs to the regular
courts.
4. Natasha Shoe Company adopted an organizational streamlining program that resulted in the
retrenchment of 550 employees in its main plant. After having been paid their separation
benefits, the retrenched workers demanded payment of retirement benefits under a CBA
between their union and management. Natasha Shoe Company denied the workers' demand.

(a) What is the most procedurally peaceful means to resolve this dispute? (2.5%)
Since this is a money claim involving the interpretation and implementation of the CBA,
the retrenched workers can refer the matter to the grievance machinery and if it remained
unresolved within seven (7) days from the date of its submission the same shall be
automatically referred to the voluntary arbitration prescribed in the CBA.

In the alternative it can be argued, that since this is a dispute between the retrenched
workers and the employer the same cannot be a subject matter of grievance and voluntary
arbitration. This is because only disputes between the union and the company as ruled in
Tabique v. International Copra Export Corporation, G. R. No. 183335, December 23, 2009,
shall be referred to grievance machinery or voluntary arbitrators. Thus, the dispute should
be resolved by way of mandatory conciliation-mediation in accordance with Article 234 of
the Labor Code.

(b) Can the workers claim both separation pay and retirement benefits? (2.5%)

Yes, the workers can claim both separation pay and retirement benefits. This was settled
rule in the case of Goodyear v. Marina Angus, G.R. No. 185499, 14 November 2014 where
it was ruled that in the absence of an express or implied prohibition against it, collection
of both retirement benefits and separation pay upon severance from employment is
allowed. This is grounded on the social justice policy that doubts should always be resolved
in favor of labor rights. (Aquino v. National Labor Relations Commission, G.R. No. 87653,
February 11, 1992)

5. Nelda worked as a chambermaid in Hotel Neverland with a basic wage of PhP560.00 for an
eight-hour workday. On Good Friday, she worked for one (1) hour from 10:00 PM to 11 :00
PM. Her employer paid her only PhP480.00 for each 8-hour · "orkday, and PhP70.00 for the
work done on Good Friday. She sued for underpayment of wages and non-payment of holiday
pay and night shift differential pay for working on a Good Friday. Hotel Neverland denied the
alleged underpayment, arguing that based on long-standing unwritten tradition, food and
lodging costs were partially shouldered by the employer and partially paid for by the employee
through salary deduction. According to the employer, such valid deduction caused the
payment of Nelda's wage to be below the prescribed minimum. The hotel also claimed that
she was not entitled to holiday pay and night shift differential pay because hotel workers have
to work on holidays and may be assigned to work at night.
(a) Does the hotel have valid legal grounds to deduct food and lodging ~ costs from Nelda's
basic salary? (2.5%)

As held in Mabeza v. National Labor Relations Commission, G.R. No. 118506, April 18,
1997: Granting that meals and lodging were provided and indeed constituted facilities,
such facilities could not be deducted without the employer complying first with certain
legal requirements. Without satisfying these requirements, the employer simply cannot
deduct the value from the employee’s wages. First, proof must be shown that such
facilities are customarily furnished by the trade. Second, the provision of deductible
facilities must be voluntarily accepted in writing by the employee. Finally, facilities must
be charged at fair and reasonable value. (Labor Code, Art. 97 [f])
Applying the above, unless the hotel can comply with the legal requirements it has no
valid legal grounds to deduct food and lodging costs from Nelda's basis salary.

(b) Applying labor standards law, how much should Nelda be paid for work done on Good
Friday? Show the computation in your test booklet and encircle your final answer. (2.5%)

It can be argued:

The rule in order to be paid regular holiday like two successive holidays provides as follows,
Where there are two (2) successive regular holidays, like Holy Thursday and Good Friday, an
employee may not be paid for both holidays if he absents himself from work on the day
immediately preceding the first holiday, unless he works on the first holiday, in which case
he is entitled to his holiday pay on the second holiday.(Section 10, Rule IV, Book III, Rules
to Implement the Labor Code)

Applying the above rule, unless Nelda had complied with the rules on absences she is not
entitled for her holiday pay for work done on Good Friday.

