Print - Siliman Labor Qnaw
Print - Siliman Labor Qnaw
Print - Siliman Labor Qnaw
LABOR LAW
&
SOCIAL LEGISLATION
ARRANGED BY TOPIC (1994 2006)
Edit d !"d A##!"$ d %&'
FORWAR!
This work is not intended for sa e or !o""er!e# This work is freeware# It "a$ %e free $ !o&ied and distri%'ted# It is &ri"ari $ intended for a those who desire
to ha(e a dee&er 'nderstanding of the iss'es to'!hed %$ the Phi i&&ine Bar E)a"inations and its trend# It is s&e!ia $ intended for aw st'dents fro" the &ro(in!es who* (er$ often* are re!i&ients of de i%erate $ distorted notes fro" other 'ns!r'&' o's aw s!hoo s and st'dents# +hare to others this work and $o' wi ri!h $ rewarded %$ God in hea(en# It is a so (er$ good kar"a# %e
,e wo' d ike to seek the ind' gen!e of the reader for so"e Bar -'estions whi!h are i"&ro&er $ ! assified 'nder a to&i! and for so"e to&i!s whi!h are i"&ro&er $ or ignorant $ &hrased* for the a'thors are .'st Bar Re(iewees who ha(e &re&ared this work whi e re(iewing for the Bar E)a"s 'nder ti"e !onstraints and within their i"ited know edge of the aw# ,e wo' d ike to seek the reader/s ind' gen!e for a ot of t$&ogra&hi!a errors in this work#
The Authors
JU!IS;IC<I9'
C$A- Im,lementation = Inter,retation ()**4 ;amages- A(sence of &-& !elations.i, ()**4 ;amages- 'ot arising from t.e &-& !elations ()*** ;ismissal- Int>l Agency ()**6 Intra-cor,orate 8atters79fficers ()**1 Intra-cor,orate 8atters79fficers ()**2 La(or Ar(iter ()**4 La(or Ar(iter- A,,eals (/00) La(or ;is,ute ( /00) 8ed-ar(iter ()**1 8oney Claims- !einstatement ()**1 'at>l La(or !elations Commission ()**4 'at>l La(or !elations Commission (/00) 'at>l La(or !elations Commission (/00) 'at>l La(or !elations Commissions (/00) 9verseas &m,loyment- Claim- <orts (/006 9verseas &m,loyment- 8andatory !emittance- ?oreign &xc.ange (/001 !ecovery of @ages ()**6 !emedies- illegal dismissal ()*** Secretary of La(or- Aut.ority ()**+ Secretary of La(or- ;ismissal of &m,loyees ()**+ Aoluntary Ar(itrator ()**2 Aoluntary Ar(itrator (/003
1,
13 13 14 14 15 15 15 15 15 18 18 18 18 16 16 16 00 00 00 01 01 01 01
LA$9! !&LA<I9'S
C$A- A,,ro,riate $argaining Unit ()**+ C$A- Ar(itral Award- !etroactive &ffect (/00) C$A- Ar(itral Awards- &ffectivity ()**6
22
00 00 00 Page # of 108
C$A- Automatic !enewal Clause ()*** ################################################################################01 C$A- Automatic !enewal Clause (/00) ################################################################################01 C$A- $argaining !e,resentative (/000 ####################################################################################01 C$A- Certification &lection (/004 ############################################################################################01 C$A- Certification &lection- B'o-UnionC @in (/001 ##############################################################02 C$A- Certification &lection- Consent &lection- !un-9ff &lection (/000 #################################02 C$A- Certification &lection- ?reedom Period ()*** #############################################################02 C$A- Certification &lection- Pro(ationary &m,loyees ()*** ##################################################02 C$A- Closed S.o, Provision- @.en not a,,lica(le ()*** #####################################################03 C$A- Closed S.o, vs. Agency S.o, ()**2 ##########################################################################03 C$A- Contract $ar !ule vs. ;eadlocD $ar !ule ()*** ############################################################03 C$A- Coverage- 'on-Union 8em(ers- !eligious Sect (/004 ################################################03 C$A- inter,retation (/006 #########################################################################################################04 C$A- Jurisdictional Pre-Conditions ()**1 #############################################################################04 C$A- LocD-out vs. Closed S.o, (/006 #####################################################################################04 C$A- 8andatory Su(:ects of $argaining ()**1 ####################################################################04 C$A- !egistration !eEuirement- Contract $ar-!ule (/000 #####################################################05 C$A- !un-9ff &lection (/001 ###################################################################################################05 C$A- Sale of &sta(lis.ment- &ffect ()**6 ################################################################################05 C$A- Social Security vs. Union Security (/006 ########################################################################05 C$A- Su(stitutionary ;octrine (/000 ########################################################################################05 C$A- Union Security Clause (/006 ###########################################################################################08 C$A- Union Security Clause- Closed S.o, Provision ()**4 ##################################################08 C$A- Union- !e,resentation Issue ()*** #################################################################################08 C$A- @age Increase Coverage- 'on-Union &m,loyees (/004 #############################################06 C$U- Com,any Union vs. Union S.o, (/006 ##########################################################################06 C$U- Confidential &m,loyees ()**6 #########################################################################################06 C$U- Consent &lection vs. Certification &lection (/006 ##########################################################10 C$U- 8anagerial &m,loyees- Su,ervisory &m,loyees ()**4 ###############################################10 C$U- 8anagerial &m,loyees- Su,ervisory &m,loyees ()*** ###############################################10 C$U- 8odes- ;etermination of &xclusive $argaining Agreement (/001 #########################11 ;ue Process- ;isci,linary Cases ()**4 ###################################################################################11 &m,loyees- grou,s of em,loyees ()**1 ###############################################################################10 &m,loyees- 8anagerial &m,loyee vs. 8anagerial Staff ()**6 #############################################10 &m,loyees- managerial em,loyees vs. su,ervisory em,loyees (/00/ ############################10 &m,loyees- 8anagerial vs. Su,ervisory vs. !anD-and-?ile &m,loyees (/003 #####################10 !ig.t to StriDe5 Sym,at.y vs. %eneral StriDe (/006 ################################################################11 !ig.t to StriDe- Assum,tion Power#############################################################################################11 !ig.t to StriDe- Com,ulsory Ar(itration- Certification to 'L!C ()**4 ###############################12 !ig.t to StriDe- &ffects- Fired !e,lacements (/001 ################################################################12 !ig.t to StriDe- &ffects- illegal striDe ()**4 ###############################################################################12 !ig.t to StriDe- &ffects- illegal striDe ()**4 ###############################################################################12 !ig.t to StriDe- &ffects- illegal striDe (/000 ###############################################################################12 !ig.t to StriDe- &ffects- StriDers> illegal Acts (/001 ##############################################################12 !ig.t to StriDe- illegal dismissal (/003 ###################################################################################12 !ig.t to StriDe- illegal locDout ()**4 ######################################################################################13 !ig.t to StriDe- illegal striDe- Loss of &m,loyment ()**6 ########################################################13 !ig.t to StriDe- Industries Aital to 'ational Interest (/006 ######################################################14 !ig.t to StriDe- Industries Aital to 'ational Interest- !eturn to @orD 9rder ()**1 ################14 !ig.t to StriDe- Lawful StriDe- &ffect on Partici,ants ()**2 #####################################################15 Page 4 of 108
!ig.t to StriDe- Lawful- !ig.t to !einstatement (/001 !ig.t to StriDe- Limitations (/000 !ig.t to StriDe- 'ational Interest- ;9L& Sec. intervention (/006 !ig.t to StriDe- PicDeting Activity (/000 (/006 !ig.t to StriDe- PicDeting Activity- illegal dismissal !ig.t to StriDe- !eturn to @orD 9rder ()**6 !ig.t to StriDe- !eturn to @orD 9rder ()**2 !ig.t to StriDe- !eturn to @orD 9rder ()**+ !ig.t to StriDe- !eturn to @orD 9rder- Assum,tion 9rder (/003 !ig.t to StriDe- Statutory !eEuisites- Procedural !eEuirements (/006 !ig.t to StriDe- <em,orary Sto,,age (/00/ !ig.t to StriDe- @ildcat StriDe ()**2 !ig.t to StriDe- @orD Slowdown ()**+ Self 9rganiGation- AcEuisition of Legal Personality (/003 Self 9rganiGation- A,,ro,riate $argaining Unit- Confidential &m,loyees (/00/ Self 9rganiGation- $L! Certification- Certification &lection ()**+ Self 9rganiGation- Certification &lection (/00) Self 9rganiGation- Certification &lection- $ystander !ule ()**1 Self 9rganiGation- Certification &lection- UnorganiGed &sta(lis.ment (/003 Self 9rganiGation- &-& !elations.i,- Certification &lection ()**+ Self 9rganiGation- %ov>t &m,loyees (/006 Self 9rganiGation- Im,ortance ()**1 Self 9rganiGation- 8em(ers.i, Policy ()**+ Self 9rganiGation- !ig.t to ;isaffiliate from t.e Local Union- illegal dismissal ()**6 Self 9rganiGation- !ig.t to Self-9rganiGation of Coo, &m,loyees (/00/ Self 9rganiGation- Union ;ues- Assessment (/00/ Self 9rganiGation- Union ;ues- Assessments ()**2 Self 9rganiGation- Unions- Assessments (/00) Self 9rganiGation- Unions- ?inancial !ecords ()*** Self 9rganiGation- Unions- ?inancial !ecords (/00) Self 9rganiGation- Unions- 8em(ers.i,- ;ismissal in $ad ?ait. (/00/ Self-9rganiGation (/00/ Self-9rganiGation- ;ismissal due to Union Activities (/006 Self-9rganiGation- %ov>t vs. Private &m,loyees ()**1 Self-9rganiGation- !ig.t to Join (/000 ULP- Awards of ;amages (/00) ULP- Contracting 9ut La(or (/00) ULP- ;efinition = &xam,les of ULP ()**1 ULP- Jurisdiction- La(or Ar(iter ()**2 ULP- !efusal to 'egotiate ()**2 ULP- !ig.ts = 9(ligations- @orDers> Association (/006 ULP- Su(:ect to Criminal Prosecution (/004
15 15 18 18 18 16 16 16 20 20 21 21 21 20 20 20 21 21 22 22 22 23 23 23 24 24 24 25 25 28 28 28 28 26 26 26 30 30 30 31 31 30
LA$9! S<A';A!;S
&-& !elations.i,- Cor,oration ()*** &-& !elations.i,- ;etermined (y ?acts = Laws (/000 &-& !elations.i,- &lements ()**1 &-& !elations.i,- %!9>s = 'ig.t Clu(s ()*** ()*** &-& !elations.i,- Security %uards- ?loating Status &-& !elations.i,- Self-&m,loyed (/003
,2
30 31 31 31 31 32
Page $ of 108
&-& !elations.i,- @orDers ,aid (y !esults (/006 32 33 &-& !elations.i,- @orDing Student = Sc.ool ()**2 33 &m,loyment- Aliens- !eEuisites ()**4 34 &m,loyment- C.ildren- $elow )4 yrs old (/006 34 &m,loyment- ;river as Fouse.el,er = in a Commercial &sta(lis.ment ()**+ 34 &m,loyment- Fandica,,ed &m,loyee ()**+ 34 &m,loyment- Fandica,,ed &m,loyee (/000 35 &m,loyment- Fandica,,ed @orDers- Contractual &m,loyees (/001 35 &m,loyment- FomeworDers (/000 &m,loyment- Fouse.el,ers (/000 35 35 &m,loyment- 8inors (/001 &m,loyment- 8inors- FaGardous @orD (/00/ 38 38 &m,loyment- !adio-<A S.ow Fost- &x,iration of <erm (/004 &m,loyment- @omen- Anti-Sexual Farassment Act (/000 36 &m,loyment- @omen- Anti-Sexual Farassment Act (/000 36 36 &m,loyment- @omen- Anti-Sexual Farassment Act (/006 &m,loyment- @omen- Anti-Sexual Farassment vs. ;iscrimination against @omen (/003 40 40 &m,loyment- @omen- ;iscrimination (y reason of Age ()**+ 40 &m,loyment- @omen- ;iscrimination (y reason of 8arriage ()**4 40 &m,loyment- @omen- discrimination- illegal dismissal ()**2 41 &m,loyment- @omen- Sexual Farassment Act (/004 41 &m,loyment- @omen- Sexual Farassment Act (/001 40 Inde,endent Contractor (/00) 40 Inde,endent Contractor (/00/ Inde,endent Contractor vs. La(or-9nly Contracting- ?our-?old <est (/000 41 41 Inde,endent Contractor- Lia(ilities (/006 41 La(or-9nly Contract vs. Jo( Contracting ()**2 42 La(or-9nly Contractor (/00/ 42 La(or-9nly Contractor vs. Inde,endent Contractor ()**6 !ecruitment = Placement- Cancellation- Certificate of !egistration- <ravel $an (/006 43 43 !ecruitment = Placement- illegal recruitment to economic sa(otage (/004 43 !ecruitment = Placement- illegal recruitment- &conomic Sa(otage (/00/ 44 !ecruitment = Placement- Large Scale Illegal !ecruitment (/004 44 !ecruitment = Placement- 'on-<ransfera(ility of License ()**+ 44 !ecruitment = Placement- !ecruitment Agencies (/00/ 44 !ecruitment = Placement- <ravel Agency- Pro.i(ition (/001 45 @age ;istortion (/00/ 45 @age- !eduction of 8inimum Pay = @ages (/001 45 @age- @age ;istortion- ;efinition = &lements (/001 45 @age- @age ;istortion- 8eans of Solving (/001 45 @age- @age ;istortion- 'ot a ground for StriDe7LocDout (/001 48 @ages- )3t. mont. ,ay ()**6 48 @ages- )3t. mont. ,ay ()**+ 48 @ages- $onus (/00/ 46 @ages- $onus (/003 @ages- $onus- 'ature ()**4 46 46 @ages- Com,utation of $asic Salary ()**2 46 @ages- Com,utation- Foliday Pay (/00/ 50 @ages- Com,utation- Foliday Pay- 9vertime Pay (/00/ Page % of 108
@ages- Foliday Pay (/004 #########################################################################################################50 @ages- 8oney Claims ()**+ #####################################################################################################50 @ages- 8oney Claims- Attorney>s ?ees- ;amages (/00) #####################################################51 @ages- Paid (y !esults- Foliday Pay (/00/ ############################################################################51 @ages- <eac.ers- &C9LA ()**2 ###########################################################################################51 @ages- Un,aid @ages- Preference of Credit in favor of &m,loyees ()**4 ####################50 @ages- Un,aid @ages- Preference of Credit in favor of &m,loyees (/003 ####################50 @ages- Un,aid @ages- Preference of Credit in favor of &m,loyees ()**4 ####################50 @ages- Un,aid @ages- Preference of Credit in favor of &m,loyees ()*** ####################51 @ages- @age ;istortion ()**2 ###############################################################################################51 @ages- @ages vs. Salary- Su(:ect to Attac.ment ()**6 ###################################################51 @ages- @aiver of Com,ensation ()**1 ################################################################################52 @orDing Fours- C.arita(le Institution- 9vertime Pay (/00/ ###################################################52 @orDing Fours- C.arita(le Institution- @eeDly !est Period- ()**+ ########################################52 @orDing Fours- Com,ressed @orD @eeD (/004 #################################################################52 @orDing Fours- 'ig.t S.ift ;ifferential (/00/ ##########################################################################52 @orDing Fours- Saturday @orD (/003 ###################################################################################53 @orDing Fours- SicD Leave- 9vertime Pay ()**2 ###################################################################53 @orDing Fours- @.en Com,ensa(le- [email protected] on CallH (/006 ##################################################53 @orDing Fours- @.en Com,ensa(le- [email protected] on CallH- @aiting <ime ()**2 #########################54 <&!8I'A<I9' 9? &8PL9I8&'<################################################################################.6
$acDwages (/00/ ######################################################################################################################54 $acDwages vs. Un,aid @ages ()**6 #######################################################################################54 $acDwages- $asis (/00) ##########################################################################################################55 $acDwages- $asis (/00) ##########################################################################################################55 $acDwages- $asis (/00) ##########################################################################################################55 ;ismissal- Aut.oriGed Causes (/00/ #####################################################################################58 ;ismissal- Aut.oriGed Causes vs. Just Cause (/006 ##########################################################58 ;ismissal- Aut.oriGed Causes- Closure = Cessation (/00) ###############################################58 ;ismissal- Aut.oriGed Causes- Closure = Cessation of $usiness- 9ld Age (/001 ##############58 ;ismissal- Aut.oriGed Causes- Closure = Cessation of $usiness- Se,aration Pay (/001 56 56 ;ismissal- Aut.oriGed Causes- ;ownsiGing &m,loyees (/00) ;ismissal- Aut.oriGed Causes- !edundancy ()*** 56 56 ;ismissal- Aut.oriGed Causes- !edundancy (/000 ;ismissal- Aut.oriGed Causes- !etrenc.ment = !edundancy (/00) 80 80 ;ismissal- Aut.oriGed Causes- !etrenc.ment ()**+ ;ismissal- Aut.oriGed Causes- !etrenc.ment (/003 81 81 ;ismissal- Aut.oriGed Causes- Seniority !ule (/00) 81 ;ismissal- Aut.oriGed Causes- SicDness (/006 80 ;ismissal- Constructive ;ismissal- ?loating Status (/006 80 ;ismissal- Constructive ;ismissal- <ransfer ()**1 ;ismissal- ;amages !ecovera(le (/00) 81 81 ;ismissal- ;ue Process- !eEuirements ()**6 81 ;ismissal- ;ue Process- !eEuirements (/001 ;ismissal- Just Cause- Immoral Conduct ()**1 82 82 ;ismissal- Just Cause- Inde,endent Contractor (/004 ;ismissal- Just Cause- 8isconduct ()**1 83 83 ;ismissal- Just Cause- Pro(ationary &m,loyees- !ig.ts (/001
Page & of 108
;ismissal- Just Cause- !eEuirements ()*** ;ismissal- Just Cause- Se,aration Pay ()**1 ;ismissal- Just Causes (/00) ;ismissal- Just Causes vs. Aut.oriGed Causes (/000 ;ismissal- Just Causes- ;iso(edience ()**4 ;ismissal- Just Causes- ;iso(edience (/003 ;ismissal- Just Causes- Insu(ordination ()*** ;ismissal- Just Causes- 8isconduct ()**4 ;ismissal- Just Causes- Juitclaims ()*** ;ismissal- Lia(ility- Cor,orate 9fficers ()**2 ;ismissal- Payroll !einstatement (/004 ;ismissal- Payroll !einstatement- !einstatement 9rder ()*** ;ismissal- !einstatement ()**6 ;ismissal- !einstatement ()**4 ;ismissal- !eEuirements ()**+ ;ismissal- !eEuirements ()*** ;ismissal- !eEuirements- Sus,ension of <ermination ()**6 ;ismissal- !eEuisites- !einstatement ;ismissal- Se,aration Pay- $acDwages (/00/ &m,loyee- Contractual &m,loyees- Seafarers (/00/ &m,loyee- Contractual @orDer vs. Casual @orDer (/004 &m,loyee- Pro(ationary &m,loyees ()**+ &m,loyee- Pro(ationary &m,loyees (/00) &m,loyee- Pro:ect &m,loyee vs. !egular &m,loyee ()**1 &m,loyee- Pro:ect &m,loyees vs. Casual &m,loyees (/004 &m,loyee- !egular &m,loyee- Constructive ;ismissal (/004 &m,loyee- !egular &m,loyees ()**6 &m,loyee- !egular &m,loyees ()**4 &m,loyee- !egular &m,loyees vs. Pro:ect &m,loyee ()**+ &m,loyee- !egular vs. Pro:ect &m,loyees (/00/ Prescri,tive ,eriod- illegal dismissal ()**6 Prescri,tive ,eriod- illegal dismissal (/00/ Prescri,tive ,eriod- illegal dismissal ()**2 !esignation- Aoluntary- Juitclaim ()**6 !esignation- Aoluntary- Juitclaims ()*** !etirement- 9,tional !etirement (/004 !etirement- !etirement $enefits ()**6 !etirement- !etirement Pay (/00)
S9CIAL L&%ISLA<I9'S
&m,loyees Com,ensation Act- @orD-Connected ;isa(ility ()**1 %SIS- $enefits (/006 %SIS- ;eat. $enefit ()*** %SIS- ;eat. $enefits- ;e,endent- /6-.our ;uty !ule (/004 8aternity $enefits (/000 Paternity Leave (/00/ Paternity Leave- 8aternity Leave (/004 SSS- Com,ulsory Coverage ()**4 SSS- Com,ulsory Coverage ()*** SSS- Com,ulsory Coverage (/000
102
100 101 101 101 102 102 102 103 103 103
Page ' of 108
SSS- Com,ulsory Coverage (/00/ #########################################################################################103 SSS- %SIS- $eneficiality- Porta(ility Provisions of !A 21** (/004 #################################104 SSS- %SIS- Jurisdiction- $enefit Claims ()**4 #################################################################104 SSS- Prescri,tive Period- $enefit Claims (/00) #################################################################104 SSS-%SIS- &m,loyees Com,ensation Act ()**2 ##############################################################105 State Insurance ?und ()**6 ####################################################################################################105 State Insurance ?und ()**4 ####################################################################################################105 Stray Juestions####################################################################################################################105 Stray Pro(lem- Political Law- Power of t.e President- ?<AA (/001 #####################################108
Page ( of 108
GENERAL /RINCI/LES
C2"4tit)ti2"!* /#26i4i2"4 2" L!%2# (1995) @.at are t.e salient features of t.e ,rotection to la(or ,rovision of t.e ConstitutionK L4MN SUGGESTE7 ANSWER' <.e salient features of t.e Protection to La(or ,rovision of t.e Constitution (Article OIII. Section 3 are as follows5 ). &xtent of Protection - ?ull ,rotection to la(or/. Coverage of Protection - Local and overseas# organiGed and unorganiGed3. &m,loyment Policy - ?ull em,loyment and eEuality of em,loyment o,,ortunities for all-
:ust s.are in t.e fruits and t.e rig.t of reasona(le returns on to ex,ansion and growt..
