Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Nena worked as an Executive Assistant for Nesting, CEO of Now 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%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Nesting is not correct.
The law penalizing sexual harassment in our jurisdiction is RA 7877. Section 3 thereof defines work-related sexual
harassment in this wise:
Sec. 3. Work, Education or Training-related Sexual Harassment Defined.—Work, education or training-related
sexual harassment is committed by an employer, manager, supervisor, agent of the employer, teacher,
instructor, professor, coach, trainor, or any other person who, having authority, influence or moral ascendancy
over another in a work or training or education environment, demands, requests or otherwise requires any
sexual favor from the other, regardless of whether the demand, request or requirement for submission is
accepted by the object of said Act.
(a) In a work-related or employment environment, sexual harassment is committed when: xxx (3) The above
acts would result in an intimidating, hostile, or offensive environment for the employee.
Contrary to Nesting’s claim, it is enough that his acts result in creating an intimidating, hostile or offensive
environment for the employee.
NOTE: The foregoing answer can be found in page 696 of the book entitled Principles and Cases Labor
Standards and Social Legislation, Second Edition 2018. Questions involving the same subject matter were given
during the 2011, 2009, 2006, 2005, 2004, 2003 and 2000 Bar Examinations.
XIII
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%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes, Nicodemus can be dismissed on based on willful disobedience to the lawful order under Article 297 (a) of
the Labor Code and the “prescribed uniform policy” of the company.
The basis is the case of St. Luke’s v. Sanchez, G.R. No. 212054, March 11, 2015 were it was ruled: At the same
time, the employee has the corollary duty to obey all reasonable rules, orders, and instructions of the employer;
and willful or intentional disobedience thereto, as a general rule, justifies termination of the contract of service
and the dismissal of the employee. (Malabago v. NLRC, 533 Phil. 292, 300 [2006]) x x x x. Note that for an
employee to be validly dismissed on this ground, the employer’s orders, regulations, or instructions must be: (1)
reasonable and lawful, (2) sufficiently known to the employee, and (3) in connection with the duties which the
employee has been engaged to discharge.”
NOTE: The foregoing answer can be found in page 786 of the book entitled Principles and Cases Labor
Relations, Second Edition 2018. Questions involving the same subject matter were given during the 2008, 2003
and 1995 Bar Examinations.
(b) Should Nicodemus’ motion for execution be granted? (2.5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes, Nicodemus’ motion for execution should be granted. He is entitled to his accrued salary.
The accrued wages/salaries (reinstatement wages/salaries) is the consequence of the reinstatement aspect of
the decision of the Labor Arbiter referred in paragraph 3, Article 229 [223] of the Labor Code. This means that a
dismissed employee whose case was favorably decided by the Labor Arbiter is entitled to receive wages
pending appeal upon reinstatement, which is immediately executory. In other words, it refers to the wages or
salaries which automatically accrued to a dismissed employee from the notice of the Labor Arbiter’s order of
reinstatement until its ultimate reversal by the higher court, which could be the NLRC, the Court of Appeals or
the Supreme Court. The entitlement to accrued wages/salaries (reinstatement wages/salaries ) of a dismissed
employee was discussed in the cases of Roquero v. Philippine Airlines, G.R. No. 152329, 449 Phil. 437 (2003),
Garcia v. Philippine Airlines, G.R. No. 164856, January 20, 2009, 576 SCRA 479, Islriz Trading v. Capada, G.R. No.
168501, January 31, 2011, Pfizer Inc. v. Velasco, G.R. No. 177467, March 9, 2011 and Wenphil Corporation v.
Abing, G.R. No. 207983, April 7, 2014.