However, on the assumption that she complied with the rules Nelda should be paid as follows:
P560 x 200%=P1,120.00 or since he only worked for one hour the pay should be as follows:
70 x 200% = P140.00
6. A certification election was conducted in Nation Manufacturing Corporation, whereby 55% of
eligible voters in the bargaining unit cast their votes. The results were as follows:

Union Nana : 45 votes

Union Nada: 40 votes
Union Nara : 30 votes
No Union : 80 votes

Union Nana moved to be declared as the winner of the certification election.

a) Can Union Nana be declared as the winner? (2.5%)

Union Nana cannot be declared as the winner. This is because the said union did not
obtain the majority of the valid votes casts as provided under Article 268 of the Labor Code.

b) Assume that the eligibility of 30 voters was challenged during the pre-election conference.
The ballots of the 30 challenged voters were placed inside an envelope sealed by the DOLE
Election Officer. Considering the said envelope remains sealed, what should be the next
course of action with respect to the said challenged votes? (2.5%)

The procedure in the Challenge of Votes provides as follows:

The ballot of the voter who has been property challenged during the Pre-Election
conferences, shall be placed in an envelope which shall be sealed by the Election Officer in
the presence of the voter and the representatives of the contending unions. The election
Officer shall indicate on the envelope the voter’s name, the union challenging the voter, and
the ground for the challenged.

The sealed envelope shall then be signed by the Election Officer and the
representatives of the contending unions. The Election Officer shall note all challenges in the
minutes of the election proceedings and shall have custody of all envelops containing the
challenged votes. The envelopes shall be opened and the question of eligibility shall be passed
upon by the Mediator-Arbiter only if the number of segregated votes will materially alter the
results of the election. (Section 11, Rule IX, Book V, Rules to Implement the Labor Code, as
amended by Department Order No. 40-F-03, Series of 2008 and renumbered by Department
Order No. 40-I-15, Series of 2015)

Applying the said procedure, if the number of segregated votes will materially alter the
results of the election the next course of action with respect to the said challenged votes is
 to open the said envelopes and the question of eligibility shall be passed upon by the
Mediator-Arbiter.

7. Nico is a medical representative engaged in the promotion of pharmaceutical products and

medical devices for Northern Pharmaceuticals, Inc. He regularly visits physicians' clinics to
inform them of the chemical composition and benefits of his employer's products. At the end
of every day, he receives a basic wage of PhP700.00 plus a PhP150.00 "productivity
allowance." For purposes of computing Nico's 13th month pay, should the daily "productivity
allowance" be included? (2.5%)
For purposes of computing Nico's 13th month pay his daily "productivity allowance"
cannot be included.
In Philippine Spring Water Resources, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 205278, June
11, 2014, clarified as to when a commission forms part of basic salary to be considered in
the computation of 13th month pay. The High Court said: It is well-established in
jurisprudence that the determination of whether or not a commission forms part of the basic
salary depends upon the circumstances or conditions for its payment. In Phil Duplicators,
Inc. v. NLRC, G.R. No. 110068, November 11, 1993, 227 SCRA 747, the Court held that
commissions earned by salesmen form part of their basic salary. The salesmen’s
commissions, comprising a pre-determined percentage of the selling price of the goods sold
by each salesman, were properly included in the term basic salary for purposes of computing
the 13th month pay. The salesmen’s commissions are not overtime payments, nor profit-
sharing payments nor any other fringe benefit, but a portion of the salary structure which
represents an automatic increment to the monetary value initially assigned to each unit of
work rendered by a salesman. On the other hand, in Boie-Takeda Chemicals, Inc. v. De la
Serna, G.R. Nos. 92174 and 102552, December 10, 1993, 228 SCRA 329, the so-called
commissions paid to or received by medical representatives were excluded from the term
basic salary because these were paid to the medical representatives and rank-and-file
employees as productivity bonuses, which were generally tied to the productivity, or capacity
for revenue production, of a corporation and such bonuses closely resemble profit-sharing
payments and had no clear direct or necessary relation to the amount of work actually done
by each individual employee.