6. %uarantees 6.). Unionism and 8et.od of ;etermination Conditions of &m,loyment - !ig.t of all worDers to self-organiGation# collective (argaining and negotiations. 6./. Concerted Activities - !ig.t to engage in ,eaceful concerted activities# including t.e rig.t to striDe in accordance wit. law. 6.3. @orDing Conditions - !ig.t to security of tenure# .umane conditions of worD and a living wage. 6.6. ;ecision 8aDing Processes - !ig.t to ,artici,ate .i ,olicy and decision maDing ,rocesses affecting t.eir rig.ts and (enefits as way to ,rovided (y law. 4. S.are in ?ruits of ,roduction - !ecognition of rig.t of la(or to its :ust s.are in fruits of ,roduction. ANOT0ER SUGGESTE7 ANSWER' o <.e Constitution (In Article OIII# Section 3 ,rovides t.at t.e State s.all afford ,rotection to la(or# local and overseas# organiGed and unorganiGed. o <.e State s.all afford ,rotection to la(or (y ,romoting full em,loyment and eEuality of em,loyment o,,ortunities for all.
o @orDers are entitled to security of tenure# .umane conditions of worD and a living wage. o <.e State s.all guarantee t.e rig.t of all worDers to self organiGation# collective
8ica-8ara com,any assails t.e validity of t.ese statutes on t.e ground t.at t.ey violate its constitutional rig.t to eEual ,rotection of t.e laws. Is t.e contention of 8ica 8ara Com,any tena(leK ;iscuss fully SUGGESTE7 ANSWER' 'o# t.e Constitution ,rovides t.at t.e state s.all afford full ,rotection to la(or. ?urt.ermore# t.e State affirms la(or as a ,rimary economic force. It s.all ,rotect t.e rig.ts of worDers and ,romote t.eir welfare. ALTERNATI9E ANSWER'
a 'o# (ecause a law w.ic. ,romotes a constitutional mandate does not violate t.e eEual ,rotection clause. <.e constitutional mandate is for t.e State to afford full ,rotection to la(or suc. t.at# w.en conflicting interests of la(or and ca,ital are to (e weig.ed on t.e scales of :ustice# t.e .eavier influence of t.e latter s.ould (e counter(alanced (y t.e sym,at.y t.e law s.ould accord t.e under,rivileged. ( <.e contention of 8ica-8ara Com,any is not tena(le. <.e constitutional rig.t to eEual ,rotection of t.e laws is not violated (y reasona(le classification. <.us# it is constitutionally ,ossi(le to treat worDers differently from em,loyers.
(argaining and negotiations# and ,eaceful concerted activities# including t.e rig.t to striDe# in accordance wit. law.
o @orDers s.all also ,artici,ate in ,olicy and decision maDing ,rocesses affecting t.eir
<.e social :ustice ,rinci,le em(odied in t.e Constitution could (e t.e (asis for treating worDers more favora(ly t.an em,loyers# in t.e im,lementation and inter,retation of t.e ,rovisions of t.e La(or Code and of its im,lementing rules and regulations.
rig.ts and (enefits as may (e ,rovided (y law. <.e State s.all ,romote t.e ,rinci,le of s.ared res,onsi(ility (etween worDers and em,loyers and t.e ,referential use of voluntary modes in settling la(or dis,utes# including conciliation# and s.all enforce mutual com,liance t.erewit. to foster industrial ,eace.
<.e State s.all regulate t.e relations (etween worDers and em,loyers# recogniGing t.e rig.t
SUGGESTE7 ANSWER'
<.e worDersP welfare s.ould (e t.e ,aramount consideration in inter,reting t.e La(or Code and its Im,lementing !ules and !egulations. <.is is
Page 10 of 108
rooted in t.e Constitutional mandate to afford full ,rotection to la(or. Article 6 of t.e La(or Code
SUGGESTE7 ANSWER'
including its im,lementing rules and regulations s.all (e resolved in favor of la(orC (PL9< v. 'L!C# %.! 'o. )))*33# July /3#)**2 . It underscores t.e ,olicy of social :ustice to accommodate t.e
interests of t.e worDing class on t.e .umane :ustification t.at t.ose w.o .ave less in life s.all
em,loyment of em,loyees as individual em,loyees or t.ose legal ,rovisions dealing wit. wages# .ours of worD and ot.er terms and conditions of
em,loyment. <.ere may (e instances w.en t.e ,rovisions of la(or relations law may interrelate wit. ,rovisions
SUGGESTE7 ANSWER'
La(or legislation is an exercise of ,olice ,ower. <.e ,ur,ose of la(or legislation is to regulate t.e relations (etween em,loyers and em,loyees
res,ecting
t.e
terms
and
conditions
of
of la(or standards law. <.us# a C$A w.ic. is dealt wit. in la(or relations law may .ave ,rovisions t.at im,roves u,on t.e minimum terms and conditions
of em,loyment ,rescri(ed in la(or standards law#
liDe a C$A ,roviding for a .ig.er minimum wage#
em,loyment# eit.er (y ,roviding for certain standards or for a legal frameworD wit.in w.ic. (etter terms and conditions of worD could (e
negotiated t.roug. collective (argaining. It is intended to correct t.e in:ustices in.erent in em,loyer-em,loyee relations.i,.
L!%2# St!t)t 4: C*!44i3i;!ti2" (199, N2= 1') ). @.at are t.e t.ree (3 general classifications of
SUGGESTE7 ANSWER'
LA$9! S<A';A!;S law is t.at la(or law w.ic.
La(or Code. <.ese $ooDs of t.e La(or Code deal wit. worDing conditions# wages# worDing conditions for women# minors# .ouse.el,ers and .omeworDers# medical and dental services# occu,ational
.ealt. and safety# termination and retirement. 9n t.e ot.er .and# LA$9! !&LA<I9'S law is t.at la(or law w.ic. regulates t.e relations (etween em,loyers and worDers liDe $ooD A of t.e La(or Code w.ic. deals wit. la(or organiGations#
la(or statutesK ;escri(e and give an exam,le of eac. classification. SUGGESTE7 ANSWER' <.e t.ree (3 general classifications of la(or statutes are5 a La(or !elations Laws( La(or Standards Laws- and c Social Security Laws.
LA$9! !&LA<I9'S Laws are t.ose la(or statutes t.at deal wit. t.e relations of la(or and management# liDe t.e laws on unions# collective
collective (argaining# unfair la(or ,ractices and striDes and locDouts. La(or standards laws and la(or relations laws are not mutually exclusive- t.ey are com,lement to
eac. ot.er. <.us# t.e law on striDes and locDouts
em,loyers# liDe t.e laws on .ours of worD# weeDly rest ,eriods# .oliday ,ay# wages# and laws dealing wit. women# minors# .ouse-.el,ers# and industrial
.ome-worDers.
w.ic. is an exam,le of la(or relations law includes <.ese ,rovisions are exam,les of la(or standards law.
some ,rovisions on t.e security of tenure of worDers w.o go on striDe or w.o are locDed out.
L!%2# St!"d!#d 64= L!%2# R *!ti2" (200>) Fow do t.e ,rovisions of t.e law on la(or relations interrelate# if at all# wit. t.e ,rovisions ,ertaining to la(or standardsK 4M
%overnment Service Insurance Act# t.e Articles of t.e La(or Code on &m,loyees Com,ensation# t.e
Page
of 108
laws are social legislation# (ut not all social legislation is la(or law.
L!%2#: !4 /#2- #t& Ri$<t (2006) @.at ,ro,erty rig.t is conferred u,on an em,loyee once t.ere is an em,loyer-em,loyee relations.i,K
;iscuss (riefly. (4M SUGGESTE7 ANSWER'
(Callanta v. Carnation P.il.# 'o. L-201)4# 9cto(er /+# )*+1 . Fence# t.e em,loyee en:oys security of tenure and .e cannot (e dismissed exce,t for
cause and only after due ,rocess. <.e worDer is t.us ,rotected and insulated against any ar(itrary
SUGGESTE7 ANSWER'
) <.e Com,anyPs action is not tena(le. <.e
,rinci,le of salutio inde(iti w.ic. is a civil law conce,t is not a,,lica(le in la(or law. <.us# solutio
inde(iti is not a,,lica(le to t.e instant case# (;avao ?ruits Cor,orations vs. 'ational La(or !elations Commission# et at. //4 SC!A 41/ ALTERNATI9E ANSWERS'
(1996)
em,loyeeK
SUGGESTE7 ANSWER'
investments# and to ex,ansion and growt.. ). <o a :ust s.are in t.e fruits of ,roduction-
/.
L!%2# 64= S2;i!* L $i4*!ti2" /. Is t.ere any distinction (etween la(or legislation
and social legislationK &x,lain.
Com,re.ensive Agrarian !eform law could also (e considered a social legislation. ALTERNATI9E ANSWER' Ies. La(or Legislation is limited in sco,e# and
deals (asically wit. t.e rig.ts and duties of
em,loyees and em,loyers. Social Legislation is more encom,assing and includes suc. su(:ects as agrarian relations# .ousing and .uman settlement#
,rotection of women and c.ildren# etc. All la(or
Page
" of 108
a
Code.
'o# t.e ,olicy does not violate t.e La(or <.e ,ractice is a valid exercise of
(d
'o# (ecause t.is amounts to a diminution of (enefits w.ic. is ,ro.i(ited (y t.e La(or Code-
against women solely on account of sex (Art. )34# La(or Code nor are t.e acts ,ro.i(ited under Art. )32 of t.e La(or Code. ALTERNATI9E ANSWER' <.e sc.ool violated Art. )32 (/ of t.e La(or Code w.ic. states t.at5 CIt s.all (e unlawful for any em,loyer to disc.arge suc. woman on account of
,regnancyC. <.e ,regnancy .ere could o(viously .ave resulted from love and suc. only lends su(stance to t.e saying t.at Ct.e .eart .as
'o# (ecause it is a fringe (enefit t.at .as already ri,ened into a demanda(le rig.t or entitlement. ()0M ALTERNATI9E ANSWER' (( Ies# (ecause it is suffering losses for t.e first timeIes# (ecause t.is is a management (c ,rerogative w.ic. is not due any legal or contractual o(ligation-
An em,loyer cannot (e forced to continue giving a (enefit# (eing given as a management ,rerogative# w.en it can no longer afford to ,ay for it. <o .old
ot.erwise# would (e to ,enaliGe t.e em,loyer for .is ,ast generosity. (ProducerPs $anD of t.e
(d
(enefits w.ic. is ,ro.i(ited (y t.e La(or Code(e 'o# (ecause it is a fringe (enefit t.at .as
already
entitlement. A com,any ,ractice favora(le to em,loyees .ad indeed (een esta(lis.ed and t.e ,ayments made ,ursuant t.ereto# ri,ened into (enefits en:oyed (y t.em. And any (enefit and su,,lement (eing
<.is answer does not contradict t.e ruling in C.uaJua w.ere t.e teac.er merely fell in love wit. a (ac.elor student and t.e teac.er# also single# did not get ,regnant out of wedlocD.
Ri$<t4 23 t< E?-*2& #: M!"!$ ? "t /# #2$!ti6 : B " 3it4: U"i*!t #!**& Gi6 "
(200,) Little Fands %arment Com,any# an unorganiGed manufacturer of c.ildrenPs a,,arel wit. around
em,loyer (y virtue of Article )00 of t.e La(or Code of t.e P.ili,,ines w.ic. ,ro.i(its t.e diminution or
elimination of t.e em,loyer of t.e em,loyeesP existing (enefits. (Sevilla <rading Co. v. Semana# %.!. 'o. )4/641# A,ril /+# /006 ALTERNATI9E ANSWER'
((
could no longer afford to ,rovide trans,ortation s.uttle services. ConseEuently# it announced t.at a
normal fare would (e c.arged de,ending on t.e distance traveled (y t.e worDers availing of t.e
time(d 'o# (ecause t.is amounts to a diminution of (enefits w.ic. is ,ro.i(ited (y t.e La(or Code. Iou cannot com,el an em,loyer to continue ,aying t.e (enefits if it is suffering from serious
service. @as t.e Little Fands %arments Com,any wit.in its rig.ts to wit.draw t.is (enefit w.ic. it .ad unilaterally (een ,roviding to its em,loyeesK
Select t.e (est answer(s and (riefly ex,lain your reason(s t.erefor. Ies# (ecause it can wit.draw a (enefit t.at (a
$argaining Agreement (C$A wit. t.e union of ranD-and-file em,loyees consisting# among ot.ers#
of (artenders# waiters# room(oys# .ousemen and stewards. ;uring t.e lifetime of t.e C$A# Far(or
first time(c
Ies# (ecause t.is is a management ,rerogative w.ic. is not due any legal or
contractual o(ligation-
Page
# of 108
stewards w.o do t.e cleaning of t.e .otelPs ,u(lic areas. 9ver t.e ,rotest of t.e Union# t.e Fotel contracted out t.e aforementioned :o( to t.e City Service Janitorial Com,any# a (onafide inde,endent contractor w.ic. .as a su(stantial ca,ital in t.e form of Janitorial tools# eEui,ment# mac.ineries and com,etent man,ower.
Is t.e action of t.e Far(or Aiew Fotel legal and validK SUGGESTE7 ANSWER'
<.e action of Far(or Aiew Fotel is legal and valid. <.e valid exercise of management ,rerogative# discretion and :udgment encom,asses all as,ects of em,loyment# including t.e .iring# worD assignments# worDing met.ods# time# ,lace and manner of worD# tools to (e used# ,rocesses to (e followed# su,ervision of worDers# worDing regulations# transfer of em,loyees# worD su,ervision# lay-off of worDers# and t.e disci,line# dismissal and recall of worDers# exce,t as ,rovided for# or limited (y s,ecial laws. Com,any ,olicies and regulations are# unless s.own to (e gross o,,ressive or contrary to law# generally (inding and valid on t.e ,arties and must (e com,lied wit. until finally revised or amended unilaterally or ,refera(ly t.roug. negotiation or (y com,etent aut.ority. (San 8iguel Cor,oration vs. !eynaldo !. U(aldo and &mmanuel 'oel A. CruG# C.airman and 8em(er res,ectively of t.e Aoluntary Ar(itration Panel# et al %.! 'o. */+4*# ) ?e(ruary )**3. J. Cam,os# Jr.# /)+ SC!A /*3
).
/.
ratified# would your answer to t.e ,receding Euestion (e differentK SUGGESTE7 ANSWER'
) <.e Union is correct. A ,rovision in t.e collective (argaining agreement concerning management ,rerogatives# may not (e inter,reted as cession of t.e em,loyees rig.t to ,artici,ate in t.e deli(eration of matters w.ic. may affect t.eir rig.t and t.e formulation of ,olicies relative t.ereto# suc. as t.e formulation of a code of disci,line. A line must (e drawn (etween management ,rerogatives regarding (usiness o,erations ,er se and t.ose w.ic. affect t.e rig.ts of t.e em,loyees# and in treating t.e latter# management s.ould see to it t.at its em,loyees are at least ,ro,erly informed of its decisions or modes of action.
ALTERNATI9E ANSWER'
a <.e action of t.e Far(or Aiew Fotel is legal and valid. C9'<!AC<I'% 9U< S&!AIC&S or functions (eing ,erformed (y union mem(ers is not illegal ,er se. In fact# it is t.e ,rerogative of management to ado,t cost-saving measures to ensure economy and efficiency. Contracting out services or functions (eing ,erformed (y Union mem(ers (ecomes illegal only w.en it interferes wit.# restrains or coerces em,loyees in t.e exercise of t.eir rig.t to self-organiGation.
( <.e action of Far(or Aiew Fotel would# at first glance# a,,ear to (e an unfair la(or ,ractice under Article /6+(c # e.g.. Cto contract out services or functions (eing ,erformed (y union mem(ers if suc. will interfere wit.# restrain or coerce em,loyees in t.e exercise of t.eir rig.t to self- organiGation.C
Considering# .owever# t.at in t.e case at (ar# t.ere is no s.owing t.at t.e contracting out of services would violate t.e em,loyees rig.t to selforganiGation# it is su(mitted t.at t.e .otelPs action is a valid exercise of its management ,rerogatives and t.e rig.t to maDe (usiness :udgments in accordance wit. law.
<.e attainment of a .armonious la(ormanagement relations.i, and t.e existing state ,olicy of enlig.tening worDers concerning t.eir rig.ts as em,loyees demand no less t.an t.e o(servance of trans,arency in managerial moves affecting em,loyeesP rig.ts. LP.ili,,ine Airlines# Inc. vs. 'ational La(or !elations Commission# et al# %.! 'o. +4*+4# )3 August )**3. J. 8elo. //4 SC!A /4+# 30). ALTERNATI9E ANSWER' a <.e Union is correct. @orDers .ave t.e rig.t to ,artici,ate in ,olicy and decisionmaDing ,rocesses affecting t.eir rig.ts# (enefits and welfare. (Art. /44J.
( Ies. <.e Union is correct in asDing for discussion of t.e revised rules ,rior to t.eir effectivity. <.e reason is Art. OIII# Sec. 3 of t.e )*+2 Constitution# allowing worDers t.e rig.t to
Page 14 of 108
,artici,ate in ,olicy and decision-maDing matters related to t.eir welfare and (enefits.
on
,roceeding# and if unresolved# su(mit t.e matter to voluntary ar(itration. SUGGESTE7 ANSWER' / <.e answer would (e t.e same even if t.e C$A
was signed or executed (efore t.e ratification of
circumstances. 'ot all la(or cases will (e automatically decided in favor of t.e worDer. 8anagement .as also rig.ts w.ic. are entitled to recognition and ,rotection- :ustice must (e dis,ensed according to facts and law- and social :ustice is not designed to destroy or o,,ress t.e em,loyer. ANOT0ER SUGGESTE7 ANSWER' Social :ustice as a guiding ,rinci,le in La(or Law can (e im,lemented side (y side wit. t.e eEual ,rotection clause of t.e Constitution.
enlig.tenment of worDers concerning t.eir rig.ts and o(ligations as em,loyees. (Art. /))- PAL vs. 'L!C# %! +4*+4# August )3# )**3 R)* : I"A)";ti2" i" L!%2# C!4 4 (2000) Professor Juan dela CruG# an aut.or of t.e
In im,lementation of t.e ,rinci,le of social :ustice# t.e Constitution commands t.at t.e State s.all afford ,rotection to la(or. <.us La(or Law may (e
,ro-la(or in t.e sense t.at la(or is given certain
(enefits not given to management. $ut t.is is not
necessarily violative of t.e eEual ,rotection clause of t.e Constitution (ecause said clause allows
reasona(le classification.
(URIS7ICTION
CBA: I?-* ? "t!ti2" & I"t #-# t!ti2" (199,) Fow are cases arising from t.e Inter,retation or im,lementation collective (argaining of agreements .andled and dis,osedK SUGGESTE7 ANSWER' <.roug. t.e grievance mac.inery and if not resolved (y t.e grievance mac.inery# t.roug. voluntary ar(itration. 7!?!$ 4: A%4 "; 23 EBE R *!ti2"4<i(199,) Pa(lo $agsaDin. a law graduate w.o got tired of taDing t.e (ar examinations after several unsuccessful attem,ts# :oined t.e Investigation ;ivision of @araD <rans,ort Com,any. ?rom t.e very (eginning Pa(lo never liDed .is manager
P.ili,,ine lawK (4M SUGGESTE7 ANSWER' Ies. <.e statutory (asis is Article /46 of t.e La(or
Code. It ,ro.i(its issuance of in:unction# as a
law (e so used (y t.e courts in sym,at.y wit. t.e worDing man if it collides wit. t.e eEual ,rotection clause of t.e ConstitutionK &x,lain. 4M SUGGESTE7 ANSWER' Ies. <.e State is (ound under t.e Constitution to afford full ,rotection to La(or- and w.en conflicting interests collide and t.ey are to (e weig.ed on t.e
scales of social :ustice# t.e law s.ould accord more sym,at.y and com,assion to t.e less ,rivileged worDingman. (?uentes v. 'L!C. /11 SC!A /6 f )**2) Fowever# it s.ould (e (orne in mind t.at
forcesC (y t.e State w.en it is used to s.ield wrongdoing. (CoraGon Jamer v. 'L!C. /2+ SC!A 13/ ?) **2)) ANOT0ER SUGGESTE7 ANSWER' 'o# social :ustice as a guiding ,rinci,le in law may
not (e used (y t.e courts if it collides wit. t.e eEual ,rotection clause of t.e Constitution. Social :ustice is not a magic wand a,,lica(le in all
dismissal wit. t.e La(or Ar(iter against t.e manager and t.e trans,ort com,any. Pa(lo asDed for reinstatement wit.out loss of seniority rig.ts
wit. full (acD wages. Pa(lo also filed (efore t.e Pasig !<C a motion to dismiss t.e damage suit against .im alleging t.at t.e La(or Ar(iter (efore
Page
$ of 108
w.om t.e case for illegal dismissal was ,ending .ad exclusive :urisdiction over (ot. cases. !esolve t.e motion to dismiss. ;iscuss fully.
SUGGESTE7 ANSWER' <.e motion to dismiss filed (y Pa(lo (efore t.e Pasig !<C s.ould (e denied.
<.e damage suit filed (y t.e manager against Pa(lo does not arise from em,loyer-em,loyee relations.i,. @.ile t.e case involves an em,loyer and .is em,loyee. It is not t.e em,loyer- em,loyee relations.i, (etween t.e two t.at gives rise to t.e damage suit. Instead# it is (ased solely on an alleged tort w.ic. could give rise to a damage suit under t.e Civil Code. <.us# t.e La(or Ar(iter .as no :urisdiction over t.e damage suit.