In resolving the rule on entitlement to accrued wages between the period where the Labor Arbiter’s order of
reinstatement is pending appeal and the NLRC Resolution overturning that of the Labor Arbiter, the case of
Garcia v. Philippine Airlines, Inc., G.R. No. 164856, January 20, 2009, 576 SCRA 479, is in point. The Supreme Court
examined its conflicting rulings with respect to the application of paragraph 3 of Article 223 of the Labor Code,
viz:
The core of the seeming divergence is the application of paragraph 3 of Article 223 of the Labor Code which
reads:
‘In any event, the decision of the Labor Arbiter reinstating a dismissed or separated employee, insofar as the
reinstatement aspect is concerned, shall immediately be executory, pending appeal. The employee shall
either be admitted back to work under the same terms and conditions prevailing prior to his dismissal or
separation or, at the option of the employer, merely reinstated in the payroll. The posting of a bond by the
employer shall not stay the execution for reinstatement provided herein.’
The view as maintained in a number of cases is that:
‘x x x [E]ven if the order of reinstatement of the Labor Arbiter is reversed on appeal, it is obligatory on the part of
the employer to reinstate and pay the wages of the dismissed employee during the period of appeal until
reversal by the higher court. On the other hand, if the employee has been reinstated during the appeal period
and such reinstatement order is reversed with finality, the employee is not required to reimburse whatever
salary he received for he is entitled to such, more so if he actually rendered services during the period.
In other words, a dismissed employee whose case was favorably decided by the Labor Arbiter is entitled to
receive wages pending appeal upon reinstatement, which is immediately executory. Unless there is a
restraining order, it is ministerial upon the Labor Arbiter to implement the order of reinstatement and it is
mandatory on the employer to comply therewith.
NOTE: The foregoing answer can be found in pages 143-145 of the book entitled Principles and Cases Labor
Relations, Second Edition 2018. Question involving the same subject matter was given during the 2009 Bar
Examination.
XIV
Nelson complained before the DOLE Regional Office about Needy Corporation's failure to pay his wage
increase amounting to PhP5,000.00 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 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%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes, the DOLE’s action to conduct mandatory conciliation is valid. This is mandated by Article 234 of the Labor
Code, except as provided in Title VII-A, Book V of this Code, as amended, or as may be excepted by the
Secretary of Labor and Employment, all issues arising from labor and employment shall be subject to
mandatory conciliation-mediation.
NOTE: The foregoing answer can be found in pages 193-195 of the book entitled Principles and Cases Labor
Relations, Second Edition 2018. This was the first time that a question of this nature was asked in the Bar
Examinations.
(b) Should the Regional Director sustain Needy Corporation’s argument? (2.5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The Regional Director should not sustain Needy Corporation’s argument. This is because under Article 239 of the
Labor Cod, information and statements made at conciliation proceedings shall be treated as privileged
communication and shall not be used as evidence in the Commission. Conciliators and similar officials shall not
testify in any court or body regarding any matters taken up at conciliation proceedings conducted by them.
Thus, Needy Corporation cannot raise the argument that Nelson was willing to settle for 75% of his money claim
during conciliation proceedings.
NOTE: The foregoing answer can be found in pages 239 of the book entitled Principles and Cases Labor
Relations, Second Edition 2018. Question involving the same subject matter was given during the 2007 Bar
Examination.
XV
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 independent unions,
representing rank- and-file and supervisory employees, respectively.
a) May Nini and Nono join a union? (2.5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes, Nini and Nono can join a union. This is clearly allowed under Article 255 of the Labor Code which provides
in substance that supervisory employees may join, assist or form separate collective bargaining units and/or
legitimate labor organizations of their own.
NOTE: The foregoing answer can be found in page 264 of the book entitled Principles and Cases Labor
Relations, Second Edition 2018. Question involving the same subject matter was given during the 2017, 2010,
2004 and 1994 Bar Examinations.
b) May the two unions be affiliated with the same Union Federation? (2.5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes, the two unions can be affiliated with the same Union Federation. This is clearly allowed under Article 255 of
the Labor Code which provides in substance that the rank-and-file union and the supervisors’ union operating
within the same establishment may join the same federation or national union.
NOTE: The foregoing answer can be found in page 264 of the book entitled Principles and Cases Labor
Relations, Second Edition 2018. Question involving the same subject matter was given during the 2017, 2010,
2004 and 1994 Bar Examinations.