Applying the above rule, the productivity allowance cannot be included.

8. Nathaniel has been a salesman assigned by Newmark Enterprises (Newmark) for nearly two
years at the Manila office of Nutrition City, Inc. (Nutrition City). He was deployed pursuant to
a service agreement between Newmark and Nutrition City, the salient provisions of which
were as follows:

a) the Contractor (Newmark) agrees to perform and provide the Client (Nutrition City), on a
non-exclusive basis, such tasks or activities that are considered contractible under existing
laws, as may be needed by the Client from time to time;
b) the Contractor shall employ the necessary personnel like helpers, salesmen, and drivers
who are determined by the Contractor to be efficiently trained;
c) the Client may request replacement of the Contractor's personnel if quality of the desired
result is not achieved;
d) the Contractor's personnel will comply with the Client's policies, rules, and regulations;
and
e) the Contractor's two service vehicles and necessary equipment will be utilized in carrying
out the provisions of this Agreement.
When Newmark fired Nathaniel, he filed an illegal dismissal case against the wealthier
company, Nutrition City, Inc., alleging that he was a regular employee of the same. Is
Nathaniel correct? (2.5%)

Nathaniel is correct in so far as the existence of employer-employee relationship between

him and the principal.

The rules requires that the Service Agreement between the principal and the contractor
shall include the following:

i. The specific description of the job or work being subcontracted, including its term or
duration.

ii. The place of work and terms and conditions governing the contracting arrangement,
to include the agreed amount of the contracted job or work as well as the standard
administrative fee of not less than ten percent (10%) of the total contract cost; and

iii. A provision on the issuance of the bond/s defined under Section 3(a) renewable every
year. (Section 11, D.O. No. 174, Series of 2017)

On the other hand, a finding of violation of 11 shall render the principal the direct
employer of the employees of the contractor or subcontractor, pursuant to Article 109 of
the Labor Code, as amended. (Section 12, D.O. No. 174, Series of 2017)

Applying the above rules, since Newmark and Nutrition City violated the required terms
to be stated in the Service Agreement then Nutrition City is the direct employer of
Nathaniel.

As to whether Nathaniel is a regular employee of Nutrition City, the rules are as follows:
Regular employees are further classified into: (1) regular employees by nature of work;
and (2) regular employees by years of service. (E. Ganzon, Inc. vs. National Labor
Relations Commission, G.R. No. 123769, 22 December 1999, 321 SCRA 434, 440) The
former refers to those employees who perform a particular activity which is necessary or
desirable in the usual business or trade of the employer, regardless of their length of
service; while the latter refers to those employees who have been performing the job,
regardless of the nature thereof, for at least a year. (Pangilinan vs. General Milling
Corporation, G.R. No. 149329, 12 July 2004)
 Tested from the nature of his work and the activity of the principal Nathaniel could be
a regular employee while if it is tested on the length of service then Nathaniel is a regular
employee as he has been employed with the principal for a least a year. In fact he was
employed for nearly two years.

9. Sgt. Nemesis was a detachment non-commissioned officer of the Armed Forces of the
Philippines in Nueva Ecija. He and some other members of his detachment sought permission
from their Company Commander for an overnight pass to Nueva Vizcaya to settle some
important matters. The Company Commander orally approved their request and allowed them
to carry their firearms as the place they were going to was classified as a "critical place." They
arrived at the place past midnight; and as they were alighting from a tricycle, one of his
companions accidentally dropped his rifle, which fired a single shot, and in the process hit
Sgt. Nemesis fatally. The shooting was purely accidental. At the time of his death, he was still
legally married to Nelda, but had been separated de facto from her for 17 years. For the last
15 years of his life, he was living in with Narda, with whom he has two minor children. Since
Narda works as a kasambahay, the two children lived with their grandparents, who provided
their daily support. Sgt. Nemesis and Narda only sent money to them every year to pay for
their school tuition. Nelda and Narda, both for themselves and the latter, also on behalf of
her minor children, separately filed claims for compensation as a result of the death of Sgt.
Nemesis. The Line of Duty Board of the AFP declared Sgt. Nemesis' death to have been "in
line of duty", and recommended that all benefits due to Sgt. Nemesis be given to his
dependents. However, the claims were denied by GSIS because Sgt. Nemesis was not in his
workplace nor performing his duty as a soldier of the Philippine Army when he died.