La(or Code. (8edina v. Castro-$artolome# ))1 SC!A 4*2 ALTERNATI9E ANSWER' <.e 8otion to dismiss s.ould (e granted. According to t.e La(or Code (in Article /)2 (a 6 # t.e La(or Ar(iter .as original and exclusive :urisdiction to .ear and decide# among ot.ers# claims for actual# moral# exem,lary and ot.er forms of damages arising from t.e em,loyer- em,loyee relations.
<.e claim for damages in t.e case in Euestion arose from t.e fact t.at t.e President of t.e Com,any s.outed invectives at 8arlet ;emetrio in t.e ,resence of em,loyees and visitors for a minor infraction s.e committed. If t.e infraction .as somet.ing to do wit. .er worD# t.en# t.e claim for damages could (e considered as arising from em,loyer-em,loyee relations. <.us# t.e claim is under t.e exclusive :urisdiction of t.e La(or Ar(iter.
@it. res,ect to t.e civil suit for damages# t.e com,any lawyer filed a 8otion to ;ismiss for lacD of :urisdiction considering t.e existence of an em,loyer-em,loyee relations.i, and t.erefore# it is claimed t.at t.e case s.ould .ave (een filed (efore t.e La(or Ar(iter. /. !ule on t.e 8otion to ;ismiss. S.ould it (e granted or deniedK &x,lain (riefly (3M . SUGGESTE7 ANSWER' <.e 8otion to ;ismiss s.ould (e denied. It is a regular court and not a La(or Ar(iter t.at .as :urisdiction on t.e suit for damages.
<.e damages are not arising from t.e em,loyerem,loyee relations w.ic. would .ave ,laced t.e suit under t.e :urisdiction of a La(or Ar(iter. <.e suit arises from t.e fact t.at t.e President of t.e com,any s.outed invectives at 8arlet ;emetrio in t.e ,resence of em,loyees and visitors. Fer com,laint for damages is against an officer of t.e Com,any (ased on slanderous language allegedly made (y t.e latter. <.is falls under t.e Jurisdiction of t.e ordinary courts. <.ere is .ere a sim,le action for damages for tortious acts allegedly committed (y t.e defendant. Suc. (eing t.e case# t.e governing statute is t.e Civil Code and not t.e
7i4?i44!*: I"tC* A$ ";& (1994) In )**0# Aic %arcia was .ired (y t.e International La(or 9rganiGation (IL9 9ffice in 8anila as a (ooDDee,er for five years. 9n January 4. )**6# .e was advised t.at .is services were (eing terminated for loss of confidence. %arcia Euestioned .is dismissal (y IL9-8anila as ar(itrary and wit.out (enefit of due ,rocess. ) If you were counsel for IL9# w.at defense7s s.ould you ,ut u,K / If you were t.e La(or Ar(iter# .ow would you decide t.e caseK SUGGESTE7 ANSWER' ) <.e defense t.at I will ,ut u, will (e to claim t.at (eing an international agency# t.e IL9 en:oys immunity# namely functional inde,endence and freedom from control of t.e state in w.ose territory its office is located and is t.us (eyond t.e :urisdiction of t.e La(or Ar(iter. (Sout.east Asian ?is.eries ;evelo,ment Center - AEua Culture ;e,artment# et al vs. 'ational La(or !elations Commission# et al %.! 'o# +1223# )6 ?e(ruary )**/
/ If I were t.e La(or Ar(iter. I will grant t.e motion to dismiss. <.e IL9 (eing an International agency# t.e same is (eyond t.e :urisdiction of t.e La(or Ar(iter and immune from t.e legal writs and ,rocesses of t.e administrative agencies of t.e country# w.ere it is found# for t.e reason t.at t.e su(:ection of suc. an organiGation to t.e aut.ority of t.e local agencies would afford a convenient medium t.roug. w.ic. t.e .ost government may interfere in its o,erations or even influence or control its ,olicies and decisions# and (esides# suc. su(:ection to local :urisdiction would Im,air t.e ca,acity of suc. (ody to im,artially disc.arge its res,onsi(ilities.
Page
% of 108
/. termination dis,utes-
SUGGESTE7 ANSWER'
<.e dismissal of an &xecutive Aice-,resident of a Cor,oration# w.o is a cor,orate officer# (y t.e $oard of ;irectors of t.e cor,oration is not a termination dis,ute under t.e Jurisdiction of a La(or Ar(iter. It is an intra-cor,orate dis,ute t.at is under t.e :urisdiction of t.e Securities and &xc.ange Commission.
!esolve t.e motion. SUGGESTE7 ANSWER' <.e 8otion to ;ismiss s.ould (e granted. <.e election of Jonat.an Pe as Aice President of 'ew @ave $eauty S.o,# Inc# made .im a cor,orate officer.
Fis su(seEuent dismissal as suc. cor,orate officer is considered an intra-cor,orate matter. <.us# t.e dismissal of Pe is not a case of a termination dis,ute w.ic. is under t.e Jurisdiction of a !egional $ranc. of t.e 'L!C. Instead# it is under t.e Jurisdiction of t.e Securities and &xc.ange Commission# it .aving :urisdiction over intracor,orate matters.
L!%2# A#%it # (199,) ). %ive t.e original and exclusive :urisdiction of La(or Ar(iters. SUGGESTE7 ANSWER' La(or Ar(iters .ave original and exclusive :urisdiction over5 ). unfair la(or ,ractices-
3.
6.
4. 1.
cases accom,anied wit. a claim for reinstatement# and involving wages# rates of ,ay# .ours of worD# and ot.er terms and conditions of em,loymentclaims for actual# moral# exem,lary and ot.er forms of damages arising from em,loyer-em,loyee relations5
cases arising from any violation of Article /16 of t.e La(or Code# including Euestions involving t.e legality of striDes and locDout- and exce,t claims of &m,loyees Com,ensation# Social Security. 8edicare and maternity (enefits# all ot.er claims arising from em,loyer-em,loyee relations including t.ose ,ersons in domestic or .ouse.old service# Involving an amount exceeding five t.ousand ,esos (P4#000 00 regardless of w.et.er accom,anied wit. a claim for reinstatement.
Article //3 of t.e La(or Code reads5 C;ecisions# awards# or orders of t.e La(or Ar(iter are final and executory unless a,,ealed to t.e Commission (y any or (ot. ,arties wit.in ten ()0 calendar days from# recei,t of suc. decisions# awards# or orders.C ANOT0ER SUGGESTE7 ANSWER' <.e 'L!C could dismiss outrig.t t.e a,,eal for (eing filed out of time. $ut if t.ere are good reasons t.at may :ustifia(ly ex,lain w.y t.ere was a delay in t.e filing of t.e a,,eal# su(stantial :ustice may (e t.e (asis for t.e 'L!C to taDe cogniGance of t.e a,,eal.
SUGGESTE7 ANSWER'
$Ps action is not tena(le. In t.e case of ;elta Aentures !esources vs. Fon. ?ernando P. La(ato# %.!. 'o. ))+/)1# 8arc. *# /000# t.e Su,reme Court ruled t.at t.e regular courts .ave no :urisdiction to act on la(or cases or various
SUGGESTE7 ANSWER' <.e 'L!C s.ould dismiss t.e a,,eal outrig.t (ecause t.e same was filed (eyond t.e reglementary ,eriod of a,,eal.
Page
& of 108
incidents arising t.erefrom# including t.e execution of decisions# awards or orders. ANOT0ER SUGGESTE7 ANSWER' Ies# $Ps action (efore t.e !egional <rial Court is tena(le if said action is limited to t.e filing of a damage suit against t.e La(or Ar(iter (ecause t.ere exists no em,loyer-em,loyee relations.i, (etween C$C and t.e La(or Ar(iter# and t.ere is no la(or dis,ute (etween t.em. In Agricultural ;evelo,ment Cor,oration vs. Court of A,,eals# %.!. 'o. ))/)3*. January 3)# /000# t.e Su,reme Court# ruled5
CIt is well settled in law and :uris,rudence t.at w.ere '9 em,loyer-em,loyee relations.i, exists (etween t.e ,arties and no issue is involved w.ic. may (e resolved (y reference to t.e La(or Code# ot.er la(or statutes or any collective (argaining agreement# it is t.e !egional <rial Court t.at .as :urisdiction.C
M dB!#%it # (1996)
<.e national council of O Union# t.e exclusive (argaining re,resentative of all daily ,aid worDers of Q Cor,.# called a general meeting and ,assed a resolution w.ic. ,rovides t.at eac. union mem(er was to (e assessed P )#000 to (e deducted from t.e lum, sum of P)0#000.00 w.ic. eac. em,loyee was to receive under t.e C$A. Sergio# a Union mem(er# ,rotested and refused to sign t.e aut.oriGation sli, for t.e deduction. O Union t.en ,assed a resolution ex,elling Sergio from t.e union. Sergio filed a com,laint (efore t.e La(or Ar(iter for illegal deduction and ex,ulsion from t.e union. @ill t.e com,laint ,ros,erK &x,lain.
SUGGESTE7 ANSWER'
<.e com,laint will not ,ros,er (efore t.e La(or Ar(iter (ecause t.ere is .ere an intra-union conflict w.ic. is under t.e Jurisdiction of t.e 8ed-Ar(iter. (See Art# //1 and !ule A of $ooD A of t.e !ules and !egulations Im,lementing t.e La(or Code .
M2" & C*!i?4: R i"4t!t ? "t (1996) Sara .as (een worDing as .ousemaid for t.e $o:ilov s,ouses for t.ree (3 years. In t.e early morning of July /+# t.e s,ouses and Sara were watc.ing t.e live coverage of t.e finals of an 9lym,ic (oxing matc. (etween a $ulgarian and a ?ili,ino w.ic. t.e foreign fig.ter won on ,oints. Peeved (y SaraPs angry remarDs t.at t.e scoring was unfair# t.e $o:ilov s,ouses fired .er on t.e s,ot.
Sara t.ereafter filed a com,laint wit. t.e !egional ;irector of t.e ;9L& for un,aid salaries totalling P4#400.00. <.e $o:ilov s,ouses moved to dismiss t.e com,laint on t.e (elief t.at SaraPs claim falls wit.in t.e Jurisdiction of t.e La(or Ar(iter. Sara# .owever# claimed t.at t.e !egional ;irector can
visitorial ,owers under Art. )/+ and of Art. )/* of t.e La(or Code# as amended# w.ic. em,owers t.e !egional ;irector to .ear and decide# among ot.ers# matters involving recovery of wages.
). /.
@.ose ,osition will you sustainK &x,lain. @ill your answer (e t.e same if SaraPs claim is P6#400.00 wit. reinstatementK &x,lain. SUGGESTE7 ANSWER'
) I will sustain t.e ,osition of t.e $o:ilov s,ouses. Art. )/+ is not a,,lica(le (ecause t.e case did not arise as a result of t.e exercise of visitorial and enforcement ,owers (y t.e !egional ;irector# as t.e duly aut.oriGed re,resentative of t.e Secretary of La(or and &m,loyment. Instead# t.e case is a sim,le money claim under Art. )/*# w.ic. could (e under t.e :urisdiction of t.e !egional ;irector if t.e claim does not exceed P4#000.
3. @.at is t.e :urisdiction of t.e 'ational La(or !elations CommissionK SUGGESTE7 ANSWER' Jurisdiction of t.e 'L!C5 ). exclusive a,,ellate :urisdiction over cases decided (y La(or Ar(iter/.
all
exclusive a,,ellate :urisdiction over all cases decided (y !egional ;irectors or .earing officers involving t.e recovery of wages and ot.er monetary claims and (enefits arising from em,loyer-em,loyee relations w.ere t.e aggregate money claim of eac. em,loyee or .ouse.el,er does not exceed five t.ousand ,esos (P4#000.00 -
3.
$ut t.e claim exceeds P4#000.00. <.us# it is t.e La(or Ar(iter w.o .as :urisdiction under Art. /)2(a of t.e La(or Code. / I will still .old t.at it is t.e La(or Ar(iter t.at .as :urisdiction. It is true t.at t.e money claim no longer exceeds P4#000. $ut t.ere is a claim for reinstatement. <.us# t.is claim is under t.e :urisdiction of a La(or Ar(iter# ,er Art. )/* of t.e La(or Code.
6.
original Jurisdiction to act as a com,ulsory ar(itration (ody over la(or dis,utes certified to 'L!C (y t.e Secretary of La(or and &m,loyment- and ,ower to issue a la(or in:unction.
Page 18 of 108
,a,ers and documentary evidence. At t.e Initial .earing (efore t.e 'L!C# t.e ,arties agreed to
su(mit t.e case for resolution after t.e su(mission of t.e ,osition ,a,ers and evidence.
Su(seEuently# t.e 'L!C issued an ar(itral award resolving t.e dis,uted ,rovisions of t.e C$A and
Su,reme Court ruled5 PA,,ellate aut.ority over decisions of t.e !egional ;irector involving examination of union
xxx Section 6. Jurisdiction of t.e $ureau R (( <.e $ureau s.all exercise a,,ellate :urisdiction over
all cases originating from t.e !egional ;irector involving .... Com,laints for examination of union (ooDs of accounts. <.e language of t.e law is categorical. Any additional ex,lanation on t.e matter is su,erflous.C N!tC* L!%2# R *!ti2"4 C2??i44i2"4 (2001) Com,any CAC# wit.in t.e reglementary ,eriod# a,,ealed t.e decision of a La(or Ar(iter directing t.e reinstatement of an em,loyee and awarding
SUGGESTE7 ANSWER'
<.e a,,eal s.ould not ,ros,er. <.e Su,reme
Court# in many cases# .as ruled t.at decisions made (y t.e 'L!C may (e (ased on ,osition ,a,ers. In t.e Euestion# it is stated t.at t.e ,arties
agreed to su(mit t.e case for resolution after t.e
su(mission of ,osition ,a,ers and evidence. %iven t.is fact# t.e striDer-mem(ers of $ cannot now com,lain t.at t.ey were denied due ,rocess. <.ey are in esto,,el. After voluntarily su(mitting a case
and encountering an adverse decision on t.e merits# it is too late for t.e loser to Euestion t.e :urisdiction or ,ower of t.e court. A ,arty cannot ado,t a ,osture of dou(le dealing. (8arEueG vs.
?e(ruary ))# )***# t.e Su,reme Court ruled5 C<.e standard of due ,rocess t.at must (e met in administrative tri(unals allows a certain degree of latitude as long as fairness is not ignored. Fence# it is not legally o(:ectiona(le for (eing violative of due ,rocess# for t.e la(or
ar(iter to resolve a case (ased solely on t.e ,osition ,a,ers# affidavits or documentary
surety (ond... In t.e amount eEuivalent to t.e monetary award in t.e :udgment a,,ealed from.C
evidence su(mitted (y t.e ,arties. <.e affidavits of witnesses in suc. case may taDe t.e ,lace of direct testimony.C
N!tC* L!%2# R *!ti2"4 C2??i44i2" (2001)
com,any duly accredited (y t.e Commission in t.e amount eEuivalent to t.e monetary award in
t.e :udgment a,,ealed from.C ANOT0ER SUGGESTE7 ANSWER' <.e 'L!C may still entertain t.e a,,eal.
Some disgruntled mem(ers of $antay La(or# Union filed wit. t.e !egional 9ffice of t.e ;9L& a written com,laint against t.eir union officers for
mismanagement of union funds. <.e !egional
It is true t.at t.e La(or Code (in Art. //3 ,rovides t.at a,,eal is ,erfected only u,on t.e ,osting of a cas. or surety (ond. $ut if Com,any A filed a motion for t.e reduction of t.e (ond# and said motion was only acted u,on after t.e reglementary
,eriod# a,,eal. O6 #4 !4 E?-*2&? "t: C*!i?: T2#t4 (2004) t.en# t.e 'L!C# in t.e interest of
(3M . SUGGESTE7 ANSWER' Ies# t.e union officers are correct in claiming t.at
t.e 'L!C .as no :urisdiction over t.e a,,ealed ruling of t.e !egional ;irector. In $arles vs.
com,any# Ca,t. <!9I em(arDed on an oceangoing vessel in good .ealt.. 9ne stormy nig.t at
sea# .e was drenc.ed wit. rainwater. <.e
Page
( of 108
following morning# .e contracted fever w.ic. lasted for days. Fe suffered loose (owel movement# lost .is a,,etite# and eventually .e died (efore a sc.eduled airlift to t.e nearest ,ort. Su(seEuently# t.e widow of Ca,t. <!9I com,lained against t.e local manning agent and its foreign ,rinci,al (efore t.e !egional Ar(itration $ranc. of ;9L&# for actual and exem,lary damages and attorney>s fees. S.e invoDed t.e La(or Code ,rovision w.ic. reEuires t.e em,loyer to ,rovide all necessary assistance to ensure t.e adeEuate and necessary medical attendance and treatment of t.e in:ured or sicD em,loyee in case of emergency. !es,ondents moved to dismiss t.e com,laint on t.e ground t.at t.e La(or Ar(iter .as no :urisdiction over t.e com,laint for damages arising from illness and deat. of Ca,t. <!9I a(road. !esolve t.e motion wit. reasons. (4M
SUGGESTE7 ANSWER'
In <olosa v. 'L!C# (%.!. )6*42+# A,ril )0#/003 # t.e Su,reme Court .eld t.at w.at we .ave in t.is case is a claim arising from tort or Euasi-delict. In suc. a situation# t.e seaman w.o died on 'ovem(er )+# )**/# cannot sue (efore t.e La(or Ar(iter. $ut t.is will not a,,ly now# as under Sec. )0# !.A. +06/# Leffective June 2# )**4N# w.at we .ave is a claim Carising out of an em,loyerem,loyee relations.i, or (y virtue of any law or contract involving ?ili,ino worDers for overseas de,loyment including claims for actual# moral# exem,lary and ot.er forms of damagesC# cogniGa(le (y t.e CLa(or Ar(iters of t.e 'ational La(or !elations CommissionC ('L!C w.o .ave t.e original and exclusive :urisdiction t.ereon.
O6 #4 !4 E?-*2&? "t: M!"d!t2#& R ?itt!"; : 12# i$" ED;<!"$ (2006) Can an overseas worDer refuse to remit .is earnings to .is de,endents and de,osit t.e same in t.e country w.ere .e worDs to gain more interestsK &x,lain. (4M SUGGESTE7 ANSWER'
'9. Art. // of t.e La(or Code ,rovides t.at it s.all (e mandatory for all ?ili,ino worDers a(road to remit a ,ortion of t.eir foreign exc.ange earnings to t.eir families# de,endents# and7or (eneficiaries in accordance wit. t.e rules and regulations ,rescri(ed (y t.e Secretary of La(or and &m,loyment. &xecutive 9rder 'o. +42 ,rescri(es t.e ,ercentage of foreign exc.ange remittance from 40M to +0M of t.e (asic salary# de,ending on t.e worDerPs Dind of :o(. Fence# an overseas worDer cannot refuse to remit .is earnings. 9t.erwise# .e s.all (e sus,ended or excluded from t.e list of eligi(le worDers for
violations- .e s.all (e re,atriated at .is own ex,ense or at t.e ex,ense of .is em,loyer as t.e case may (e.
t.e recovery of wages and ot.er claims and (enefits owing to an or ,erson em,loyed in domestic or service# ,rovided t.at t.e money claim exceed P4.999.99. (8ontoya vs
If you were t.e !egional ;irector# .ow would you resolve t.e matterK SUGGESTE7 ANSWER'
As !egional ;irector# I will assume Jurisdiction. <.e ,rovisions of P.;. 'o. )40+ reEuiring t.e su(mission of dis,utes (efore t.e $arangay Lu,ong <aga,aya,a ,rior to t.eir filing wit. t.e court or ot.er government offices are not a,,lica(le to la(or cases. Article )/* of t.e La(or Code em,owers t.e !egional ;irector to .ear and decide any matter
SUGGESTE7 ANSWER' $9I can file a 8otion for !econsideration wit. t.e 'L!C after ten ()0 calendar days from recei,t of t.e decision.
If t.e 'L!C denies t.e 8otion for !econsideration# $9I can file a ,etition for certiorari wit. t.e Court of A,,eals under !ule 14 of t.e !ules of Court since t.e decision of t.e 'L!C is final and executory.
/. Can %enevieve CruG avail .erself of t.e same remedy as t.at of $9IK @.yK (/M SUGGESTE7 ANSWER' %enevieve CruG can avail .erself of t.e same remedy as t.at of t.e $9I. <.e remedies descri(ed for t.e $9I are also t.e same remedies availa(le to %enevieve CruG as a ,arty to t.e case# ,ursuant to t.e La(or Code (Article //3 and t.e !ules of Court (!ule 14 . Panel5 $ut t.e facts of t.e case indicates t.at %enevieve did not a,,eal. S.e t.erefore cannot avail of t.e remedy.
one .undred ()00 worDers# en:oined t.e em,loyer from im,lementing t.eir termination. Fas t.e
S ;# t!#& 23 L!%2#: A)t<2#it& (1995) An airline w.ic. flies (ot. t.e international and domestic routes reEuested t.e Secretary of La(or and &m,loyment to a,,rove t.e ,olicy t.at all female flig.t attendants u,on reac.ing age forty (60 wit. at least fifteen ()4 years of service s.all (e com,ulsorily retired- .owever# flig.t attendants w.o .ave reac.ed age forty (60 (ut .ave not worDed for fifteen ()4 years will (e allowed to continue worDing in order to Eualify for retirement (enefits# (ut in no case will t.e extension exceed four (6 years.