XVI
Nagrab Union and Nagrab Corporation have an existing CBA 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 CBA provision with respect to the absorbed employees. Nagrab Corporation
refused on the ground that this should not apply fo 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 CBA 4 provision with respect to the absorbed
employees? (2.5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Nagrab Corporation was not correct in refusing to enforce the CBA provision with respect to the absorbed
employees. This is because it cannot invoke its merger with another corporation as a valid ground to exempt its
absorbed employees from the coverage of a union shop clause contained in its existing Collective Bargaining
Agreement (CBA) with its own certified labor union. In BANK OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS V. BPI EMPLOYEES
UNION-DAVAO CHAPTER-FEDERATION OF UNIONS IN BPI UNIBANK, G.R. No. 164301, August 10, 2010, the High
Court resolved the question in this manner: At the outset, we should call to mind the spirit and the letter of the
Labor Code provisions on union security clauses, specifically Article 248 (e), which states, x x x Nothing in this
Code or in any other law shall stop the parties from requiring membership in a recognized collective bargaining
agent as a condition for employment, except those employees who are already members of another union at
the time of the signing of the collective bargaining agreement. This case which involves the application of a
collective bargaining agreement with a union shop clause should be resolved principally from the standpoint
of the clear provisions of our labor laws, and the express terms of the CBA in question, and not by inference
from the general consequence of the merger of corporations under the Corporation Code, which obviously
does not deal with and, therefore, is silent on the terms and conditions of employment in corporations or
juridical entities.
NOTE: The foregoing answer can be found in page 305-308 of the book entitled Principles and Cases Labor
Relations, Second Edition 2018. Question involving the same subject matter was given during the 2011 Bar
Examination.
(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%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The newly-regularized employee of Nagrab Corporation (who is not-part of the absorbed employees) cannot
refuse to join Nagrab Union in view of the union security clause provision of the CBA. While the right to join
includes the right not to join, however, the exception is the UNION SECURITY CLAUSE where it imposes upon
employees the obligation to acquire or retain union membership as a condition affecting employment. Thus, I
will advise the human resources manager of Nagrab Corporation to comply with the provision of the CAB
stating that : “New_employees within the coverage of the bargaining unit who may be regularly employed
shall become members of Nagrab Union.
NOTE: The foregoing answer can be found in page 299, 303-308 of the book entitled Principles and Cases Labor
Relations, Second Edition 2018. Questions involving the same subject matter were given during the 2005, 2011
and 1997 Bar Examinations.
XVII
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. he 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%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
All striking employees be admitted back to work and including striking employees who damaged company
properties. The effect of assumption of jurisdiction of the Secretary of Labor is clear under Article 278 (g) which
provides in substance that such assumption shall have the effect of automatically enjoining the intended or
impending strike or lockout as specified in the assumption or certification order. If one has already taken place
at the time of assumption or certification, all striking or locked out employees shall immediately return-to-work
and the employer shall immediately resume operations and readmit all workers under the same terms and
conditions prevailing before the strike or lockout.
NOTE: The foregoing answer can be found in page 478 of the book entitled Principles and Cases Labor
Relations, Second Edition 2018. Questions involving the same subject matter were given during the 2003 and
1997 Bar Examinations.
(b) May the company, readmit strikers only by restoring them to the payroll? 5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The company may not readmit strikers by restoring them to the payroll. The phrase “under the same terms and
conditions” found in Article 278 (g) [263 (g)] of the Labor Code was interpreted by the Supreme Court in the
case of the University of Immaculate Concepcion, Inc. v. Secretary of Labor, G.R. No. 151379, January 14, 2005
as follows:
With respect to the Secretary’s Order allowing payroll reinstatement instead of actual reinstatement for the
individual respondents herein, an amendment to the previous Orders issued by her office, the same is usually
not allowed. Article 263(g) of the Labor Code aforementioned states that all workers must immediately return
to work and all employers must readmit all of them under the same terms and conditions prevailing before the
strike or lockout. The phrase “under the same terms and conditions” makes it clear that the norm is actual
reinstatement. This is consistent with the idea that any work stoppage or slowdown in that particular industry
can be detrimental to the national interest.
Clearly, reinstatement should be actual and not payroll reinstatement.