(a) Are the dependents of Sgt. Nemesis entitled to compensation as a result of his death?
(2.5%)

The death of Sgt. Nemesis is compensable because it is work-connected. However, in

so far as entitlement of the dependents of Sgt. Nemesis for compensation as a result of
his death the dependent spouse cannot claim compensation. The law requires that the
dependent spouse should be a legitimate spouse living with the employee. (Article 173 [i],
Labor Code).
In this case, the legitimate spouse Nelda is not entitled because she is not living with
Sgt. Nemesis while Narda will not qualify as dependent spouses as she is not a legitimate
spouse of Sgt. Nemesis although she is living with the latter. On the other hand, in so far
as the dependent child the law requires that the dependent child be legitimate, legitimated,
legally adopted or xxx, who is unmarried, not gainfully employed, not over 21 years of age
provided he is incapacitated and incapable of self-support due to physical or mental defect
which is congenital or acquired during minority. The two minor children are therefore
qualified as dependent children. Hence, entitled to compensation.
 (b) As between Nelda and Narda, who should be entitled to the benefits? (2.5%)

Nelda and Narda are not entitled to the benefits because they failed to qualify within the
definition (Article 173 [i], Labor Code) of dependent spouse.

(c) Are the minor children entitled to the benefits considering that they were not fully
dependent on Sgt. Nemesis for support? (2.5%)

10. Nonato had been continuously employed and deployed as a seaman who performed services
that were necessary and desirable to the business of N-Train Shipping, through its local agent,
Narita Maritime Services (Agency), in accordance with the 2010 Philippine Overseas
Employment Administration Standard Employment Contract (2010 POEA-SEC). Nonato's last
contract (for five months) expired on November 15, 2016. Nonato was then repatriated due
to a "finished contract." He immediately reported to the Agency and complained that he had
been experiencing dizziness, weakness, and difficulty in breathing. The Agency referred him
to Dr. Neri, who examined, treated, and prescribed him with medications. After a few months
of treatment and consultations, Nonato was declared fit to resume work as a seaman. Nonato
went back to the Agency to ask for re-deployment but the Agency rejected his application.
Nonato filed an illegal dismissal case against the Agency and its principal, with a claim for
total disability benefits based on the ailments that he developed on board N-Train Shipping
vessels. The claim was based on the certification of his own physician, Dr. Nunez, that he
was unfit for sea duties because of his hypertension and diabetes.

a) Was Nonato a regular employee of N-Train Shipping? (2.5%)

Nonato is not a regular employee of N-Train Shipping. The fact that seafarers are not
regular employees is already xa settled rule.

In Petroleum Shipping Limited (formerly Esso International Shipping (Bahamas) Co.,

Ltd.) v. NLRC, G.R. No. 148130, June 16,2006, the Supreme Court said that the issue on
whether seafarers are regular employees is already a settled matter. Thus, the High Court
said:
 It was in Ravago v. Esso Eastern Marine, Ltd., G.R. No. 158324, 14 March 2005, 453
SCRA 381 where the Honorable Supreme Court traced its ruling in a number of cases that
seafarers are contractual, not regular, employees. Thus, in Brent School, Inc. v. Zamora, G.R.
No. 48494, 5 February 1990, 181 SCRA 702 the Supreme Court cited overseas employment
contract as an example of contracts where the concept of regular employment does not apply,
whatever the nature of the engagement and despite the provisions of Article 280 of the Labor
Code. In Coyoca v. NLRC, G.R. No. 113658 March 31, 1995, the Supreme Court held that the
agency is liable for payment of a seaman’s medical and disability benefits in the event that
the principal fails or refuses to pay the benefits or wages due the seaman although the
seaman may not be a regular employee of the agency.