;oes t.e Secretary of La(or and &m,loyment .ave t.e aut.ority to a,,rove t.e ,olicyK L4MS
SUGGESTE7 ANSWER' Ies# t.e Secretary of La(or and &m,loyment .as t.e aut.ority to a,,rove a ,olicy dealing wit. t.e retirement of flig.t attendants of airlines. Article )3/ (d of t.e La(or Code ,rovides t.at t.e Secretary of La(or and &m,loyment s.all esta(lis. standards t.at will ensure t.e safety and .ealt. of women em,loyees# including t.e aut.ority to determine a,,ro,riate minimum age and ot.er standards for retirement or termination in s,ecial occu,ations suc. as t.ose of flig.t attendants and t.e liDe. CA*EAT+ It !o' d %e arg'ed that Arti! e 110 7d8 "a$ %e 'n!onstit'tiona %e!a'se this "a$ !onstit'te dis!ri"ination in (io ation of the s&irit of +e!tion 12 of Arti! e 9III of the Constit'tion whi!h &ro(ides that the +tate sha &rote!t working wo"en %$ &ro(iding safe and hea thf' working !onditions* taking into a!!o'nt their "aterna f'n!tions* and s'!h fa!i ities and o&&ort'nities that wi enhan!e their we fare and ena% e the" to rea i:e their f' &otentia in the ser(i!e of the nation#
<.e Secretary of La(or and &m,loyment# after recei,t of a 'otice to <erminate &m,loyment of
Secretary of La(or and &m,loyment t.e aut.ority to en:oin t.e em,loyer from terminating t.e em,loyment of t.e worDersK If so# on w.at groundsK L4M) SUGGESTE7 ANSWER' <.e Secretary of La(or and &m,loyment .as t.e aut.ority to en:oin an em,loyer from terminating t.e em,loyment of worDers.
<.e La(or Code (in Article 322(( ,rovides t.at t.e Secretary of La(or and &m,loyment may sus,end t.e effectivity of t.e termination of worDers ,ending t.e resolution of a la(or dis,ute in t.e event of a ,rima facie finding of an a,,ro,riate official of t.e ;e,artment of La(or and &m,loyment (efore w.om suc. dis,ute is ,ending t.at t.e termination may cause a serious la(or dis,ute or is in im,lementation of a mass lay off.
92*)"t!#& A#%it#!t2# (199.) State t.e cases w.en a la(or dis,ute would fall under t.e Jurisdiction of voluntary ar(itrators or ,anel of voluntary ar(itrators. SUGGESTE7 ANSWER' A la(or dis,ute falls under t.e :urisdiction of a voluntary ar(itrator or a ,anel of voluntary ar(itrator if a la(or dis,utes arises from an unresolved grievance w.ic. in turn arises from t.e inter,retation or im,lementation of a Collective $argaining Agreement or of
SUGGESTE7 ANSWER'
'o. A voluntary ar(itrator c.osen under t.e %rievance 8ac.inery of a C$A can exercise :urisdiction not only on dis,utes involving inter,retation7im,lementation of a C$A and7or com,any rules# ,ersonnel ,olicies (Art. /1)# La(or Code (ut also# u,on agreement of t.e ,arties# Call
Page "
of 108
ot.er la(or dis,utes including unfair la(or ,racticeP (Art. /1/# La(or Code . As no o(:ection was raised (y any of t.e ,arties w.en Pt.e dis,ute was referred to a voluntary ar(itrator w.o later ruled on t.e issues raised (y t.e ,artiesC# it follows t.at w.at we .ave is voluntary ar(itration agreed u,on (y t.e ,arties. Fis decision is (inding u,on t.e ,arties and may (e enforced t.roug. any of t.e s.eriffs# including t.ose of t.e 'L!C# .e may de,utiGe. ANOT0ER SUGGESTE7 ANSWER' 'o. <.e award of voluntary ar(itrators acting wit.in t.e sco,e of t.eir aut.ority determines t.e rig.ts of t.e ,arties# and t.eir decisions .ave t.e same legal effects as a :udgment of t.e Court. Suc. decisions on matters of fact or law are conclusive# and all matters in t.e award are t.encefort. res judicata on t.e t.eory t.at t.e matter .as (een ad:udged (y t.e tri(unal w.ic. t.e ,arties .ave agreed to maDe final as tri(unal of last resort. LAolDsc.el La(or Union v. 'L!C. *+ SC!A 3)6 ()*+0 .
LABOR RELATIONS
CBA: A--#2-#i!t B!#$!i"i"$ U"it (1995) @.at is an a,,ro,riate (argaining unit for ,ur,oses of collective (argainingK L4MN SUGGESTE7 ANSWER'
An APP!9P!IA<& $A!%AI'I'% U'I< is a grou, of em,loyees of a given em,loyer com,rised of all or less t.an all of t.e entire (ody of em,loyees# w.ic. t.e collective interest of all t.e em,loyees# consistent wit. t.e interest of t.e em,loyer# indicate to (e t.e (est suited to serve reci,rocal rig.ts and duties of t.e ,arties under t.e collective (argaining ,rovisions of t.e law. (See# e.g.# University of t.e P.ili,,ines v. ?errer-Calle:a# /)) SC!A 64) ()**/ .
CBA: A#%it#!* A8!#d: R t#2!;ti6 E33 ;t (2001) Com,any A and Union $ .ad a 3-year C$A t.at ex,ired on June )/# )**0. 'egotiations ,roved futile so t.e unresolved issues were referred to an Ar(iter w.o rendered a decision on 8arc. )4# )**/ retroactive to ;ecem(er )6# )**0. Is t.e Ar(iterPs decision ,roviding for retroactivity tena(le or notK @.yK (4M SUGGESTE7 ANSWER' <.e referral of t.e unresolved issues of t.e collective (argaining negotiations to an Ar(iter is not wit.in t.e :urisdiction of t.e Ar(iter.
$ut assuming t.at t.e unresolved issues in t.e collective (argaining negotiations were ,ro,erly referred to t.e Ar(iter ,ursuant to t.e ,rovision of t.e
Aoluntary Ar(itrator may .ear and decide any la(or dis,ute# including (argaining deadlocDs# t.e Ar(iterPs decision ,roviding for retroactivity is tena(le. &xercising .is com,ulsory ar(itration ,ower# t.e Ar(iter could decide t.e issue of retroactivity in any way w.ic. is not contrary to law# morals# good customs# ,u(lic order or ,u(lic ,olicy.
$ut in a case (8anila &lectric Co vs. Secretary of La(or Leonardo Juisum(ing# %.!. 'o. )/24*+# ?e(ruary //# /000 # t.e Su,reme Court said t.at an ar(itral award s.all retroact to t.e first day after t.e six-mont. ,eriod following t.e ex,iration of t.e last day of t.e C$A t.at was (eing re-negotiated.
La(or assumed Jurisdiction over t.e dis,ute and certified t.e same to t.e 'L!C for ,ro,er dis,osition. Proceedings (efore t.e 'L!C ended on 'ovem(er 30. )**0 and a decision was rendered on ;ecem(er )4# )**0# <.e said decision made retroactive to 8arc. )4# )**0 t.e new C$A containing t.e issues resolved (y t.e 'L!C# as well as t.ose concluded and agreed u,on (y t.e ,arties ,rior to t.eir arriving at a deadlocD in t.eir negotiations. Com,any O Euestioned t.e retroactivity of t.e C$A alleging t.at t.e same contravenes Art. /43-A of t.e La(or Code# w.ic. ,rovides for t.e automatic retroactivity of t.e renewed C$A only if t.e same is entered into wit.in six (1 mont.s from its ex,iry date# and# if not# t.e ,arties must agree on t.e duration of retroactivity.
) Is Com,any OPs ,osition correctK / @ould your answer (e different if t.e assum,tion of :urisdiction (y t.e Secretary of La(or was at t.e reEuest or instance of Com,any OK SUGGESTE7 ANSWER'
) <.e Com,anyPs ,osition is not correct. In t.e a(sence of a s,ecific ,rovision of law ,ro.i(iting retroactivity of t.e effectivity of ar(itral awards issued (y t.e Secretary of La(or# t.e same is deemed vested wit. ,lenary and discretionary ,owers to determine t.e effectivity t.ereof# (St LuDePs 8edical Center# Inc. vs. Fon. !u(en 9.
Page 22 of 108
<orres# etal#-%.!. 'o. **3*4# /* June )**3# J. 8elo. /// SC!A 22* / 'o. !egardless of w.ic. ,arty soug.t t.e
assum,tion (y t.e La(or Secretary# t.e effect
salary
increases
and
ot.er
related
annual
increases ,rovided in t.e )**0-)**/ C$A even after t.e ex,iration of said C$A as long as said
continue in full force and effect t.e terms and conditions of t.e existing agreement during t.e 10day (freedom ,eriod and7or until a new agreement
is reac.ed (y t.e ,arties.C
two years of t.eir five-year C$A on A,ril )# )**0 to ex,ire on 8arc. 3)# )**/. Considering t.e amica(le relations (etween t.e ,arties# neit.er one
moved for t.e extension or termination of t.e
agreement.
Sometime in )**4. some disgruntled em,loyees
com,eting la(or unions. <.ey (ot. claim to re,resent all t.e ranD-and-file em,loyees. Union A is led (y a moderate faction# w.ile Union $ is
affiliated wit. a militant federation identified wit. leftist ideology. @.ic. of t.e following courses of action s.ould you
increases and related (enefits s,ecifically ,rovided for in t.e C$A were# ,ursuant to contract and law# effective only for t.e term s,ecified t.erein# namely# until 8arc. 3)# )**/ only. @.o is correctK State t.e reason(s for your answer. (4M SUGGESTE7 ANSWER'
<.e disgruntled em,loyees are correct in t.eir claim t.at t.e ex,ired C$A remains in full force
and effect until a new C$A is signed in accordance wit. Article /43 of t.e La(or Code.
<.e SC ruled in 'ew Pacific <im(er and Su,,ly Co# Inc. us. 'L!C# %! 'o. )/6//6. 8arc. )2# /0005 CArticle /43 of t.e La(or Code ex,licitly ,rovided t.at until a new Collective $argaining
LABOR LAW Bar Q & A (as arranged by Topics) 19942006 w.ic. union really re,resents t.e ma:ority
of
t.e em,loyees in t.e (argaining unit. ()0M $ut to .ave t.e a(ove-mentioned effect# t.e C$A
ALTERNATI9E ANSWER'
(d Petition t.e $ureau of La(or !elations to
s.ould .ave (een filed and registered wit. t.e ;e,artment of La(or and &m,loyment (See Article
/3)# /43-A and /41
ng 8anggagaiva LI$8N v. Calle:a# %.!. 'o. +61+4# ?e(ruary /3#)**0 ALTERNATI9E ANSWER'
(c Ignore t.e demands of eit.er union since you cannot (e com,elled legally to deal wit. t.em at
<.us# a C$A t.at .as not (een filed and registered wit. t.e ;e,artment of La(or and &m,loyment cannot (e a (ar to a certification election and suc. election can (e .eld outside of t.e freedom ,eriod
of suc. C$A. ALTERNATI9E ANSWER'
t.is stage.
A ,etition for certification election may (e filed outside t.e freedom ,eriod of a current C$A if
suc. C$A is a new C$A t.at .as (een ,rematurely entered into# meaning# it was entered into (efore t.e ex,iry date of t.e old C$A. <.e filing of t.e
(/.4M SUGGESTE7 ANSWER' I&S. Sec. /0# !ule *# $ooD A ,rovides t.at w.ere
t.e votes cast results in Cno unionC o(taining t.e
,etition for certification election s.all (e wit.in t.e freedom ,eriod of t.e old C$A w.ic. is outside of t.e freedom ,eriod of t.e new C$A t.at .ad (een
,rematurely entered into. CBA: C #ti3i;!ti2" E* ;ti2": /#2%!ti2"!#& E?-*2& 4 (1999)
CBA: C #ti3i;!ti2" E* ;ti2": C2"4 "t E* ;ti2": R)"BO33 E* ;ti2" (2000) ;istinguis. (etween CCertification &lectionC# CConsent &lection#C and C!un-off &lectionC# (1M SUGGESTE7 ANSWER' C&!<I?ICA<I9' &L&C<I9' reEuires a ,etition for
a Certification &lection filed (y a union or
certification electionK @.yK (/M . SUGGESTE7 ANSWER' In a certification election# all ranD-and-file em,loyees in t.e a,,ro,riate (argaining unit are entitled to vote. <.is ,rinci,le is clearly stated in
ma:ority of t.e em,loyees in suc. unit s.all (e t.e exclusive re,resentative of t.e em,loyees in suc.
unit for t.e ,ur,ose of collective (argaining.C Collective (argaining covers all as,ects of t.e em,loyment relation and t.e resultant C$A negotiated (y t.e certified union (inds all
/4+# La(or Code . C9'S&'< &L&C<I9' is .eld (y agreement of t.e unions wit. or wit.out ,artici,ation of t.e medar(iter. L@arren 8anufacturing @orDers Union v. $ureau of La(or !elations# )4* SC!A 3+2 ()*++ N
em,loyees in t.e (argaining unit. Fence# all ranDand-file em,loyees# ,ro(ationary or ,ermanent# .ave a su(stantial interest in t.e selection of t.e
distinction as to t.eir em,loyment status as (asis for eligi(ility to vote in t.e ,etition for certification election. <.e law refers to CallC t.e em,loyees in
t.e (argaining unit. All t.ey need to (e eligi(le to vote is to (elong to t.e C(argaining unit#C (Airtime
d2? / #i2d
(1999) ). In w.at instance may a ,etition for certification election (e filed outside t.e freedom ,eriod of a current collective (argaining agreementK (3M .
S,ecialists# Inc. v. ?errer-Calle:a# IS9 SC!A 26* ALTERNATI9E ANSWER' P!9$A<I9'A!I &8PL9I&&S may not (e
entitled to vote in a certification election w.ere only regular em,loyees (elong to a (argaining unit and ,ro(ationary em,loyees do not (elong to suc. (argaining unit. It is t.e (elonging to a (argaining
unit t.at entitles an em,loyee to vote in a certification election. ANOT0ER ALTERNATI9E ANSWER'
I&S. Any em,loyee# w.et.er em,loyed for a definite ,eriod or not# s.all# (eginning on .is first
/22(c .
CBA: C*24 d S<2- /#26i4i2": W< " "2t !--*i;!%* (1999) ?AC<S5 In a certification election conducted (y t.e
;e,artment 8ontanyo# of won La(or# over Associated PangDat @orDers ng mga
9rganiGation in Laguna (A@9L .eaded (y Cesar 8anggagawa sa Laguna (P8L # .eaded (y &ddie %raciaa. Fence# A@9L was certified as t.e
exclusive (argaining agent of t.e ranD-and-file
CBA: C*24 d S<2- 64= A$ ";& S<2- (199.) (a ;escri(e a Cclosed s.o, agreement# does it differ from an Cagency s.o, agreement.C (( Are t.e a(ove agreements legalK SUGGESTE7 ANSWER' (a A CCL9S&; SF9P A%!&&8&'<C is t.at agreement em(odied in a collective (argaining agreement (C$A w.ere(y t.e em,loyer (inds itself not to .ire any ,erson unless .e is first a union mem(er of t.e collective (argaining re,resentative.
former# t.e em,loyer does not (ind itself not to .ire a ,erson unless .e is first a union mem(er of t.e collective (argaining re,resentative. Instead# t.e
em,loyer (inds itself to c.ecD off from t.ose w.o
em,loyment5 ot.erwise# t.ey s.all (e dismissed ,ursuant to t.e closed s.o, ,rovision of t.e C$A.
<.e union security clause of t.e C$A also ,rovided for t.e dismissal of em,loyees w.o .ave not
).
Can &ddie %raciaa and all t.e P8L mem(ers (e reEuired to (ecome mem(ers of t.e A@9L
,ursuant to t.e closed s.o, ,rovision of t.e
C$AK @.yK (3M SUGGESTE7 ANSWER' &ddie %racla and all t.e P8L mem(ers can not (e
reEuired to (ecome mem(ers of A@9L ,ursuant to
(een duly registered wit. t.e ;e,artment of La(or and &m,loyment exce,t during t.e freedom ,eriod of suc. C$A w.ic. is t.e 10-day ,eriod ,rior to t.e ex,iry date of said C$A. (See Articles /3)# /43-A
and /41
t.e closed s.o, ,rovision of t.e C$A. According to t.e La(or Code (Article /6+(e # a closed s.o,
,rovision cannot (e a,,lied to t.ose em,loyees
Under t.e C;&A;L9CU $A! !UL&C a certification election can not (e .eld if a (argaining deadlocD to w.ic. an incum(ent or certified (argaining agent is
a ,arty .ad (een su(mitted to conciliation or mediation or .ad (ecome t.e su(:ect of a valid
/.
a(le to negotiate a su(stantial wage increase in its collective (argaining agreement wit. management. A ,rovision t.erein stated t.at t.e wage increase would (e ,aid to t.e mem(ers of t.e union only in view of a Cclosed s.o,C union security clause in t.e new agreement. <.e mem(ers of t.e sect ,rotested and demanded t.at t.e wage increase (e extended to t.em. <.e officers of t.e union countered (y demanding t.eir termination from t.e com,any ,ursuant to t.e Cclosed s.o,C ,rovision in t.e :ust-concluded C$A. (1M
(a) Is the CBA provision valid SUGGESTE7 ANSWER' 'o# t.e C$A ,rovision is not valid. <.e (enefits of a C$A are extendi(le to all em,loyees regardless of t.eir mem(ers.i, in t.e union (ecause to wit..old t.e same from non-union mem(ers would (e to discriminate against t.em. ('ational $rewery = Allied Industries La(or Union of t.e P.ili,,ines v. San 8iguel $rewery# Inc.# %.!. 'o. L-)+)20# August 3)#)*13 (!) "ho#ld the $o%pan& $o%pl& 'ith the #nion(s de%and o) ter%inatin* the %e%!ers o) the reli*io#s se$t SUGGESTE7 ANSWER'
'o. <.e rig.t to :oin includes t.e rig.t not to :oin (y reason of religious (eliefs. 8em(ers of said religious sect cannot (e com,elled or coerced to :oin t.e la(or union even w.en t.e union .as a closed s.o, agreement wit. t.e em,loyer- t.at in s,ite of any closed s.o, agreement# mem(ers of said religious sect cannot (e refused em,loyment or dismissed from t.eir :o(s on t.e sole ground t.at t.ey are not mem(ers of t.e collective (argaining union. (Aictoriano v. &liGalde !o,e @orDersP Union# %.!. 'o. L-/4/61# Se,tem(er )/#)*26
rendering exactly# or no less t.an# t.ree (3 .ours of actual overtime worD. @.ic. inter,retation do you t.inD s.ould ,revailK @.yK (4M
CBA: ()#i4di;ti2"!* /# BC2"diti2"4 (1996) / @.at :urisdictional ,re-conditions must (e ,resent to set in motion t.e mec.anics of a collective (argainingK SUGGESTE7 ANSWER'
<o set in motion t.e mec.anics of collective (argaining# t.ese :urisdictional ,reconditions must (e ,resent# namely5 ). <.e em,loyees in a (argaining unit s.ould form a la(or organiGation/. <.e la(or organiGation s.ould (e a legitimate la(or organiGation3. As suc. legitimate la(or organiGation# it s.ould (e recogniGed or certified as t.e collective (argaining re,resentative of t.e em,loyees of t.e (argaining unit- and
6. <.e la(or organiGation as t.e collective (argaining re,resentative s.ould reEuest t.e em,loyer to (argain collectively. (See Arts. /63# /36# /44 and /40 of t.e La(or Code
,re- conditions are met5 () ,ossession of t.e status of ma:ority re,resentation of t.e em,loyeesP re,resentative in accordance wit. any of t.e means of selection or designation ,rovided for (y t.e La(or Code(/ ,roof of ma:ority of re,resentation- and (3 a demand to (argain under Art. /4)(g # of t.e La(or Code. (UioD Loy v. 'L!C. )6) SC!A )2* L)*+1N
CBA: L2;GB2)t 64= C*24 d S<2- (2004) ;istinguis. clearly (ut (riefly (etween LocD-out and Closed S.o,. SUGGESTE7 ANSWERS' L9CU9U< refers to t.e tem,orary refusal of an em,loyer to furnis. worD as a result of a la(or or industrial dis,ute. CL9S&; SF9P# on t.e ot.er .and# refers to a union security clause in a collective (argaining agreement w.ere(y t.e em,loyer agrees not to em,loy any ,erson w.o is not a mem(er of t.e exclusive collective (argaining re,resentative of t.e em,loyees in a (argaining unit. CBA: M!"d!t2#& S)%A ;t4 23 B!#$!i"i"$ (1996) ) @.at matters are considered mandatory su(:ects of collective (argainingK SUGGESTE7 ANSWER' Page "% of 108
ALTERNATI9E ANSWER' <.e mec.anics of collective (argaining are set in motion only w.en t.e following Jurisdictional
<.e em,loyees received t.eir res,ective se,aration ,ay under ,rotest and t.ereafter filed
an action against C!P and Lyra 8usic Cor,oration for unfair la(or ,ractice (ULP . <.e Ar(iter ruled in
favor of t.e worDers and ordered Lyra 8usic Cor,oration to a(sor( t.e former worDers of C!P. @as t.e La(or Ar(iter correct in .is decisionK SUGGESTE7 ANSWER'
case of San ?eli,e 'eri Sc.ool of 8andaluyong vs. 'L!C# w.en t.ere is a legitimate sale of a com,anyPs assets# t.e (uyer in good fait. cannot (e legally com,elled to a(sor( t.e em,loyees of t.e seller in good fait.. In t.e case at (ar# t.e
SUGGESTE7 ANSWER'
So t.at t.e contract-(ar rule may a,,ly t.e C$A
and se,aration ,ay was ,aid at a rate muc. .ig.er ?urt.ermore# t.e case filed (y t.e em,loyees was
U'?AI! LA$9! P!AC<IC&. It is .ig.ly irregular to order a(sor,tion of em,loyees in a ULP case. CBA: S2;i!* S ;)#it& 64= U"i2" S ;)#it& (2004)
@.en does a Crun-offP election occurK (/.4M SUGGESTE7 ANSWER' A run-off election occurs w.en t.e following elements occur5 ). $etween t.ree (3 or more c.oices# and no
c.oice receiving a ma:ority of t.e valid votes cast/. <.e total num(er of votes for all contending unions is at least 40M of t.e num(er of vote
cast- and 3. $etween t.e la(or unions receiving t.e two .ig.est num(er of votes (Article /41# La(or
Code . CBA: S!* 23 E4t!%*i4<? "t: E33 ;t (1994)
Coronet
!ecords
P.il.