NOTE: The foregoing answer can be found in page 496 of the book entitled Principles and Cases Labor
Relations, Second Edition 2018. This is the first time that a question of this nature was asked in the Bar
Examinations.
XVIII
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 5" 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%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes, Nadine’s employer can legally deny her claim for maternity benefits. This is because the maternity benefits
shall be paid only for the first four (4) deliveries or miscarriages. (See Section 14-A, RA 8282) In this case, the said
pregnancy was the 5th child of Nadine. Thus, she already exhausted the limitations for entitlement to maternity
benefits under the law.
NOTE: The foregoing answer can be found in page 474 of the book entitled Principles and Cases Labor
Standards and Social Legislation, Second Edition 2018, by Atty. Voltaire T. Duano. Questions involving this
subject matter were given during the 2015, 2012, 2010, 2005 and 2000 Bar Examinations.
(b) Can Nestor’s employer legally deny his claim for paternity benefits? (2.5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Nestor’s employer can legally deny his claim for paternity benefits for his failure to comply with the conditions
for entitlement to paternity benefits.
Under the law, a married male employee shall be entitled to paternity benefits provided that:
a. he is an employee at the time of delivery of his child;
b. he is cohabiting with his spouse at the time she gives birth or suffers a miscarriage.
c. he has applied for paternity leave in accordance with Section 4 hereof; and
d. his wife has given birth or suffered a miscarriage. (Section 3, Revised Implementing Rules and Regulations of
Republic Act No. 8187 for the Private Sector)
In this case, Nadine is not Nestor’s lawful wife to whom he is cohabiting.
NOTE: The foregoing answer can be found in pages 470-471 of the book entitled Principles and Cases Labor
Standards and Social Legislation, Second Edition 2018, by Atty. Voltaire T. Duano. Questions involving this
subject matter were given during the 2013, 2012, 2011, 2005 and 2002 Bar Examinations.
XIX
Northeast Airlines sent notices to 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. Northeast 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 round crew personnel were union
officers. Also, the Union argued that Northeast Airlines could easily hire additional employees from Mindanao to
boost ground operations in the Mindanao airports.
a) Will the transfer of the 50 ground crew personnel amount to Illegal dismissal (5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The transfer of the 50 ground crew personnel does not amount to Illegal dismissal. This is because their transfer is
a valid exercise of management prerogatives.
In Gemina, Jr. v. Bankwise, Inc. (Thrift Bank) G.R. No. 175365, October 23, 2013, it was held: The employer’s right
to conduct the affairs of its business, according to its own discretion and judgment, is well-recognized. An
employer has a free reign and enjoys wide latitude of discretion to regulate all aspects of employment and the
only criterion to guide the exercise of its management prerogative is that the policies, rules and regulations on
work-related activities of the employees must always be fair and reasonable. (The Coca-Cola Export
Corporation v. Gacayan, G.R. No. 149433, December 15, 2010, 638 SCRA 377, 398-399)
According to Endico v. Quantum Foods Distribution Center, G.R. 161615, January 30,2009, “Managerial
prerogatives, however, are subject to limitations provided by law, collective bargaining agreements, and
general principles of fair play and justice. The test for determining the validity of the transfer of employees was
explained in the case of Blue Dairy Corporation v. NLRC, G.R. No. 129843, 14 September 1999, 314 SCRA 401,
408-409 the Supreme Court explained the test for determining the validity of the transfer of employees, as
follows:
But, like other rights, there are limits thereto. The managerial prerogative to transfer personnel must be exercised
without grave abuse of discretion, bearing in mind the basic elements of justice and fair play. Having the right
should not be confused with the manner in which that right is exercised. Thus, it cannot be used as a subterfuge
by the employer to rid himself of an undesirable worker. In particular, the employer must be able to show that
the transfer is not unreasonable, inconvenient or prejudicial to the employee; nor does it involve a demotion in
rank or a diminution of his salaries, privileges and other benefits.