The Supreme Court squarely passed upon the issue in Millares v. NLRC, G.R. No.
110524, July 29, 2002, where one of the issues raised was whether seafarers are regular or
contractual employees whose employment are terminated every time their contracts of
employment expire. The Supreme Court explained:

[I]t is clear that seafarers are considered contractual employees. They cannot be
considered as regular employees under Article 280 of the Labor Code. Their employment is
governed by the contracts they sign everytime they are rehired and their employment is
terminated when the contract expires. Their employment is contractually fixed for a certain
period of time. They fall under the exception of Article 280 whose employment has been fixed
for a specific project or undertaking the completion or termination of which has been
determined at the time of engagement of the employee or where the work or services to be
performed is seasonal in nature and the employment is for the duration of the season. We
need not depart from the rulings of the Court in the two aforementioned cases which indeed
constitute stare decisis with respect to the employment status of seafarers.

b) Can Nonato successfully claim disability benefits against N-Train Shipping and its agent
Narita Maritime Services? (2.5%)

The claim for disability benefits of Nonato against N-Train Shipping and its agent Narita
Maritime Services will not prosper for prematurity.
The Supreme Court laid down the procedures for filing disability benefits and its effect
in case of failure to comply with the procedures in Daraug v. KGJS Fleet Management Manila,
G.R. No. 211211, January 14, 2015. Thus, in denying the claim for disability benefits due to
prematurity the Supreme Court ruled:
Petitioner Did Not Comply With The Procedures
In Vergara v. Hammonia Maritime Services, Inc.31 (Vergara), it was stated that the
Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE), through the POEA, has simplified the
determination of liability for work-related death, illness or injury in the case of Filipino seamen
working on foreign oceangoing vessels. Every seaman and the vessel owner (directly or
represented by a local manning agency) are required to execute the POEA Standard
Employment Contract (POEA-SEC) as a condition sine qua non prior to the deployment of the
seaman for overseas work. The POEA-SEC is supplemented by the Collective Bargaining
Agreement (CBA) between the owner of the vessel and the covered seaman. In this case, the
 parties entered in to a contract of employment in accordance with the POEA-SEC and they
agreed to be bound by the CBA.
Thus, in resolving petitioner’s claim for disability compensation, the Court will be
guided by the procedures laid down in the POEA-SEC and in the CBA. On this point, Section
20(B)(3) of the POEA-SEC provides:
Upon sign-off from the vessel for medical treatment, the seafarer is entitled to sickness
allowance equivalent to his basic wage until he is declared fit to work or the degree of
permanent disability has been assessed by the company-designated physician but in no case
shall this period exceed one hundred twenty (120) days.
For this purpose, the seafarer shall submit himself to a post-employment medical
examination by a company-designated physician within three working days upon his return
except when he is physically incapacitated to so, in which case, a written notice to the agency
within the same period is deemed a compliance. Failure of the seafarer to comply with the
mandatory reporting requirement shall result in his forfeiture of the right to claim the above
benefits.
If a doctor appointed by the seafarer disagrees with the assessment, a third doctor
may be agreed jointly between the Employer and the seafarer. The third doctor’s decision
shall be final and binding on both parties.