(C!P
manufactures
disa(ility# deat.# or retirement# including in t.e case of t.e %SIS# se,aration and unem,loyment (enefits.
asserting ma:ority status. <o resolve t.is ,estering ,ro(lem# t.e Com,any and t.e t.ree ot.er unions
agreed to .old a consent election under t.e su,ervision of t.e $ureau of La(or !elations. In
leaves w.ic. were also converted to cas.# and .is )3t.-mont. ,ay for )**3.
won# and was accordingly recogniGed (y t.e Com,any t.e (argaining exclusive as re,resentative in t.e (argaining unit. Is t.e Pids and Co. @orDers Union (ound (y t.e Collective $argaining Agreement signed (etween t.e
;oes t.e union security clause sufficiently :ustify t.e demand for dismissal of t.e t.ree em,loyees
Among t.e ,olicies of t.e State in t.e field of la(or relations is to ,romote trade unionism and to foster
t.e organiGation of a strong and united la(or movement. U'I9' S&CU!I<I CLAUS&S# liDe a closed s.o, agreement# is one way of
SUGGESTE7 ANSWER'
a Ies# (ecause t.e Collective $argaining
im,lementing t.e aforementioned la(or relations ,olicy. Im,lementing to some extent t.e conce,t of
freedom of association# an em,loyee w.o is already a mem(er of a union could not (e com,elled to (ecome a mem(er of a (argaining union# even if t.ere is a closed s.o, agreement. ALTERNATI9E ANSWER' Collective $argaining Agreement# (ecause it
( <.ere are no indications t.at t.e sale is 'o. simulated or intended to defeat t.e em,loyeesP rig.t to organiGe. A (ona fide sale terminates t.e
em,loyment relations.i, (etween t.e selling com,any and its em,loyees. <.e C$A does not
It could (e argued t.at a closed s.o, ,rovision in a reEuires t.at a ,erson s.ould first (e a mem(er of t.e (argaining union (efore .e is em,loyed# is violative of t.e rig.t to freedom of association#
(ecause said rig.t su(sumes not only a rig.t to :oin# (ut also a rig.t not to :oin a union. 9n t.e ot.er .and# it could (e argued t.at t.e
(ind t.e ,urc.aser in good fait. (ecause t.e C$A is a ,ersonam contract# unless t.e (uyer agrees to
(e (ound. LSundowner ;ev. Cor,. v. ;rilon# )+0 SC!A )6 ()*+* - Associated La(or Union v.
/004 C$A# t.e Union demanded t.e dismissal of 3 em,loyees# OO# II and QQ# ,ursuant to t.e union security clause in t.e C$A.
<.e Fotel 8anagement re,lied t.at it was legally im,ossi(le to com,ly wit. t.e demand of t.e Union. It mig.t even (e construed as unfair la(or
resigned from t.e Union. $ut according to t.e Union# t.e t.ree su(mitted t.eir resignations
outside t.e freedom ,eriod after t.e )**1W/000
In t.e meantime# a ,ower struggle occurred wit.in t.e national union PA?LU (etween its 'ational
President# 8anny PaDyao# and its 'ational 8iro. Secretary %eneral# %a(riel <.e re,resentation issue wit.in PA?LU is ,ending
security clause (y ,romoting t.e t.ree em,loyees. <.at could (e viewed as rewarding em,loyees for
t.eir disloyalty to t.e union# said t.e union officers.
$y reason of t.is intra-union dis,ute wit.in PA?LU# J = J o(stinately and consistently refused to offer any counter,ro,osal and to (argain collectively wit. J&U-PA?LU until t.e re,resentation issue wit.in PA?LU s.all .ave (een resolved wit. finality. J&U-PA?LU filed a 'otice of StriDe. <.e Secretary of La(or su(seEuently assumed :urisdiction over t.e la(or dis,ute.
). @ill t.e re,resentation issue t.at .as arisen involving t.e national union PA?LU# to w.ic. t.e duty registered local union J&U is affiliated# (ar collective (argaining negotiation wit. J = JK &x,lain (riefly. (3M /. Can t.e Secretary of La(or decide t.e la(or dis,ute (y awarding t.e J&U C$A Pro,osals as t.e Collective $argaining Agreement of t.e ,artiesK &x,lain (riefly. (/M SUGGESTE7 ANSWER' ). <.e re,resentation issue t.at .as arisen involving t.e national union PA?LU s.ould not (ar collective (argaining negotiation wit. J and J. It is t.e local union J&U t.at .as t.e rig.t to (argain wit. t.e em,loyer J and J# and not t.e national union PA?LU.
It is immaterial w.et.er t.e re,resentation issue wit.in PA?LU .as (een resolved wit. finality or not. Said sEua((le could not ,ossi(ly serve as a (ar to any collective (argaining since PA?LU is not t.e real ,arty-in-interest to t.e talDs- rat.er# t.e negotiations are confined to t.e cor,oration and t.e local union J&U. 9nly t.e collective (argaining agent# t.e local union J&U# ,ossesses t.e legal standing to negotiate wit. t.e cor,oration. A duly registered local union affiliated wit. a national union or federation does not lose its legal ,ersonality or Inde,endence (Adamson and Adamson# Inc. v. <.e Court of Industrial !elations and Adamson and Adamson Su,ervising Union (??@ # )/2 SC!A /1+ L)*+6N .
SUGGESTE7 ANSWER'
Ies# (ecause t.e (argaining re,resentative (union does not act for its mem(ers alone. It re,resents all t.e em,loyees covered (y t.e (argaining unit. (8actan @orDers Union v. A(oitiG# %.!. 'o. L-30/6)# June 30# )*2/ Fowever# nonmem(ers w.o avail of C$A (enefits are reEuired under t.e law to ,ay agency fees.
;istinguis. clearly (ut (riefly (etween Com,any union and union s.o,. SUGGESTE7 ANSWERS'
A C98PA'I U'I9' is a union of em,loyees dominated or under t.e control of t.e em,loyer of said em,loyees. A U'I9' SF9P# on t.e ot.er .and# refers to a union security clause in a collective (argaining agreement w.ere(y t.e em,loyer agrees to terminate t.e em,loyment of an em,loyee w.o .as not (ecome a mem(er of t.e union w.ic. is t.e exclusive collective (argaining re,resentative of t.e em,loyees in a (argaining unit wit.in a certain ,eriod after t.e em,loyment of said em,loyee or .as ceased to (ecome a union mem(er.
ALTERNATI9E ANSWERS'
a Ies# an em,loyer can legally o,,ose t.e inclusion of t.e confidential em,loyees in t.e (argaining unit of ranD-and-file em,loyees (ecause confidential em,loyees are ineligi(le to form# assist or :oin a la(or union. $y t.e nature of t.eir functions# t.ey assist and act in a confidential ca,acity to# or .ave access to confidential matters of# ,ersons w.o exercise managerial functions in t.e field of la(or relations# and t.e union mig.t not (e assured of t.eir loyalty in view of evident conflict of interest. ( An em,loyer can legally o,,ose t.e inclusion of confidential em,loyees in t.e (argaining unit of ranD -and-file em,loyees (ecause confidential em,loyees are considered ,art of management. (P.iltranco vs. $L!# )26 SC!A 3++ .
CBU: C2"3id "ti!* E?-*2& 4 (1994) Can an em,loyer legally o,,ose t.e inclusion of confidential em,loyees in t.e (argaining unit of ranD-and-file em,loyeesK /. @ould your answer (e different if t.e confidential em,loyees are soug.t to (e included in t.e su,ervisory unionK SUGGESTE7 ANSWER' ) Ies# an em,loyer can legally o,,ose t.e inclusion of confidential em,loyees in t.e (argaining unit of t.e ranD-and-file. <.is issue .as (een settled in t.e case of %olden ?arms vs. Calle:a# and reiterated in t.e case of P.ili,s Industrial ;ev. Inc. vs. 'L!C.
).
SUGGESTE7 ANSWER' / <.e answer would (e t.e same if confidential em,loyees are soug.t to (e included in t.e su,ervisory union (ecause confidential em,loyees# (eing a ,art of management would not Eualify to :oin# muc. less form a la(or union. (P.iltranco vs. $L!# )26 SC!A 3++ # ALTERNATI9E ANSWER'
8y answer would remain t.e same# even if t.e confidential em,loyees were soug.t to (e included in t.e su,ervisory union. Confidential em,loyees
would .ave t.e same adverse im,act on t.e (argaining unit of su,ervisors5 Confidential em,loyeesP access to .ig.ly sensitive information may (ecome t.e source of undue advantage (y t.e union over t.e em,loyer. (P.ili,s Industrial ;evelo,ment Inc.# vs. 'ational La(or !elations Commission# et. al# %.! 'o. ++*42# /4 June )**/
$ut t.is may (e noted5 <.e $anD officials mentioned in t.e case# .ave control# custody and7or access to confidential matters. <.us# t.ey are confidential em,loyees and in accordance wit. earlier Su,reme Court decisions# as confidential em,loyees# t.e $ranc. 8anager# Cas.ier# Controller are disEualified from :oining or assisting t.e su,ervisorPs union of t.e $anD.
CBU: C2"4 "t E* ;ti2" 64= C #ti3i;!ti2" E* ;ti2" (2004) ;istinguis. clearly (ut (riefly (etween Consent election and certification election. SUGGESTE7 ANSWERS'
A certification election and a consent election are (ot. elections .eld to determine t.roug. secret (allot t.e sole and exclusive re,resentative of t.e em,loyees in an a,,ro,riate (argaining unit for t.e ,ur,ose of collective (argaining or negotiations. <.ere is t.is difference# .owever# a C&!<I?ICA<I9' &L&C<I9' is ordered (y t.e ;e,artment of La(or and &m,loyment w.ile a C9'S&'< &L&C<I9' is voluntarily agreed u,on (y t.e ,arties# wit. or wit.out t.e intervention of t.e ;e,artment of La(or and &m,loyment.
ALTERNATI9E ANSWER' <.e contention of t.e ?anners $anD is ,artially correct. <.e ;e,artment managers and $ranc. managers# if t.ey in fact .ave t.e ,owers im,lied (y t.eir titles# are managerial ,ersonnel. In accordance wit. t.e La(or Code# managerial ,ersonnel are not eligi(le to :oin and form la(or unions. 9n t.e ot.er .and# cas.iers w.o are in c.arge of money received or ex,ended# and com,trollers w.o examine and su,ervise ex,enditures# are not managerial ,ersonnel# and if t.ey su,ervise ,ersonnel# t.ey could (e su,ervisors# and are t.erefore to (e included in t.e (argaining unit of su,ervisors. /. Is t.ere any statutory (asis for t.e ,etition of t.e unionK &x,lain. SUGGESTE7 ANSWER' <.ere is statutory (asis for t.e ,etition of t.e su,ervisorsP union. Under t.e La(or Code# su,ervisors .ave t.e rig.t to form and :oin unions# (ut only unions of su,ervisory em,loyees.
4: S)- #6i42#&
A su,ervisorPs union filed a ,etition for certification election to determine t.e exclusive (argaining re,resentative of t.e su,ervisory em,loyees of ?armers $anD. Included in t.e list of su,ervisory em,loyees attac.ed to t.e ,etition are t.e ;e,artment 8anagers# $ranc. 8anagers# Cas.iers and Com,trollers. ?armers $anD Euestioned t.is list arguing t.at ;e,artment 8anagers# $ranc. 8anagers# Cas.iers and Com,trollers in.erently ,ossess t.e ,owers enumerated in Art. /)/# ,ar. (m # of t.e La(or Code# i.e.# t.e ,ower and ,rerogative to lay down and execute management ,olicies and7or to .ire# transfer# sus,end# lay-off# recall# disc.arge# assign or disci,line em,loyees.
<.e Petition filed (y S8C< s.owed t.at out of its 40 mem(ers# )4 were ranD-and-filers and two (/ were managers.
<a(aco filed a 8otion to ;ismiss on t.e ground t.at S8C< union is com,osed of su,ervisory and ranD-and-file em,loyees and# t.erefore# cannot act as (argaining agent for t.e ,ro,osed unit. S8C< filed an o,,osition to t.e said 8otion alleging t.at t.e infirmity# if any# in t.e mem(ers.i,
Page #) of 108
conference t.ru t.e exclusioninclusion ,roceedings w.erein t.ose em,loyees w.o are occu,ying ranD-and-file ,ositions will (e excluded from t.e list of eligi(le voters. ). S.ould t.e 8otion to ;ismiss filed (y t.e <a(aco (e granted or deniedK &x,lain. (3M SUGGESTE7 ANSWER'
<.e 8otion to ;ismiss filed (y <a(aco s.ould (e granted. According to t.e La(or Code (in Article /64 # su,ervisory em,loyees s.all not (e eligi(le for mem(ers.i, in a la(or organiGation of ranDand-file em,loyees (ut may :oin or form se,arate la(or organiGations of t.eir own. $ecause of t.e a(ove-mentioned ,rovision of t.e La(or Code# a la(or organiGation com,osed of (ot. ranD-and-file and su,ervisory em,loyees is no la(or organiGation at all. It cannot# for any guise or ,ur,ose# (e a legitimate la(or organiGation. 'ot (eing a legitimate la(or organiGation# it cannot ,ossess t.e reEuisite ,ersonality to file a ,etition for certification election. (See <oyota 8otor P.ili,,ines Cor,. vs. <oyota 8otor P.ili,,ines Cor,. La(or Union# /1+ SC!A 423
(argaining unit w.ere S8C< wis.es to (e t.e exclusive collective (argaining re,resentative.
CBU: M2d 4: 7 t #?i"!ti2" 23 ED;*)4i6 B!#$!i"i"$ A$# ? "t (2006) <.e modes of determining an exclusive (argaining agreement are5 a. voluntary recognition (. certification election c. consent election &x,lain (riefly .ow t.ey differ from one anot.er. (4M SUGGESTE7 ANSWER' (a. 9OLUNTARI RECOGNITION R is t.e voluntary recognition (y t.e em,loyer of t.e status of t.e union as t.e (argaining re,resentative of t.e em,loyees LSection l(((( # !ule I# $ooD A# !ules to Im,lement t.e La(or Code# as amended (y ;e,artment 9rder 'o. 60-03# Series of /003 ()2 ?e(ruary /003 N.
((. CERTI1ICATION ELECTION is t.e ,rocess of determining t.e sole and exclusive (argaining agent of t.e em,loyees in an a,,ro,riate (argaining unit LSection l(. # !ule I# $ooD A# !ules to Im,lement t.e La(or Code# as amended (y ;e,artment 9rder 'o. 60-03# Series of /003 ()2 ?e(ruary /003 N.
CONSENT ELECTION is an agreed election# conducted wit. or wit.out t.e intervention of t.e ;9L& to determine t.e issue of ma:ority re,resentation of all t.e worDers in t.e a,,ro,riate (argaining unit (Algire v. ;e 8esa# %.!. 'o. *21//# 9cto(er )*# )**6 .
ALTERNATI9E ANSWER'
<.e 8otion to ;ismiss s.ould (e denied. In t.e first ,lace# t.e general rule is t.at in a certification election t.e em,loyer is a mere (ystander. An em,loyer .as no legal standing to Euestion a certification election as it is t.e sole concern of t.e worDers. <.e exce,tions to t.e general rule of w.ic. are ) w.en t.e existence of an em,loyerem,loyee relations.i, is denied- and / w.en t.e em,loyer Euestions t.e legal ,ersonality of t.e union (ecause of irregularities in its registration are not ,resent in t.is case.
(c.
/. Can t.e two (/ 8anagers (e ,art of t.e (argaining unitK @.yK (/M SUGGESTE7 ANSWER'
'o# t.e two (/ 8anagers cannot (e ,art of t.e (argaining unit com,osed of su,ervisory em,loyees. A (argaining unit must effect a grou,ing of em,loyees w.o .ave su(stantial# mutual interests in wages# .ours# worDing conditions and ot.er su(:ects of collective (argaining. (San 8iguel Cor,. Su,ervisors and &xem,t &m,loyees Union v. Laguesma# //2 SC!A 329
SUGGESTE7 ANSWER'
<.e ,etition to en:oin t.e investigation will not ,ros,er. It is inevita(le t.at in disci,linary cases# t.e em,loyer would a,,ear to (e accuser# ,rosecutor# and :udge at t.e same time since it is t.e em,loyer w.o c.arges an em,loyee for t.e commission of an offense- .e is also t.e ,erson w.o directs t.e investigation to determine w.et.er t.e c.arge against t.e em,loyee is true or not and .e is t.e one w.o will :udge if t.e em,loyee is to (e ,enaliGed or not. $ut if t.e em,loyee is given am,le o,,ortunity to defend .imself# .e could not
<.e La(or Code (in Article /64 ,rovides t.at managerial em,loyees are not eligi(le to :oin# assist or form any la(or organiGation.
<.e a(ove ,rovision s.ows t.at managerial em,loyees do not .ave t.e same interests as t.e su,ervisory em,loyees w.ic. com,ose t.e
Page 31 of 108
validly claim t.at .e was de,rived of .is rig.t to due ,rocess of law.
ALTERNATI9E ANSWER' 'o. <.e em,loyer is merely com,lying wit. t.e legal mandate to afford t.e em,loyee due ,rocess (y giving .im t.e rig.t to (e .eard and t.e c.ance to answer t.e c.arges against .im and accordingly to defend .imself (efore dismissal is effected.
em,loyees
from
execute management ,olicies and7or to .ire# transfer# sus,end# lay-off# recall# disc.arge# assign or disci,line em,loyees. SUP&!AIS9!I &8PL9I&&S# on t.e ot.er .and# are t.ose w.o in
t.e interest of t.e em,loyer# effectively recommend suc. managerial actions# if t.e exercise of suc. aut.ority is not merely routinary or clerical in nature
E?-*2& 4: $#2)-4 23 ?-*2& 4 (1996) ) @.o are t.e managerial# su,ervisory and ranDand-file em,loyeesK SUGGESTE7 ANSWER' C8A'A%&!IAL &8PL9I&&C is one w.o is vested
wit. ,owers or ,rerogatives to lay down and execute management ,olicies or to .ire# transfer# sus,end# layoff# recall# disc.arge# assign or disci,line em,loyees. SUP&!AIS9!I &8PL9I&&S are t.ose w.o# in t.e interest of t.e em,loyer# effectively recommend suc. managerial actions if t.e exercise of suc. aut.ority is not merely routinary or clerical in nature (ut reEuires t.e use of inde,endent :udgment. All em,loyees w.o are neit.er managerial or su,ervisory em,loyees are considered !A'U-
In a case# t.e Su,reme Court said5 CIn t.e ,etition (efore us# a t.oroug. dissection of t.e :o(
descri,tion of t.e concerned su,ervisory em,loyees and section .eads indis,uta(ly s.ow
t.at t.ey are not actually managerial (ut only
su(:ect section .eads and unit managers exercise t.e aut.ority to .ire and fire is am(iguous and
Euite misleading for t.e reason t.at any aut.ority t.ey exercise is not su,reme (ut merely advisory
in c.aracter. <.eirs is not a final determination of
t.e com,any ,olicies Inasmuc. as any action taDen (y t.em on matters relative to .iring#
64=
from mem(ers of a managerial staff. SUGGESTE7 ANSWER' 8A'A%&!IAL &8PL9I&&S .ave no collective (argaining rig.ts (ecause# t.ey cannot :oin or form any ot.er la(or organiGation w.ile officers of a managerial staff are not ,ro.i(ited from :oining#
assisting or forming or arresting a su,ervisorPs union- .ence# t.ey can (argain collectively. (Art.
em,loyees is still su(:ect a,,roval (y t.eir res,ective Lit.ogra,.ic Services# Inc. SC!A )/# )2 ()**/ N <.us#
to confirmation and su,erior. LSee Atlas v. Laguesma# /04 w.ere suc. ,ower#
w.ic. is in effect recommendatory in c.aracter# is su(:ect to evaluation# review and final action (y t.e de,artment .eads and .ig.er executives of t.e
com,any# t.e same# alt.oug. ,resent# is not effective and not an exercise of inde,endent
citing ?ranDlin $aDer Com,any of t.e P.ili,,ines v. <ra:ano# )42 SC!A 6)1# 6//-633 ()*++ N.C (Pa,er Industries Cor,. of t.e P.ili,,ines v. $ienvenido &.
Laguesma 330 SC!A /*4# (/000 N E?-*2& 4: M!"!$ #i!* 64= S)- #6i42#& 64= 4 (200>) R!"GB!"dB1i* E?-*2&
8A'A%&!IAL &8PL9I&&S# under Article /)/(m of t.e La(or Code are vested wit. t.e ,rerogatives to lay down and execute management ,olicies
and7or to .ire# fire# transfer# ,romote# lay-off and
disci,line em,loyees. <.ey are not eligi(le for t.e rig.t to self-organiGation for ,ur,oses of collective (argaining.
U,on t.e ot.er .and# mem(ers of 8A'A%&!IAL S<A??# under Article +/ of t.e La(or Code# are not vested wit. t.e a(ove-cited ,rerogatives. <.ey
<.e La(or Code treats differently in various as,ects t.e em,loyment of (i managerial em,loyees# (ii su,ervisory em,loyees# and (iii
ranD-and-file em,loyees. State t.e (asic distinguis.ing features of eac. ty,e of em,loyment. SUGGESTE7 ANSWER' Under $ooD <.ree of t.e La(or Code# a 8A'A%&!IAL &8PL9I&& refers to one w.ose ,rimary duty consists of t.e management of t.e
are not entitled to overtime ,ay and ot.er (enefits under $ooD III# <itle ) of t.e Code.