As their employer, Northeast Airlines has the right to regulate, according to its discretion and best judgment,
work assignments, work methods, work supervision, and work regulations, including the hiring, firing and
discipline of its employees. The Supreme Court upholds these management prerogatives so long as they are
exercised in good faith for the advancement of the employer’s interest and not for the purpose of defeating or
circumventing the rights of the employees under special laws and valid agreements. (Challenge Socks
Corporation v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 165268, November 8, 2005, 474 SCRA 356, 362-363)
In this case it does not show that Northeast Airlines implemented the transfer for the purpose of defeating or
circumventing the rights of the said 50 ground crew personnel.
NOTE: The foregoing answer can be found in pages 31-32 of the book entitled Principles and Cases Labor
Standards and Social Legislation, Second Edition 2018, by Atty. Voltaire T. Duano, and in pages 789-790of the
book entitled Principles and Cases Labor Relations, Second Edition 2018, by Atty. Voltaire T. Duano. Questions
involving management prerogatives were given during the 2000, 2001 and 1994 Bar Examinations.
b) Will the unfair labor practice case prosper? (2.5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The unfair labor practice case will not prosper. This is because the act did not constitute an act of interfering,
restraining or coercing the said employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization under Article 259 [a]
of the Labor Code.
In T & T Shoplifters Corporation/Gin Queen Corporation v. T&T Shoplifters Corporation/Gin Queen Corporation
Workers Union, G.R. No. 191714, February 26, 2014 citing the case of Insular Life Assurance Co., Ltd. Employees
Association – NATU v. Insular Life Assurance Co., Ltd., (147 Phil. 194 [1971]) the Supreme Court had occasion to
lay down the test of whether an employer has interfered with and coerced employees in the exercise of their
right to self-organization, that is, whether the employer has engaged in conduct which, it may reasonably be
said, tends to interfere with the free exercise of employees’ rights; and that it is not necessary that there be
direct evidence that any employee was in fact intimidated or coerced by statements of threats of the
employer if there is a reasonable inference that anti-union conduct of the employer does have an adverse
effect on self-organization and collective bargaining.
In the given facts, it does not show that the act of Northern Airlines in sending notices of transfer relates to the
commission of acts that transgress their right to organize or it was made to interfere, restrain or coerce them
with the exercise of their right to self-organization.
NOTE: The foregoing answer can be found in page 282-284 of the book entitled Principles and Cases Labor
Relations, Second Edition 2018.
XX
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 re 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%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The ULP case filed by the Union will not prosper. This is because the act did not constitute an act of interfering,
restraining or coercing the said employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization under Article 259 [a]
of the Labor Code.
In T & T Shoplifters Corporation/Gin Queen Corporation v. T&T Shoplifters Corporation/Gin Queen Corporation
Workers Union, G.R. No. 191714, February 26, 2014 citing the case of Insular Life Assurance Co., Ltd. Employees
Association – NATU v. Insular Life Assurance Co., Ltd., (147 Phil. 194 [1971]) the Supreme Court had occasion to
lay down the test of whether an employer has interfered with and coerced employees in the exercise of their
right to self-organization, that is, whether the employer has engaged in conduct which, it may reasonably be
said, tends to interfere with the free exercise of employees’ rights; and that it is not necessary that there be
direct evidence that any employee was in fact intimidated or coerced by statements of threats of the
employer if there is a reasonable inference that anti-union conduct of the employer does have an adverse
effect on self-organization and collective bargaining.
In the given facts, it does not show that the act of the company supervisor in barging in and demanding for
Nad, Ned, and Nod to cease from distributing the flyers relates to the commission of acts that transgress their
right to organize or it was made to interfere, restrain or coerce them with the exercise of their right to self-
organization.
NOTE: The foregoing answer can be found in page 282-284 of the book entitled Principles and Cases Labor
Relations, Second Edition 2018. . Questions involving the same subject matter were given during the 2004 Bar
Examinations.
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. Is Northern Lights Corporation correct? (2.5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Northern Lights Corporation is not correct. The rights that were violated belongs to the union members, Nad,
Ned, and Nod, and not the union itself. Further, the said union members were the real party in interest in the
said case for ULP filed by the union against the corporation and not the union itself. The union is a juridical
person and as a rule it cannot not suffer moral damages.