11. Your favorite relative, Tita Nilda, approaches you and seeks your advice on her treatment of
her kasambahay, Noray. Tita Nilda shows you a document called a "Contract of Engagement"
for your review. Under the Contract of Engagement, Noray shall be entitled to a rest day
every week, provided that she may be requested to work on a rest day if Tita Nilda should
need her services that day. Tita Nilda also claims that this Contract of Engagement should
embody all terms and conditions of Noray's work as the engagement of a kasambahay is a
private matter and should not be regulated by the State.

a) Is Tita Nilda correct in saying that this is a private matter and should not be regulated by
the State? (2.5%)
 b) Is the stipulation that she may be requested to work on a rest day legal? (2.5%)

c) Are stay-in family drivers included under the Kasambahay Law? (2.5%)

12. Nena worked as an Executive Assistant for Nesting, CEO of Nordic Corporation. One day,
Nesting called Nena into his office and showed her lewd pictures of women in seductive poses
which Nena found offensive. Nena complained before the General Manager who, in turn,
investigated the matter and recommended the dismissal of Nesting to the Board of Directors.
Before the Board of Directors, Nesting argued, that since the Anti-Sexual Harassment Law
requires the existence of "sexual favors," he should not be dismissed from the service since
he did not ask for any sexual favor from Nena. Is Nesting correct? (2.5%)
13. Nicodemus was employed as a computer programmer by Network Corporation, a
telecommunications firm. He has been coming to work in shorts and sneakers, in violation of
the "prescribed uniform policy" based on company rules and regulations. The company human
resources manager wrote him a letter, giving him 10 days to comply with the company
uniform policy. Nicodemus asserted that wearing shorts and sneakers made him more
productive, and cited his above-average output. When he came to work still in violation of
the uniform policy, the company sent him a letter of termination of employment. Nicodemus
filed an illegal dismissal case. The Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of Nicodemus and ordered his
reinstatement with backwages. Network Corporation, however, refused to reinstate him. The
NLRC 1st Division sustained the Labor Arbiter's judgment. Network Corporation still refused
to reinstate Nicodemus. Eventually, the Court of Appeals reversed the decision of the NLRC
and ruled that the dismissal was valid. Despite the reversal, Nicodemus still filed. a motion
for execution with respect to his accrued backwages.

(a) Were there valid legal grounds to dismiss Nicodemus from his employment? (2.5%)

(c) Should Nicodemus' motion for execution be granted? (2.5%)

14. Nelson complained before the DOLE Regional Office about Needy Corporation's failure to pay
his wage increase amounting to PhPS,000.00 as mandated in a Wage Order issued by the
Regional Tripartite Wages and Productivity Board. Consequently, Nelson asked the DOLE to
immediately issue an Order sustaining his money claim. To his surprise, he received a notice
from the DOLE to appear before the Regional Director for purposes of conciliating the dispute
between him and Needy Corporation. When conciliation before the Regional Director failed,
the latter proceeded to direct both parties to submit their respective position papers in relation
to the dispute. Needy Corporation argued, that since Nelson was willing to settle for 75% of
his money claim during conciliation proceedings, only a maximum of 75% of the said money
claim may be awarded to him.

(a) Was DOLE's action to conduct mandatory conciliation in light of Nelson's complaint valid?
(2.5%)

(b) Should the Regional Director sustain Needy Corporation's argument? (2.5%)
15. Nexturn Corporation employed Nini and Nono, whose tasks involved directing and supervising
rank-and-file employees engaged in company operations. Nini and Nono are required to
ensure that such employees obey company rules and regulations, and recommend to the
company's Human Resources Department any required disciplinary action against erring
employees. In Nexturn Corporation, there are two independent unions, representing rank-
and-file and supervisory employees, respectively.

a) May Nini and Nono join a union? (2.5%)

b) May the two unions be affiliated with the same Union Federation? (2.5%)
16. Nagrab Union and Nagrab Corporation have an existing CSA which contains the following
provision: "New employees within the coverage of the bargaining unit who may be regularly
employed shall become members of Nagrab Union. Membership in good standing with the
Nagrab Union is a requirement for continued employment with Nagrab Corporation." Nagrab
Corporation subsequently acquired all the assets and rights of Nuber Corporation and
absorbed all of the latter's employees. Nagrab Union immediately demanded enforcement of
the above-stated CSA provision with respect to the absorbed employees. Nagrab Corporation
refused on the ground that this should not apply to the absorbed employees who were former
employees of another corporation whose assets and rights it had acquired.