E?-*2& 4: ?!"!$ #i!* ?-*2& 4 (2002) 4 64=
officers or mem(ers of t.e managerial staff. A su,ervisor and a ranD and file em,loyee can (e considered as mem(ers of t.e managerial staff# and t.erefore# a managerial em,loyee if t.eir ,rimary duty consists of worD directly related to management ,olicies- if t.ey customarily and regularly exercise discretion and inde,endent :udgment- regularly and directly assist a ,ro,rietor or a managerial em,loyee w.ose ,rimary duty consists of t.e management of t.e esta(lis.ment in w.ic. t.ey are em,loyed or a su(division t.ereof- or execute under general su,ervision worD along s,ecialiGed or tec.nical lines reEuiring s,ecial training# ex,erience# or Dnowledge- or execute under general su,ervision s,ecial assignments and tasDs- and w.o do not devote more t.an /0 ,ercent of t.eir .ours worDed in a worD-weeD to activities w.ic. are not directly and closely related to t.e ,erformance of t.e worD descri(ed a(ove. All ot.ers are ranD and file em,loyees under said $ooD (Art. +/# La(or Code# Sec. / (c # !ule I# $D. III# 9mni(us !ules Im,lementing t.e La(or Code . Under $ooD ?ive of t.e La(or Code# C8A'A%&!IAL &8PL9I&&C is one w.o is vested wit. ,owers or ,rerogatives to lay down# and execute management ,olicies and7or to .ire# transfer# sus,end# lay-off# recall# disc.arge# assign or disci,line em,loyees. A SUP&!AIS9!I &8PL9I&& is one w.o# in t.e interest of t.e em,loyer# effectively recommends suc. managerial actions if t.e exercise of suc. aut.ority is not merely routinary or clerical in nature (ut reEuires t.e use of inde,endent :udgment. All em,loyees not falling wit.in any of t.e a(ove definitions are considered ranD-and-file em,loyees for ,ur,oses of t.is $ooD (Art. /)/ (8 # La(or Code .
9n t.e matter of rig.t to self-organiGation# a managerial em,loyee cannot exercise suc. rig.t- w.ile a su,ervisor and a ranD and file em,loyee can (Arts. /64# /63# La(or Code .
Ri$<t t2 St#iG ' S&?-!t<& 64= G " #!* St#iG (2004) ;istinguis. clearly (ut (riefly (etween5 Sym,at.y striDe and general striDe. SUGGESTE7 ANSWERS'
In (ot. a sym,at.y striDe and in a general striDe# t.ere is a sto,,age of worD (y t.e concerted action of em,loyees. In (ot. Dinds of striDe# t.e striDe is not t.e result of a la(or or industrial dis,ute. As t.e name im,lies# worDers go on a SI8PA<FI S<!IU& to s.ow t.eir sym,at.y for certain worDers w.o are on striDe. 9n t.e ot.er .and# in a %&'&!AL S<!IU&# worDers in t.e country or in a
striDe to ,u(licly ,rotest a certain ,olicy or action taDen (y t.e government. <.us# for instance# a general striDe may (e declared (y worDers to ,u(licly ,rotest t.e stand of President Arroyo t.at s.e is against an increase of t.e minimum wage at t.is time.
wit. J&U-PA?LU until t.e re,resentation issue wit.in PA?LU s.all .ave (een resolved wit. finality. J&U-PA?LU filed a 'otice of StriDe. <.e Secretary of La(or su(seEuently assumed :urisdiction over t.e la(or dis,ute.
@ill t.e re,resentation issue t.at .as arisen involving t.e national union PA?LU# to w.ic. t.e duty registered local union J&U is affiliated# (ar collective (argaining negotiation wit. J = JK &x,lain (riefly. (3M
Can t.e Secretary of La(or decide t.e la(or dis,ute (y awarding t.e J&U C$A Pro,osals as t.e Collective $argaining Agreement of t.e ,artiesK &x,lain (riefly. (/M
In t.e meantime# a ,ower struggle occurred wit.in t.e national union PA?LU (etween its 'ational President# 8anny PaDyao# and its 'ational Secretary %eneral# %a(riel 8iro. <.e re,resentation issue wit.in PA?LU is ,ending resolution (efore t.e 9ffice of t.e Secretary of La(or.
$y reason of t.is intra-union dis,ute wit.in PA?LU# J = J o(stinately and consistently refused to offer any counter,ro,osal and to (argain collectively
Page ## of 108
determining w.at s.ould (e t.e C$A of t.e ,arties. (See ;ivine @ord University vs. Secretary of La(or# /)3 SC!A 24* ALTERNATI9E ANSWER'
@.at is involved in t.e case in t.e Euestion is a cor,oration engaged in t.e manufacturing of consumer ,roducts. If t.e consumer ,roducts t.at are (eing manufactured are not suc. t.at a striDe against t.e com,any cannot (e considered a striDe in an Industry indis,ensa(le for t.e national interest# t.en t.e assum,tion of Jurisdiction (y t.e Secretary of La(or is not ,ro,er. <.erefore# .e cannot legally exercise t.e ,owers of com,ulsory ar(itration in t.e la(or dis,ute.
officer and did not commit any illegal act may (e entitled to reinstatement.
Ri$<t t2 St#iG : E33 ;t4: i** $!* 4t#iG (199,) If t.e striDe is declared illegal# will t.e striDers (e entitled to t.eir wages for t.e duration for t.e striDeK &x,lain# SUGGESTE7 ANSWER'5 '9. <.e a,,lica(le doctrine will (e5 'o worD# no ,ay# unless t.ere is an agreement to ,ay striDe duration ,ay. Ri$<t t2 St#iG : E33 ;t4: i** $!* 4t#iG (2000)
A division manager of a com,any taunted a union officer two days after t.e union su(mitted to t.e ;e,artment of La(or and &m,loyment (;9L& t.e result of t.e striDe vote. <.e division manager said5 <.e union t.reat of an unfair la(or ,ractice striDe is ,.ony or a (luff. 'ot even ten ,ercent ()0M of your mem(ers will :oin t.e striDe.C <o ,rove union mem(er su,,ort for t.e striDe# t.e union officer immediately instructed its mem(ers to cease worDing and walD out. <wo .ours after t.e walDout# t.e worDers voluntarily returned to worD.
SUGGESTE7 ANSWER' <.e o(:ectives of t.e Secretary of La(or and &m,loyment in certifying a la(or dis,ute to t.e 'L!C for com,ulsory ar(itration is to ,revent a worD sto,,age t.at may adversely affect t.e national interest and to see to it t.at a la(or dis,ute is ex,editiously settled.
A. @as t.e walDout a striDeK And if so# was it a valid activityK (3M
$. Can t.e union officer w.o led t.e s.ort walDout# (ut w.o liDewise voluntarily led t.e worDers (acD to worD# (e disci,lined (y t.e
Ri$<t t2 St#iG : E33 ;t4: 0i# d R -*!; ? "t4 (2006) If due to t.e ,rolonged striDe# !9S& Cor,oration .ired re,lacements# can it refuse to admit t.e re,laced striDersK SUGGESTE7 ANSWER'
'o. @.ile ,resent law recogniGes t.e rig.t of t.e em,loyer to continue .is (usiness in t.e course of an economic striDe# it assures t.e rig.t of t.e striDers to return to t.eir former ,ositions at t.e ex,ense of t.e re,lacements. Art. /16(a of t.e La(or Code ,rovides t.at mere ,artici,ation of a worDer in a lawful striDe s.all not constitute sufficient ground for termination of .is em,loyment# even if a re,lacement .ad (een .ired (y t.e em,loyer during suc. lawful striDe (P<=< v. 'L!C# %.!. 'o. )0*/+)# ;ecem(er 2# )**4- ;iwa ng PagDaDaisa v. ?iltex International Cor,oration# 'os. L-/3*10 = L/3*1)# ?e(ruary /1# )*1+ .
em,loyerK (3M SUGGESTE7 ANSWERS' a Ies# it was a striDe (ecause t.ere was a worD sto,,age (y concerted action and t.ere is an existing la(or dis,ute. It was not a valid activity (ecause t.e reEuisites for a valid striDe were not o(served# (Art. /)/# (o # (l La(or Code . ( Ies# t.e em,loyer may disci,line t.e union officer. An illegal striDe is a cause for t.e union officer to (e declared to .ave lost .is em,loyment status. LArt /13 (c # (d #(e # (f - Art /16 (a # La(or CodeN.
Ri$<t t2 St#iG : E33 ;t4: i** $!* 4t#iG (199,) Are t.e striDers in an illegal striDe entitled to reinstatement under t.e La(or CodeK &x,lain. SUGGESTE7 ANSWER'
'9. Union officers and mem(ers w.o commit illegal acts lose t.eir em,loyment status. Any union officer w.o Dnowingly ,artici,ates in an illegal striDe# and any worDer or union officer w.o Dnowingly ,artici,ates in t.e commission of illegal acts during a striDe may (e declared to .ave lost .is em,loyment status. Partici,ants (not a union
Ri$<t t2 St#iG : E33 ;t4: St#iG #4C i** $!* A;t4 (2006) Assuming t.e com,any admits all t.e striDers# can it later on dismiss t.ose em,loyees w.o committed illegal actsK SUGGESTE7 ANSWER' 'o# w.en t.e com,any admits all t.e striDers# it is deemed to .ave waived t.e issue and condoned t.e striDers w.o committed illegal acts (CitiGenPs La(or Union v. Standard Aacuum 9il Co.# %.!. 'o. L-262+# 8ay 1#)*44- <ASLIALU v. CA# %.!. 'o. )646/+# July 2# /006 . Ri$<t t2 St#iG : i** $!* di4?i44!* (200>)
8agdalo# a la(or union in 9aDwood# a furniture manufacturing firm# after failing in its negotiations
Page #, of 108
and &m,loyment (;9L& a notice of striDe. <.e ;9L& summoned 8agdalo and 9aDwood for conciliation .earings to resolve t.e deadlocD. Una(le to agree des,ite efforts of t.e ;9L&# 8agdalo called a striDe ,artici,ated in (y its officers and union mem(ers including Cesar <rinio# a ranD-and-file em,loyee# w.o led t.e CwalD out.C 9aDwood filed a ,etition to declare illegal t.e striDe w.ic. 8agdalo staged wit.out o(serving t.e seven-day (an under t.e La(or Code. 9aDwood claimed t.at t.e striDe (eing illegal# all t.ose w.o ,artici,ated t.erein# including Cesar <rinio# could (e dismissed as# in fact# t.ey were so dismissed (y 9aDwood. ;ecide t.e case.
SUGGESTE7 ANSWER' @.en 9aDwood dismissed all t.e officers and mem(ers of t.e union w.o ,artici,ated in t.e striDe w.ic. was declared illegal (ecause it was staged wit.out o(serving t.e seven-day (an under t.e La(or Code.
9aDwood illegally dismissed t.e union mem(ers# including Cesar <rinio. <.e La(or Code ,rovides t.at a union officer w.o Dnowingly ,artici,ates in an illegal striDe loses .is em,loyment status. <.us# t.e union officers were legally dismissed. $ut for a union mem(er to lose .is em,loyment status# .e s.ould .ave committed illegal acts during t.e striDe# liDe acts of violence# coercion or intimidation or o(struction of ingress to or egress from t.e em,loyerPs ,remises for lawful ,ur,oses or o(struction of ,u(lic t.oroug.fares. <.e union mem(ers# including Cesar <rino# did not commit any of t.ese acts. <.us# it would (e illegal to dismiss t.em.
Fas %randeur Com,any committed t.e act c.arged (y refusing to acce,t t.e offer of t.e striDers to return to worDK ;iscuss fully. SUGGESTE7 ANSWER' <.ere is no law t.at ,ro.i(its striDers to decide not
<.us# t.e com,any committed an illegal locDout in refusing to acce,t t.e offer of t.e striDers to return to worD. Under t.e set of facts in t.e Euestion# t.e Com,any did not give t.e reEuired notice to locDout# muc. less did it o(serve t.e necessary waiting ,eriod# nor did it taDe a needed vote on t.e locDout. <.us# t.e locDout is illegal.
ALTERNATI9E ANSWER'
a <.e striDe is not legal# considering t.at it was declared after t.e 'C8$ dismissed t.e 'otice of StriDe. Fence# it is as if# no notice of striDe was filed. A striDe declared wit.out a notice of striDe is illegal# (%9P-CCP vs. CI!# *3 SC!A ))+ .
( 'o. <.e striDe is illegal. It is already settled in t.e case of PAL vs. Secretary of La(or (;rilon t.at t.e ,endency of a mediation ,roceedings is a (ar to t.e staging of a striDe even if all t.e ,rocedural reEuirements were com,lied wit.. SUGGESTE7 ANSWER'
/ <.e em,loyer may unilaterally declare t.ose w.o ,artici,ated in t.e striDe as .aving lost t.eir em,loyment status (ut suc. unilateral declaration does not necessarily mean t.at t.ere(y t.e striDers
). /.
3.
Is t.e striDe legalK Can t.e em,loyer unilaterally declare t.ose w.o ,artici,ated in t.e striDe as .aving lost t.eir em,loyment statusK
@.at recourse do t.ese em,loyees (declared
Page 35 of 108
are legally dismissed. <.e striDers could still file a case of illegal dismissal and ,rove# if t.ey can# t.at t.ere was no :ust cause for t.eir dismissal. ALTERNATI9E ANSWER'
a <.e em,loyer cannot unilaterally declare t.ose
Certification of la(or dis,ute for immediate assum,tion of :urisdiction (y t.e Secretary of t.e ;e,artment of La(or and &m,loyment# as
worDers w.o Dnowingly ,artici,ated in t.e commission of illegal acts. If any# may (e declared
to .ave lost t.eir em,loyment status. (Art. /16 . ( <.e em,loyer .as two o,tions5 ). It may declare t.e striDers as .aving lost t.eir em,loyment status ,ursuant to Art. /16 of t.e La(or Code# or
/.
It may file a case (efore t.e La(or Ar(iter# under Art# /)2# to .ave t.e striDe declared
illegal and after t.at ,roceed to terminate
t.e striDe is not illegal. <.e striDers w.o are mere union mem(ers may contend t.at t.ey did not commit any Illegal acts during t.e striDe. (Art# /16# La(or Code ALTERNATI9E ANSWER' a <.e em,loyees w.o were declared to .ave lost
t.eir em,loyment status can file a com,laint for illegal dismissal wit. t.e 'L!C# or seeD t.e
Union ,rom,ted t.e latter# after duly notifying t.e ;9L&# to declare a striDe on 'ovem(er 4 w.ic. totally ,aralyGed t.e o,erations of t.e sc.ool. <.e La(or Secretary immediately assumed
assistance of t.e 'C8$ for conciliation7 mediation. ( <.e recourse of t.e worDers w.ose em,loyment
status are declared to .ave (een lost is to file a
case of illegal dismissal under Art. /)2 of t.e Code# and to ,ray for t.e sus,ension of t.e effects
of termination under Article /22(( of t.e said Code (ecause t.is involves a mass lay-off.
t.e su(:ect of immediate assum,tion of :urisdiction (y t.e Secretary of La(or and &m,loyment or
certification for com,ulsory ar(itration in case of striDe or worD sto,,age arising from a la(or
/.
dis,uteK () $ulletin news,a,er daily ,u(lis.ing com,any. (/ Local franc.ise of Jolli(ee and Star(ucDs.
(3 S.i,,ing and ,ort services in Ce(u and 8anila. (6 &nc.anted Uingdom# &le,.ant Island and
$oracay !esort. (4 L$C# ;FL and ?ed&x centers. Justify your answer or c.oice. (4M SUGGESTE7 ANSWER'
Page #% of 108
t.e grave adverse effects t.at t.eir closure entails on t.eir students and teac.ers. / <.e striDing worDers must immediately com,ly wit. a Ret#rn to Wor+ Order even ,ending t.eir motion for reconsideration. Com,liance is a duty im,osed (y law# and a !eturn to @orD 9rder is immediately executory in c.aracter. <.e nature of a !eturn to @orD 9rder# was c.aracteriGed (y t.e Su,reme Court in Sarmiento v. Juico# )1/ SC!A 121 ()*++ as5
It is also im,ortant to em,.asiGe t.at t.e return to worD order not so muc. confers a rig.t as it im,oses a duty. It must (e disc.arged as a duty even against t.e worDersP will. !eturning to worD in t.is situation is not a matter of o,tions or voluntariness (ut of o(ligation.
In $aguio Colleges ?oundation v. 'L!C# /// SC!A 106 ()**3 t.e Court ruled5 Assum,tion and certification orders are executory in c.aracter and are to (e strictly com,lied wit. (y t.e ,arties even during t.e ,endency of any ,etition Euestioning t.eir validity. 3 <.e continuing striDe is illegal (ecause it is in defiance of a return to worD order of t.e Secretary of La(or and &m,loyment# .ence# termination of em,loyment of all t.ose w.o ,artici,ated w.et.er officer or mem(er# is legal. In Sta. Sc.olasticaPs College v. <orres. /)0 SC!A 414 ()**/ # t.e Court ruled5 Any worDer or union officer w.o Dnowingly ,artici,ates in a striDe defying a return to worD order may# conseEuently# (e declared to .ave lost .is em,loyment status in accordance wit. Art. /61 of t.e La(or Code.
Ri$<t t2 St#iG : L!83)* St#iG : E33 ;t 2" /!#ti;i-!"t4 (199.) A striDe was staged in 8ella Cor,oration (ecause of a deadlocD in C$A negotiations over certain economic ,rovisions. ;uring t.e striDe# 8ella Cor,oration .ired re,lacements for t.e worDers w.o went on striDe. <.ereafter# t.e striDers decided to resume t.eir em,loyment. Can 8ella Cor,oration (e o(liged to reinstate t.e returning worDers to t.eir ,revious ,ositionsK SUGGESTE7 ANSWER'
I&S. 8ella Cor,oration can (e o(ligated to reinstate t.e returning worDers to t.eir ,revious ,ositions. @orDers w.o go on striDe do not lose t.eir em,loyment status exce,t w.en# w.ile on striDe# t.ey Dnowingly ,artici,ated in t.e commission of illegal acts. <.e La(or Code ex,ressly ,rovides5 8ere ,artici,ation of a worDer in
ground for termination of .is em,loyment# even if a re,lacement .ad (een .ired (y t.e em,loyer during suc. lawful striDe.
Confessor# %.!. 'o. )013)1# 8ay 4#)**2La,anday @orDersP Union v. 'L!C# %.!. 'os. *46*6-*2# Se,tem(er 2# )**4- Art. /16# La(or Code .
). Can !9S& Cor,oration refuse to admit all t.e striDersK SUGGESTE7 ANSWER'
!ose Cor,oration cannot refuse to admit all t.e striDers. Partici,ants in a lawful striDe generally .ave t.e rig.t to reinstatement to t.eir ,ositions u,on t.e termination of t.e striDe (Insular Life Assurance Co. &m,loyees Assn. v. Insular Life Assurance Co.# %.!. 'o. L-/4/*)# January 30# )*2*- Consolidated La(or Assn. of t.e P.il. v. 8arsman = Co.# Inc.# %.!. 'o. L-)203+# July 3)# )*16 . Fowever# t.e La(or Code ,rovides t.at any worDer or union officer w.o Dnowingly ,artici,ates in t.e commission of illegal acts during a striDe may (e deemed to .ave lost .is em,loyment status ($ascon v. CA# %.!. 'o. )66+**# ?e(ruary 4# /006- ?irst City InterlinD <rans. Co.# Inv. v.
and ,rogress of society s.ould also (e considered. <.is is w.y assum,tion of Jurisdiction and certification to 'L!C are allowed in Cnational interestC cases. VArt. /13# La(or Code- !aw at $uDlod ng 8anggagawa v. 'L!C# )*+ SC!A 4+1 ()**) - La,anday @orDers Union v. 'L!C# /6+ SC!A *1 ()**4 T
EXAM/LES' () ,rocedural reEuirements s.ould (e o(served# namely# filing of notice of striDe# o(servance of cooling-off ,eriod# taDing of striDe note# and re,ort of t.e striDe vote- (/ use of violence# intimidation or coercion and (locDade of ingress-egress are not allowed. (Art /13 (( (c (f (g # La(or Code .
La(or Union# )00 P.il 2+* ()*42 5 CruG v. Cinema Stage# etc.# )0) P.il )/4* ()*42TN ALTERNATI9E ANSWER'
'o# t.e ,icDeting activity itself cannot (e curtailed. @.at can (e curtailed are t.e Illegal acts (eing done in t.e course of t.e ,icDet. Fowever# if t.is is a Cnational InterestC case under Art /13(g # t.e striDe or worD sto,,age may (e sto,,ed (y t.e ,ower of assum,tion of Jurisdiction or certification of t.e case to t.e 'ational La(or !elations Commission. V'agDaDaisang 8angagawa sa Cuison Fotel v. Li(ron# )/6 SC!A 66+ ()*+3 ?ree <ele,.one @orDers Union v. PL;<# ))3 SC!A 11/ ()*+/ N.
Could t.e ;9L& Secretary intervene# assume :urisdiction and issue a <!9 (<em,orary !estraining 9rder K $riefly :ustify your answer. (4M
Ri$<t t2 St#iG : /i;G ti"$ A;ti6it& (2000) <.e worDers engaged in ,icDeting activity in t.e course of a striDe. a @ill ,icDeting (e legal if non-em,loyees of t.e striDe-(ound em,loyer ,artici,ate in t.e activityK (3M ( Can ,icDeting activity (e curtailed w.en illegal acts are committed (y t.e ,icDeting worDers in t.e course of t.e activityK (3M SUGGESTE7 ANSWER'
Ies# t.e ,icDeting is legal even t.oug. nonem,loyees :oin it. PicDeting is a form of t.e exercise of freedom of s,eec.. PicDeting# ,rovided it is .eld ,eacefully# is a constitutional rig.t. <.e dis,utants in a legal dis,ute need not (e em,loyerem,loyee of eac. ot.er. L;e Leon v. 'ational
@as t.e dismissal of ?O for a valid causeK @as due ,rocess o(servedK (4M SUGGESTE7 ANSWER' <.ere is a valid cause for t.e dismissal of ?O# (ut due ,rocess was not o(served.
Peaceful ,icDeting is ,art of t.e constitutional freedom of s,eec.. <.e rig.t to free s,eec.# .owever# .as its limits# and ,icDeting as a concerted activity is su(:ect to t.e same limitations as a striDe# ,articularly as to lawful ,ur,ose and lawful means. $ut it does not .ave to com,ly wit. t.e ,rocedural reEuirements for a lawful striDe# liDe t.e notice of striDe or t.e striDe vote.
Fowever# in t.e ,ro(lem given# ,icDeting (ecame illegal (ecause of unlawful means# as (arricades
violence# ensued w.en ?O t.rew stones at t.e guards. <.ere was t.us# valid cause for t.e dismissal of ?O# .owever# due ,rocess was not o(served (ecause SSI did not com,ly wit. t.e twin reEuirements of notice and .earing.
w.o ,artici,ated in t.e striDe dismissed from em,loyment. (a @as t.e act of 8anila AirlinesP management in dismissing t.e ,artici,ants in t.e striDe validK (( @.at are t.e effects of an assum,tion of :urisdiction (y t.e Secretary of La(or u,on t.e striDing em,loyees and 8anila AirlinesK SUGGESTE7 ANSWER' (a Ies. <.e act of 8anila AirlinesP management in dismissing t.e ,artici,ants in t.e striDe is valid# in a num(er of Su,reme Court decisions# it .as ruled t.at t.e defiance (y worDers of a return to worD order of t.e Secretary of La(or issued w.en .e assumes :urisdiction over a la(or dis,ute is an illegal act and could (e t.e (asis of a legal dismissal. <.e return to worD order im,oses a duty- it must (e disc.arged as a duty even against t.e worDersP will.
(( @.en t.e Secretary of La(or assumes :urisdiction over a striDe# all striDing em,loyees s.all immediately return to worD and t.e em,loyer s.all immediately resume o,erations and readmit all worDers under t.e same terms and conditions ,revailing (efore t.e striDe. LArt. /13(E N.
Ri$<t t2 St#iG : R t)#" t2 W2#G O#d # (1994) <.e Secretary of La(or assumed :urisdiction over a striDe under Art. /13(g of t.e La(or Code and issued a return-to-worD order. <.e Union defied t.e return-to-worD order and continued t.e striDe. <.e Com,any ,roceeded to declare all t.ose w.o ,artici,ated in t.e striDe as .aving lost t.eir em,loyment status. ) @as t.e Com,anyPs action validK / @as t.e Com,any still duty (ound to o(serve t.e reEuirements of due ,rocess (efore declaring t.ose w.o ,artici,ated in t.e striDe as .aving lost t.eir em,loyment statusK SUGGESTE7 ANSWER' ) <.e Com,anyPs action is valid. Any declaration of a striDe after t.e Secretary of La(or .as assumed :urisdiction over a la(or dis,ute is considered an illegal act# and any worDer or union officer w.o Dnowingly ,artici,ates in a striDe defying a return-toworD order may conseEuently (e declared to .ave lost .is em,loyment status and forfeited .is rig.t to (e readmitted# .aving a(andoned .is ,osition# and so could (e validly re,laced.
?or t.e moment a worDer defies a return-to-worD order# .e is deemed to .ave a(andoned .is :o(# as it is already in itself Dnowingly ,artici,ating in an illegal act# ot.erwise t.e worDer will sim,ly refuse to return to .is worD and cause a standstill in com,any o,erations w.ile returning t.e ,osition .e refuses to disc.arge or allow management to fill. (St. Sc.olasticaPs College vs. Fon. !u(en <orres# Secretary of La(or# etal.# %.!. 'o. )00)4+. /* June )**/.
Ri$<t t2 St#iG : R t)#" t2 W2#G O#d # (1995) <.e Secretary of La(or and &m,loyment# after assum,tion of :urisdiction over a la(or dis,ute in an airline issued a !eturn to @orD 9rder. <.e airline filed a 8otion for !econsideration of t.e 9rder and ,ending resolution of t.e motion# deferred t.e im,lementation of t.e 9rder. Can t.e airline defer t.e im,lementation of t.e !eturn to @orD 9rder ,ending resolution of t.e motion for reconsiderationK L4MN SUGGESTE7 ANSWER'
<.e airline cannot defer t.e im,lementation of t.e !eturn to @orD 9rder on t.e (asis of t.ere (eing a ,ending 8otion for !econsideration re5 t.e assum,tion of :urisdiction (y t.e Secretary of La(or and &m,loyment of a la(or dis,ute. According to t.e Su,reme Court# t.e !eturn to @orD 9rder issued (y t.e Secretary of La(or and &m,loyment u,on .is assum,tion of :urisdiction over a la(or dis,ute in an industry indis,ensa(le for t.e national interest is immediately executory.
SUGGESTE7 ANSWER' / Considering t.at t.e worDers w.o defied t.e return-to-worD order are deemed to .ave a(andoned t.eir em,loyment# t.e only o(ligation reEuired of an em,loyer is to serve notices declaring t.em to .ave lost t.eir em,loyment status at t.e worDerPs last Dnown address. (Sec. / !ule OIA# $ooD A# !ules Im,lementing t.e La(or Code
ANOT0ER SUGGESTE7 ANSWER' 'o# t.e airline cannot defer t.e im,lementation of a return to worD order ,ending resolution of a 8otion for !econsideration. <.e La(or Code reads W
Art. /13. StriDes# ,icDeting# and locDouts. - xxx (g @.en# in .is o,inion# t.ere exists a la(or dis,ute causing or liDely to cause a striDe or locDout in an industry indis,ensa(le to t.e national interest# t.e Secretary of La(or and &m,loyment may assume :urisdiction over t.e
Page 39 of 108
).
assum,tion or certification order. If one .as already taDen ,lace at t.e time of assum,tion
or certification# all striDing em,loyees ...s.all
?oundation A 'L!C. /// SC!A 106 ()**4 # ruled xxx assum,tion and certification orders are executory in c.aracter and are to (e strictly com,lied wit. (y t.e ,arties even during t.e ,endency of any ,etition Euestioning t.eir validity. $eing executory in c.aracter# t.ere was /.
'o striDe may (e declared wit.out first .aving filed a notice of striDe or wit.out t.e necessary striDe vote .aving (een o(tained and re,orted
to t.e 'ational Conciliation and 8ediation $oard. A striDe may actually taDe ,lace only after a 30-day waiting ,eriod after notice was
filed for a striDe arising from a (argaining
not.ing for t.e ,arties to do (ut im,lement t.e same# (underscoring su,,lied
Ri$<t t2 St#iG : R t)#" t2 W2#G O#d #:
deadlocD or after = )4-day waiting ,eriod for an unfair la(or ,ractice striDe. 'otice a(out a
locDout as s,ecified in t.e assum,tion order. If one .ad already taDen ,lace at t.e time of assum,tion# all striDing or locDout em,loyees s.all immediately return to worD and t.e em,loyer s.all immediately resume o,erations and re-admit all worDers under
t.e same terms and conditions ,revailing (efore
non-com,liance of t.e reEuirements of notice or a striDe vote or of t.e waiting ,eriods maDes a striDe
an illegal striDe. ANOT0ER SUGGESTE7 ANSWER' S<A<U<9!I !&JUI!&8&'<S for a Aalid StriDe A. S<A<US 9? S<!IUI'% U'I9' ?or a ULP striDe or (argaining deadlocD striDe# only a duly-certified or -recogniGed (argaining re,resentative may declare suc. striDe. $. P!9C&;U!AL !&JUI!&8&'<S () 'otice of Intent. ?iling of 'otice of Intent to StriDe wit. t.e 'C8$. (/ Cooling-off Period.9(servance of Cooling-off Period.
t.e striDe or locDout. <.e Secretary of La(or and &m,loyment may seeD t.e assistance of law enforcement agencies to
ensure com,liance wit. t.is ,rovision as well as wit. suc. orders as .e may issue to enforce t.e same.
(a ((
(3
ULP - )4 days (efore intended date of striDe $argaining ;eadlocD - 30 days (efore
intended date of striDe.
Page ,) of 108
C. CAUS& <.e cause of a striDe must (e a la(or or industrial dis,ute. LArt. /)/fo . La(or Code. Com,liance wit. all legal reEuirements are meant to (e and s.ould (e mandatory. ('ational ?ederation of Sugar @orDers v. 9va:era# ))6 SC!A 346 L)*+/N .
SUGGESTE7 ANSWER'
<.e contention of t.e union is '9< correct. In t.e case# it is clear t.at t.e em,loyees agreed to worD on Sundays and Folidays if t.eir worD sc.edule reEuired t.em to do so for w.ic. t.ey would (e ,aid additional com,ensation as ,rovided (y law. <.e a(ove-mentioned agreement t.at t.e em,loyees voluntarily entered into is valid. It is not contrary to law. It is ,rovided in t.e agreement t.at if t.ey will worD Sundays or Folidays t.at t.ey will (e ,aid additional com,ensation as ,rovided (y law. 'eit.er is t.e agreement contrary to morals# good customs# ,u(lic order or ,u(lic ,olicy.
<.us# w.en t.e worDers did not re,ort for worD w.en (y agreement t.ey were su,,osed to (e on duty# t.ere was a tem,orary sto,,age of worD (y t.e concerted action of t.e em,loyees as a result of an Industrial or la(or dis,ute (ecause t.ey were on striDe. LSee Inter,.il La(oratories &m,loyees Union-??@ v. Inter,.il La(oratories Inc.# %! 'o. )6/+/6# ;ecem(er )*# /00)T
to talD wit. t.e union leaders# alleging t.at t.ey .ad not as yet ,resented any ,roof of ma:ority status.
<.e Uilusang Ua(isig t.en c.ained 8icroc.i, Cor,oration wit. unfair la(or ,ractice# and declared a CwildcatC striDe w.erein means of ingress and egress were (locDed and remote and isolated acts of destruction and violence were committed.
a (
@as t.e striDe legalK @as t.e com,any guilty of an unfair la(or ,ractice w.en it refused to negotiate wit. t.e Uilusang Ua(isigK SUGGESTE7 ANSWERS'
(a $ecause w.at was declared is a CwildcatC striDe# t.e striDe is illegal. A CwildcatC striDe is one t.at is one declared (y a grou, of worDers wit.out formal union a,,roval. <.us# it is illegal (ecause t.e La(or Code reEuires t.at for a striDe to (e legal# among ot.ers# t.e decision to declare a striDe must (e a,,roved (y a ma:ority of t.e total union mem(ers.i, in t.e (argaining unit concerned# o(tained (y a secret (allot in meetings or referenda called for t.at ,ur,ose.
/ <.e striDe is not illegal. ?or t.e striDe to (e illegal (ecause of violence# it s.ould (e c.aracteriGed (y ,ervasive violence. Fere# t.ere were only remote and violated acts of destruction and violence. $ut even if t.e striDe is not illegal# t.ose striDers w.o committed illegal acts# namely# t.ose w.o (locDed t.e means of ingress and egress and w.o committed acts of destruction and violence# t.ese striDers can (e legally dismissed.
Ri$<t t2 St#iG : W2#G S*28d28" (1995) <.e day following t.e worDersP voluntary return to worD# t.e Com,any Production 8anager discovered an unusual and s.ar, dro, in worDersP out,ut. It was evidently clear t.at t.e worDers are engaged in a worD slowdown activity. Is t.e worD slowdown a valid form of striDe activityK L4MN SUGGESTE7 ANSWER'
A @9!U SL9@;9@' is not a valid form of striDe activity. If worDers are to striDe# t.ere s.ould (e tem,orary sto,,age of worD (y t.e concerted action of em,loyees as a result of an industrial or la(or dis,ute (See Article /l/(o of t.e La(or Code
ALTERNATI9E ANSWERS'
a.l <.e striDe is illegal. <.e La(or Code recogniGes only one of two (/ grounds for a striDe to (e legal5 (argaining deadlocD or unfair la(or ,ractice. A striDe to com,el an em,loyer to recogniGe a union is not allowed (y law.
Page ,
of 108
,etitionerPs conce,t of a slowdown as a CstriDe on t.e installment ,lanC# as a willful reduction in t.e rate of worD (y conceited action of worDers for t.e ,ur,ose of restricting t.e out,ut of t.e em,loyer# in relation to a la(or dis,ute# as an activity (y w.ic. worDers# wit.out a com,lete sto,,age of worD retard ,roduction or t.eir ,erformance of t.eir duties... <.e Court also agrees t.at suc. slowdown is generally condemned as in.erently illicit and un:ustifia(le# (ecause w.ile t.e em,loyees Ccontinue to worD and remain at t.eir ,ositions# and acce,t wages ,aid to t.emC# t.ey at t.e same time select w.at ,art of t.eir alloted tasDs t.ey care to ,erform of t.eir own volition or refuse o,enly# or secretly# to t.e em,loyers damage# to do ot.er worD- in ot.er words# t.ey worD on t.eir own terms. LiDewise# a slowdown is not a valid form of concerted activity# a(sent a la(or dis,ute (etween t.e ,arties. <.e La(or Code reads - Art. /)/. . W xxx Co CStriDeC means any tem,orary sto,,age of worD (y t.e concerted action of em,loyees as a result of an industrial or la(or dis,ute.
@.en t.e law ,rovides t.at a Cla(or organiGation xxx s.all acEuire legal ,ersonality xxx u,on issuance of t.e certificate of registrationC# t.e date a,,earing t.erein is legally ,resumed - under t.e rule on ,resum,tion of regularity - to (e its date of issuance. Actual issuance is a contentious evidentiary issue t.at can .ardly (e resolved# not to mention t.at t.e law does not s,eaD of CactualC issuance. S *3 O#$!"iJ!ti2": A--#2-#i!t B!#$!i"i"$ U"it: C2"3id "ti!* E?-*2& 4 (2002)
8alou is t.e &xecutive Secretary of t.e Senior Aice-,resident of a (anD w.ile Ana is t.e Legal Secretary of t.e (anDPs lawyer. <.ey and ot.er executive secretaries would liDe to :oin t.e union of ranD and file em,loyees of t.e (anD. Are t.ey eligi(le to :oin t.e unionK @.yK &x,lain (riefly. (3M SUGGESTE7 ANSWER' <.e following rules will govern t.e rig.t of self- organiGation of 8alou# Ana# and t.e ot.er &xecutive Secretaries). 'o !ig.t to Self-9rganiGation R Confidential em,loyees w.o act in a confidential ca,acity to ,ersons w.o formulate# determine# and effectuate management ,olicies in t.e field of la(ormanagement relation. <.e two criteria are cumulative and (ot. must (e met LSan 8iguel Cor,oration Union v. Laguesma# /22 SC!A 320 ()**2 N
ANOT0ER SUGGESTE7 ANSWER' 'o. It is a ,ro.i(ited activity. It can (e said to (e a violation of t.e duty to (argain collectively. <.e union is guilty of (ad fait.. <.e worDers s.ould resume o,erations under t.e same terms and conditions ,revailing ,rior to t.e striDe.
S *3 O#$!"iJ!ti2": A;H)i4iti2" 23 L $!* / #42"!*it& (200>) At w.at ,articular ,oint does a la(or organiGation acEuire a legal ,ersonalityK a 9n t.e date t.e agreement to organiGe t.e union is signed (y t.e ma:ority of all its mem(ers- or ( 9n t.e date t.e a,,lication for registration is duly filed wit. t.e ;e,artment of La(or or c 9n t.e date a,,earing on t.e Certificate of !egistration- or d 9n t.e date t.e Certificate of !egistration is actually issued- or e 'one of t.e a(ove# C.oose t.e correct answer. SUGGESTE7 ANSWER' d. 9n t.e date t.e Certificate of !egistration is actually issued.
Any a,,licant la(or organiGation# association or grou, of unions or worDers s.all acEuire legal ,ersonality and s.all (e entitled to t.e rig.ts and ,rivileges granted (y law to legitimate la(or organiGations u,on issuance of t.e certificate of registration. ANOT0ER SUGGESTE7 ANSWER' (c C9n t.e date a,,earing on t.e Certificate of !egistration.C
/. @it. !ig.t to Self-9rganiGation R @.en t.e em,loyee does not .ave access to confidential la(or relations information# t.ere is no legal ,ro.i(ition against confidential em,loyees from forming# assisting# or :oining a la(or organiGation. LSug(uanon !ural $anD# Inc. v. Laguesma# 3/6 SC!A 6/4 (/000 N
3. 'o rig.t of self-organiGation for Legal Secretaries R Legal Secretaries fall under t.e category of confidential em,loyees wit. no rig.t to serf-organiGation. LPier = Arrastre Stevedoring Services# Inc. v# Confesser# /6) SC!A /*6 ()**4 N S *3 O#$!"iJ!ti2": BLR C #ti3i;!ti2": C #ti3i;!ti2" E* ;ti2" (1995)
Can t.e $ureau of La(or !elations certify a union as t.e exclusive (argaining re,resentative after s.owing ,roof of ma:ority re,resentation t.ru union mem(ers.i, cards wit.out conducting an electionK L4MN SUGGESTE7 ANSWER'
<.e $ureau of La(or !elations CA''9< certify a union as t.e exclusive collective (argaining re,resentative after s.owing of ,roof of ma:ority re,resentation t.ru union mem(ers.i, cards wit.out conducting a certification election.
Page 42 of 108
o(stacles s.ould (e ,laced on t.e .olding of a certification election# (Sama.ang ng 8anggagawa sa Pacific Plastic vs. Laguesma /12 SC!A /03#
()**2 and t.at t.e law is indis,uta(ly ,artial to t.e .olding of a certification election. (@estern Agusan
vs. <ra:ano# )*1 SC!A 1// ()**) . At any rate# U'I;A; com,leted all t.e reEuirements for union registration on July )6#
ANOT0ER SUGGESTE7 ANSWER' 'o# t.e $ureau of La(or !elations cannot certify a
union as t.e exclusive (argaining re,resentative
/00)# and legitimate union status was accorded on July )4# /000# or at least ten ()0 days (efore t.e
sc.eduled &lection. date for .olding t.e Certification
t.e em,loyees against all contenders. xxx @.en an ... official (y-,asses t.e law on t.e ,retext of retaining a lauda(le o(:ective# t.e intendment or
,ur,ose of t.e law will lose its meaning as t.e
S *3 O#$!"iJ!ti2": C #ti3i;!ti2" E* ;ti2": B&4t!"d # R)* (1996) P< = < Su,ervisory &m,loyees Union filed a ,etition for t.e .olding of a certification election among t.e su,ervisory em,loyees of t.e P< = <
La(or !elationsN directly LcertifiesN a union# .e in fact disregarded t.is ,rocedure and its legal
reEuirements. <.ere was t.erefore failure to
U'I;A;# a la(or organiGation claiming to re,resent t.e ma:ority of t.e ranD and file worDers of $A%SAU <oyo 8anufacturing Cor,. ($8<C #
filed a ,etition for certification election during t.e
ensure t.at t.e em,loyees are Eualified to .old a certification electionK SUGGESTE7 ANSWER' ) 'o# t.e com,any .as no standing to file t.e
freedom ,eriod o(taining in said cor,oration. ;es,ite t.e o,,osition t.ereto (y SI%A@
?ederation on t.e ground t.at U'I;A; was not
,ossessed wit. all t.e attri(utes of a duly registered union# t.e 8ed-Ar(iter issued an 9rder calling for a certification election on July /4# /00).
<.is 9rder was ,romulgated and served on t.e ,arties on July )/# /00). 9n July )6# /00)# U'I;A; su(mitted and served t.e reEuired documents for its registration as an inde,endent
a SI%A@ Euestioned U'I;A;Ps victory on t.e ground t.at U'I;A; was not a duly registered
union w.en it filed t.e ,etition for a certification
election. S.all SI%A@s case ,ros,er or notK @.yK (4M . SUGGESTE7 ANSWER' 'o# SI%A@Ps case will not ,ros,er. <.e a,,lication
of tec.nicalities of ,rocedural reEuirements in certification election dis,utes will serve no lawful
Page ,# of 108
3 <.e em,loyer .as no remedy. <.e ,etition for certification election was initiated (y t.e Union.ence# t.e em,loyer is a total stranger or a (ystander in t.e election ,rocess. (P.ili,,ine ?ruits and Aegeta(le Industries# Inc. v. <orres# /)) SC!A *4 L)**/N . <o allow an em,loyer to assert a remedy is an act of interference in a matter w.ic. is ,urely a concern of t.e Union.
ALTERNATI9E ANSWER5
) <.e com,any does not .ave t.e standing to file a motion to dismiss t.e ,etition for certification election# (ut it could move for t.e exclusion of t.e em,loyees it alleged to (e managerial em,loyees from t.e (argaining unit for w.ic. a ,etition for certification election .as (een filed. As a general rule# an em,loyer .as no standing in a ,etition for certification election (ecause t.e ,ur,ose of a certification election is to determine w.o s.ould (e t.e collective (argaining re,resentative of t.e em,loyees. <.us# a certification election is t.e concern of t.e em,loyees and not of t.e em,loyer. $ut in t.e case at (ar# t.e em,loyer may .ave a standing (ecause t.e ,etition for certification election involves ,ersonnel w.ic. t.e em,loyer alleges to (e managerial em,loyees. And managerial em,loyees under t.e La(or Code are not eligi(le to form# assist or Join la(or organiGations# im,lying t.at t.ey cannot (e ,art of t.e (argaining unit for w.ic. a ,etition for certification election .as (een filed. / As t.e 8&;-A!$I<&!# I will order t.e .olding of t.e certification election. <.e fact t.at t.ere is already a certified collective (argaining re,resentative of t.e ranD and file em,loyees of t.e Com,any is not a (ar to t.e .olding of a certification election for t.e determination of t.e collective (argaining re,resentative of t.e su,ervisory em,loyees. $ut I will exclude t.ose em,loyees found to (e managerial from ,artici,ating in t.e certification election.