(a) Was Nagrab Corporation correct in refusing to enforce the CSA provision with respect to the
absorbed employees? (2.5%)

(b) May a newly-regularized employee of Nagrab Corporation (who is not part of the absorbed
employees) refuse to join Nagrab Union? How would you advise the human resources manager
of Nagrab ~ Corporation to proceed? (2.5%)
17. Upon compliance with the legal requirements on the conduct of a strike, Navarra Union staged
a strike against Newfound Corporation on account of a collective bargaining deadlock. During
the strike, some members of Navarra Union broke the windows and punctured the tires of
the company-owned buses. The Secretary of Labor and Employment assumed jurisdiction
over the dispute.

(a) Should all striking employees be admitted back to work upon the assumption of jurisdiction
by the Secretary of Labor and Employment? Will these include striking employees who
damaged company properties? (2.5%)

(b) May the company readmit strikers only by restoring them to the payroll? (2.5%)
18. Nestor and Nadine have been living in for the last 10 years without the benefit of marriage.
Their union has produced four children. Nadine was three months pregnant with her 5th child
when Nestor left her for another woman. When Nadine was eight months pregnant with her
5th child, she applied for maternity leave benefits. Her employer refused on the ground that
this was already her 5th pregnancy and that she was only living in with the father of her child,
who is now in a relationship with another woman. When Nadine gave birth, Nestor applied
for paternity leave benefits. His employer also denied the application on the same grounds
that Nadine's employer denied her application.

(a) Can Nadine's employer legally deny her claim for maternity benefits? (2.5%)

(b) Can Nestor's employer legally deny his claim for paternity benefits? (2.5%)
19. Northeast Airlines sent notices of transfer, without diminution in salary or rank, to 50 ground
crew personnel who were front-liners at Northeast Airlines counters at the Ninoy Aquino
International Airport (NAIA). The 50 employees were informed that they would be distributed
to various airports in Mindanao to anticipate robust passenger volume growth in the area.
North Union, representing rank-and-file employees, filed unfair labor practice and illegal
dismissal cases before the NLRC, citing, among others, the inconvenience of the 50 concerned
employees and union discrimination, as 8 of the 50 concerned ground crew personnel were
union officers. Also, the Union argued that Northeast Airlines could easily hire additional
employees from Mindanao to boost & its ground operations in the Mindanao airports.

a) Will the transfer of the 50 ground crew personnel amount to illegal dismissal? (2.5%)
 b) Will the unfair labor practice case prosper? (2.5%)

20. In Northern Lights Corporation, union members Nad, Ned, and Nod sought permission from
the company to distribute flyers with respect to a weekend union activity. The company HR
manager granted the request through a text message sent to another union member, Norlyn.
While Nad, Ned, and Nod were distributing the flyers at the company assembly plant, a
company supervisor barged in and demanded that they cease from distributing the flyers,
stating that the assembly line employees were trying to beat a production deadline and were
thoroughly distracted. Norlyn tried to show the HR manager's text message authorizing flyer
distribution during work hours, but the supervisor brushed it aside. As a result, Nad, Ned, and
Nod were suspended for violating company rules on trespass and highly-limited union
activities during work hours. The Union filed an unfair labor practice (ULP) case before the
NLRC for union discrimination.

a) Will the ULP case filed by the Union prosper? (2.5%)

 b) Assume the NLRC ruled in favor of the Union. The Labor Arbiter's judgment included,
among others, an award for moral and exemplary damages at PhP50,000.00 each for Nad,
Ned, and Nod. Northern Lights Corporation argued that any award of damages should be given
to the Union, and not individually to its members./rls Northern Lights Corporation correct?
(2.5%)