3 <.e ,ro,er remedy of an em,loyer to ensure t.at only t.e em,loyees are Eualified to .old a certification election is to move for t.e exclusion of t.ose w.om .e alleges to (e managerial ,ersonnel.
S *3 O#$!"iJ!ti2": C #ti3i;!ti2" E* ;ti2": U"2#$!"iJ d E4t!%*i4<? "t (200>) <.ere are instances w.en a certification election is mandatory. @.at is t.e rationale for suc. a legal mandateK SUGGESTE7 ANSWER' According to t.e La(or Code# in any esta(lis.ment
certification election s.all automatically (e conducted (y t.e 8ed-Ar(iter u,on t.e filing of a ,etition (y a legitimate la(or organiGation. In t.e a(ove-descri(ed situation# a certification election is made mandatory (ecause if t.ere is no certified (argaining agent as determined (y a certification election# t.ere could (e no collective (argaining in t.e said unorganiGed esta(lis.ment S *3 O#$!"iJ!ti2": EBE R *!ti2"4<i-: C #ti3i;!ti2" E* ;ti2" (1995) Is it reEuired t.at an em,loyer-em,loyee relations.i, exists (etween an em,loyer and t.e em,loyees in t.e a,,ro,riate (argaining unit (efore a certification election can (e orderedK If so. w.yK L4MN
Ies. t.e Su,reme Court .as ruled t.at t.e existence of an em,loyer-em,loyee relations.i, is reEuired (efore a certification election can (e .eld. <.e Su,reme Court in Allied ?orce @aters Union v. Cam,ania 8aritime )* SC!A /1+ ()*12 . ruled xxx <.ere (eing no em,loyer-em,loyee relations.i, (etween t.e ,arties dis,utants# t.ere is neit.er Ca duty to (argain collectivelyC to s,eaD of. And t.ere (eing no suc. duty# to .old certification elections would (e ,ointless. <.ere is no reason to select a re,resentative to negotiate w.en t.ere can (e no negotiations in t.e first ,lace. @.ere t.ere is no duty to (argain collectively# it is not ,ro,er to .old certification elections in connection t.erewit..
SUGGESTE7 ANSWER'
Ies. it is reEuired t.at an em,loyer-em,loyee relations.i, is existing (etween t.e em,loyer and t.e em,loyees in t.e a,,ro,riate (argaining unit (efore a certification election can (e ordered for t.e sim,le reason t.at a certification election is .eld for t.e ,ur,ose of determining w.ic. la(or organiGation s.all (e t.e exclusive collective (argaining re,resentative of t.e em,loyees in an a,,ro,riate (argaining unit. <.ere could (e no collective (argaining (etween ,ersons w.o do not .ave any em,loyer-em,loyee relations.i,.
S *3 O#$!"iJ!ti2": G26Ct E?-*2& 4 (2004) $. $ecause of alleged Bunfair la(or ,racticesH (y t.e management of %?I System# a government- owned and controlled financial cor,oration# its em,loyees walDed out from t.eir :o(s and refused to return to worD until t.e management would grant t.eir union official recognition and start negotiations wit. t.em.
<.e leaders of t.e walD-out were dismissed# and t.e ot.er ,artici,ants were sus,ended for sixty days. In arguing t.eir case (efore t.e Civil Service Commission# t.ey cited t.e ,rinci,le of social :ustice for worDers and t.e rig.t to self-organiGation
Page ,, of 108
and collective action# including t.e rig.t to striDe. <.ey claimed t.at t.e Constitution s.ielded t.em from any ,enalty (ecause t.eir walD-out was a concerted action ,ursuant to t.eir rig.ts guaranteed (y t.e (asic law.
Is t.e ,osition taDen (y t.e walD-out leaders and ,artici,ants legally correctK !eason (riefly. (4M
SUGGESTE7 ANSWER'
<.e ,osition taDen (y t.e walD-out leaders and ,artici,ants is not legally correct. <.ey are government em,loyees# and as suc.# t.ey do not .ave t.e rig.t to striDe. According to t.e actual wording of Section 3 of Article OIII of t.e Constitution# t.e State Cs.all guarantee t.e rig.ts of all worDers to self-organiGation# collective (argaining and negotiations# and ,eaceful concerted activities including t.e rig.t to striDe in accordance wit. law.C
422 ()*2/S It is t.e instrumentality t.roug. w.ic. an individual la(orer w.o is .el,less as against a ,owerful em,loyer may# t.roug. concerted effort and activity# ac.ieve t.e goal of economic well-(eing. (%ullarno v. CI!# 3/ SC!A 302 L)**3N .
S *3 O#$!"iJ!ti2": M ?% #4<i- /2*i;& (1995) A la(or union lawyer o,ined A. t.at a la(or organiGation is a ,rivate and voluntary organiGation.ence# a union can deny mem(ers.i, to any and all a,,licants. Is t.e o,inion of counsel in accord wit. lawK L4MN SUGGESTE7 ANSWER'
'9# t.e o,inion of counsel is not in accord wit. law. <.e La(or Code (in Article /6* (a and ( ,rovides t.at a la(or organiGation .as t.e rig.t to ,rescri(e its own rules for t.e acEuisition or retention of mem(ers.i,# (ut it is an unfair la(or ,ractice act for a la(or organiGation to restrain or coerce em,loyees in t.e exercise of t.eir rig.t to self-organiGation. <.us# a la(or organiGation cannot discriminate against any em,loyee (y denying suc. em,loyee mem(ers.i, in t.e la(or organiGation on any ground ot.er t.an t.e usual terms and conditions under w.ic. mem(ers.i, or continuation of union mem(ers.i, is made availa(le to ot.er mem(ers.
<.us# t.e last clause of t.e a(ove-Euoted ,rovision of t.e Constitution maDes it very clear5 t.e rig.t to striDe is not constitutional# it is statutory (ecause t.e rig.t s.ould (e Cin accordance wit. lawC. And t.ere is as yet no law giving government em,loyees t.e rig.t to striDe. ANOT0ER SUGGESTE7 ANSWER' '9. @.at Art. OIA# Sec. 3 of t.e )*+2 Constitution guarantees is Ct.e rig.t to striDe in accordance wit. law.C Assuming t.at w.at we .ave is a c.artered government-owned and controlled cor,oration# t.ey cannot# under &9 )+0 and related :uris,rudence# stage suc. walD-out w.ic. is (asically a case of striDe.
&ven if %?I was organiGed under t.e cor,oration law# still no suc. walD-out is allowed wit.out t.e em,loyeesP com,lying wit. t.e reEuirements of a valid striDe# among w.ic. is t.at said striDe or walDout s.ould (e validly grounded on a (a deadlocD in collective (argaining# or (( unfair la(or ,ractice# eit.er of w.ic. is not ,resent .ere.
ANOT0ER SUGGESTE7 ANSWER' Ies# t.e legal o,inion of counsel# on t.e nature of a la(or union and its admission ,olicy is in accord wit. law# (ut must (e Eualified. <.e Su,reme Court ruled in Salunga v. CI!# /) SC!A /)1 ()*12 as follows5
%enerally# a state may not com,el ordinary voluntary association to admit t.ereto any given individual# (ecause mem(ers.i, t.erein may(e accorded or wit..eld as a matter of ,rivilege.
S *3 O#$!"iJ!ti2": I?-2#t!"; (1996) ) @.at is t.e im,ortance of la(or organiGationsK SUGGESTE7 ANSWER'
A la(or organiGation exists in w.ole or in ,art for t.e ,ur,ose of collective (argaining or of dealing wit. em,loyers concerning terms and conditions of em,loyment. &m,loyees may form la(or organiGations for t.eir mutual aid and ,rotection. (See Arts. /)/(a and /63 of t.e La(or Code
<.e same case furt.er ruled t.at t.e law can com,el a la(or union to admit an a,,licant for mem(ers.i, w.en t.e union is <.e rule is Eualified in res,ect of la(or unions .olding a mono,oly in t.e su,,ly of la(or# eit.er in a given locality or as regards a ,articular em,loyer wit. w.ic. it .as a closed-s.o, agreement. <.e reason is t.at Lunion security ,rovisionsN cause t.e admission reEuirements of trade unions to (e affected wit. ,u(lic interest. S *3 O#$!"iJ!ti2": Ri$<t t2 7i4!33i*i!t 3#2? t< L2;!* U"i2": i** $!* di4?i44!* (1994) In t.e Collective $argaining Agreement (C$A (etween !oyal ?ilms and its ranD-and-file Union (w.ic. is directly affiliated wit. 8??# a national federation # a ,rovision on t.e maintenance of mem(ers.i, ex,ressly ,rovides t.at t.e Union can
ALTERNATI9E ANSWER' <.e im,ortance of la(or unions are5 a <.e en.ancement of democracy and t.e ,romotion of social :ustice and develo,ment.
( As instrumentalities t.roug. w.ic. worDer welfare may (e ,romoted and fostered#
Page 45 of 108
w.o commits acts of disloyalty to t.e Union as ,rovided for In its Constitution and $y-Laws. <.e
same ,rovision contains an undertaDing (y t.e Union (8?? to .old !oyal ?ilms free from any and
all claims of any em,loyee dismissed.
;uring t.e term of t.e C$A# 8?? discovered t.at
certain em,loyee mem(ers were initiating a move to disaffiliate from 8?? and :oin a rival federation# ?A8AS. ?ort.wit.# 8?? soug.t t.e dismissal of its
em,loyee mem(ers initiating t.e disafiliation movement from 8?? to ?A8AS. !oyal ?ilms# relying on t.e ,rovision of t.e aforementioned C$A# com,lied wit. 8??s reEuest and dismissed t.e em,loyees Identified (y 8?? as disloyal to it. () @ill an action for Illegal dismissal against
<.e union deducted P/0.00 from !ogelioPs wages for January. U,on inEuiry .e learned t.at it was for deat. aid (enefits and t.at t.e deduction was
made ,ursuant to a (oard resolution of t.e directors of t.e union. Can !ogelio o(:ect to t.e deductionK &x,lain (riefly. (4M SUGGESTE7 ANSWER' Ies. In order t.at t.e s,ecial assessment (deat.
aid (enefit may (e u,.eld as valid# t.e following
!oyal ?ilms and 8?? ,ros,er or notK (/ @.at are t.e lia(ilities of !oyal and 8?? to t.e dismissed em,loyees# if anyK SUGGESTE7 ANSWER'
) <.e action for illegal dismissal will ,ros,er. <.e
mem(ers at t.e general mem(ers.i, meeting duly called for t.e ,ur,ose- (/ SecretaryPs record of t.e meeting- and (3 Individual written aut.oriGation for
t.e c.ecD-off duly signed (y t.e em,loyee concerned. LA$S-C$' Su,ervisors &m,loyees Union 8em(ers v. A$S-C$' $roadcasting Cor,# and Union 9fficers# 306 SC!A 6+* ()*** N
freedom to disaffiliate w.en circumstances warrant guarantee of freedom of association. <.us# t.e Act of initiating move to disaffiliate is not an act of
disloyalty. (<ro,ical Fut. &m,loyeePs Union-C%@# 'os. L-X36*4-**# January /0. )**0
et al. vs. <ro,ical Fut ?ood 8arDet# Inc.# etal# %.!. ALTERNATI9E ANSWER' <.e action for illegal dismissal will ,ros,er.
;isaffiliation cannot (e considered an act of
After t.e conclusion of t.e negotiations. @elga La(or Union collected from its individual mem(ers t.e sum of P)00.00 eac. to ,ay for Atty. AelosoPs
fees and anot.er sum of Pl00 eac. for services rendered (y t.e union officers. Several mem(ers
c.arges of any Dind arising from any collective (argaining negotiations or conclusion of t.e collective agreement s.all (e im,osed on any
Page ,% of 108
individual mem(er of t.e contracting unionProvided# .owever# t.at attorneys fees may (e c.arged against union funds in an amount to (e agreed u,on (y t.e ,arties. Any contract# agreement or arrangement of any sort to (e contrary s.all (e null and void.C (( <.e assessment of P )00.00 as negotiation fees c.arged to eac. individual union mem(er and ,aya(le to union officers is also not valid# for t.e same reason as stated a(ove. <.e assessment is an act violative of Art. ///(( . ALTERNATI9E ANSWER' (a <.e collection of t.e amount assessed on t.e individual mem(ers to answer for t.e attorneyPs fees would (e valid if it was aut.oriGed (y a written resolution of a ma:ority of all t.e mem(ers in a general mem(ers.i, meeting called for t.e ,ur,ose.
(( <.e assessment of P)00.00 from t.e Individual mem(ers of t.e @elga La(or Union for services rendered (y t.e union officers in t.e C$A negotiations would (e valid if it was aut.oriGed (y a written resolution of a ma:ority of all t.e mem(ers in a general mem(ers.i, meeting duly called for t.e ,ur,ose. (Art. /6)(' N.
). Is t.e Secretary of La(or aut.oriGed (y law to examine t.e financial records of t.e unionK If so# w.at ,owerK If not# w.y notK (3M SUGGESTE7 ANSWER'
<.e Secretary of La(or is ex,ressly aut.oriGed (y t.e La(or Code (in Article /26T to examine t.e financial records of t.e unions to determine com,liance or non-com,liance wit. t.e ,ertinent ,rovisions of t.e La(or Code and to ,rosecute any violation of t.e law and t.e union constitution-and(y-laws. $ut t.is aut.ority may (e exercised only u,on t.e filing of a com,laint under oat. and duly su,,orted (y t.e written consent of at least twenty ,ercent (/0M of t.e total mem(ers.i, of t.e la(or organiGation concerned.
S *3 O#$!"iJ!ti2": U"i2"4: A44 44? "t4 (2001) (( @.at reEuisites must a Union com,ly wit. (efore it can validly im,ose s,ecial assessments against its mem(ers for incidental ex,enses# attorneyPs fees# re,resentation ex,enses and t.e liDeK (3M . SUGGESTE7 ANSWER' <.e La(or Code (in Art. /6)(n ,rovides t.at Cno s,ecial assessments or ot.er extraordinary fees may (e levied u,on t.e mem(ers of a la(or organiGation unless aut.oriGed (y a written resolution of a ma:ority of all t.e mem(ers at a general mem(ers.i, meeting duly called for t.e ,ur,ose.C ANOT0ER SUGGESTE7 ANSWER' In t.e case of A$S-C$' &m,loyees Su,ervisors Union vs. A$S-C$' $oardcasting Cor,.# and Union 9fficers# %.!. 'o. )014)+# 8arc. ))#)***# t.e Su,reme Court ruled t.at t.e following are t.e reEuisites5 () Aut.oriGation (y a written resolution of t.e ma:ority of all t.e mem(ers at t.e general mem(ers.i, meeting duly called for t.e ,ur,ose(/ SecretaryPs record of t.e minutes of t.e meeting- and (3 Individual written aut.oriGation for c.ecDoff duly signed (y t.e em,loyee concerned. (See also5 %a(riel vs. Secretary of La(or# %.!. 'o. ))4*6*# 8arc. )1Y /000 .
ALTERNATI9E ANSWER' Among t.e rig.ts and conditions of mem(ers.i, in a la(or organiGation is t.e rig.t im,lied (y t.e ,roviso in t.e La(or Code (Article /6) (m stating t.at t.e (ooDs of accounts and ot.er records of t.e financial activities of any la(or organiGation s.all (e o,en to ins,ection (y any officer or mem(er t.ereof during office .ours. As a union mem(er# 8iDe $arela could file an intra- union case t.at may entail t.e act of t.e Secretary of La(or examining t.e financial records of t.e union. (See La <ondena @orDers Union v. Secretary of La(or and &m,loyment# /3* SC!A ))2 /. Under t.e facts given a(ove# could an examination or audit of t.e financial records of t.e union (e orderedK @.yK (/M SUGGESTE7 ANSWER'
Under t.e facts given in t.e Euestion# an examination or audit of t.e financial records of t.e union can not (e ordered (ecause for suc. examination or audit to taDe ,lace# t.ere s.ould (e a com,laint under oat. and duly su,,orted (y written consent of at least twenty (/0M ,er cent of t.e total mem(ers.i, of t.e la(or organiGation concerned. In t.is case# t.e aforementioned reEuirement was not fulfilled. It was only a sworn
written com,laint (y one union mem(er t.at was filed. Also# t.e La(or Code ,rovides t.at an examination of t.e (ooDs of a union s.all not (e conducted during t.e sixty (10 day freedom ,eriod nor wit.in t.irty (30 days immediately ,receding t.e date of election of union officials.
In t.e case# t.e com,laint was filed on 8ay )0# )*** w.ic. is wit.in t.e freedom ,eriod of t.e current C$A w.ic. was to ex,ire on 8ay 3). )***.
A,,eals# 33/ SC!A 6/2# (/000 # Lim v. 'L!C# 303 SC!A 63/# ()*** N ANOT0ER SUGGESTE7 ANSWER'
Ies. <.e %eneral 8anager may (e .eld :ointly and severally lia(le for (acD wages of an illegally dismissed em,loyee if .e or s.e actually aut.oriGed or ratified t.e wrongful dismissal of t.e em,loyee under t.e rule of respondeat superior. In case of illegal dismissal# cor,orate directors and officers are solidarity lia(le wit. t.e cor,oration w.ere termination of em,loyment are done wit. malice or (ad fait.. L$ogo-8edellin Sugar Planters Assoc.# Inc. v. 'L!C# /*1 SC!A )0+# ()**+ N
S *3 O#$!"iJ!ti2": U"i2"4: 1i"!";i!* R ;2#d4 (2001) (a Under w.at conditions may t.e Secretary of La(or or .is duly aut.oriGed re,resentative inEuire into t.e financial activities or legitimate la(or organiGationsK (/M . SUGGESTE7 ANSWER'
<.e La(or Code (in Art. /26 # t.e Secretary of La(or and &m,loyment or .is duly aut.oriGed re,resentative is em,owered to inEuire into t.e financial activities of legitimate la(or organiGations u,on t.e filing of a com,laint under oat. and duly su,,orted (y t.e written consent of at least twenty (/0M ,ercent of t.e total mem(ers.i, of t.e la(or organiGation concerned and to examine t.eir (ooDs of accounts and ot.er records. S *3 O#$!"iJ!ti2": U"i2"4: M ?% #4<i-: 7i4?i44!* i" B!d 1!it< (2002) A 9n w.at ground or grounds may a union mem(er (e ex,elled from t.e organiGationK (3M
S *3BO#$!"iJ!ti2" (2002)
8ang $ally# owner of a s.oe re,air s.o, wit. only nine (* worDers in .is esta(lis.ment# received ,ro,osals for collective (argaining from t.e $ally S.oe Union. 8ang $ally refused to (argain wit. t.e worDers for several reasons. ?irst# .is s.oe (usiness is :ust a service esta(lis.ment. Second# .is worDers are ,aid on a ,ieceworD (asis (i.e.# ,er s.oe re,aired and not on a time (asis. <.ird# .e .as less t.an ten ()0 em,loyees in t.e esta(lis.ment. @.ic. reason or reasons is7are tena(leK &x,lain (riefly. (/M
SUGGESTE7 ANSWER'
'9'&. ?irst# 8ang $allyPs s.oe (usiness is a commercial enter,rise# al(eit a service esta(lis.ment. Second# t.e mere fact t.at t.e worDers are ,aid on a ,iece-rate (asis does not negate t.eir status as regular em,loyees. Payment (y ,iece is :ust a met.od of com,ensation and does not define t.e essence of t.e relation. LLam(o v. 'L!C# 3)2 SC!A 6/0 ()*** N. <.ird# t.e em,loyeesP rig.t to self organiGation is not delimited (y t.eir num(er.
$. 8ay t.e general manager of a com,any (e .eld :ointly and severally lia(le for (acDwages of an illegally dismissed em,loyeeK (/M SUGGESTE7 ANSWER' A. Union mem(ers may (e ex,elled from t.e la(or organiGation only on valid grounds ,rovided for in t.e Union Constitution# $y-Laws# or conditions for union mem(ers.i,. ANOT0ER SUGGESTE7 ANSWER' @.enever a,,ro,riate for any violation of t.e rig.ts as5 a !efusal to ,ay union dues and s,ecial assessments( ;isloyalty to t.e union- and c Aiolation of t.e constitution and (y-laws of t.e union. SUGGESTE7 ANSWER'
$. Ies. If it is s.own t.at .e acted in (ad fait.# or wit.out or in excess of aut.ority# or was motivated (y ,ersonal ill-will in dismissing t.e em,loyee# t.e general manager may (e .eld :ointly and severally lia(le for t.e (acDwages of an illegally dismissed em,loyee. LA!$ Construction C. v. Court of
<.e rig.t to self-organiGation covers all ,ersons em,loyed in commercial# industrial and agricultural enter,rises and in religious# c.arita(le# medical# or educational Institutions w.et.er o,erating for ,rofit or not VArt. /63# La(or CodeT
Page 48 of 108
;uring
t.e
investigation#
t.e
administration
discovered t.at two (/ days ,rior to t.e rally# A# $# C and ; attended t.e meeting of t.e Sc.ool>s
em,loyees> association w.ic. ,lanned t.e ,rotest activity. <wo well-Dnown organiGers7leaders of a national la(or federation were also ,resent. A# $# C and ; were dismissed (y t.e Sc.ool on t.e
'o. )+0 S *3BO#$!"iJ!ti2": Ri$<t t2 (2i" (2000) () ;o worDers .ave a rig.t not to :oin a la(or organiGationK (3M
(/ ;o t.e following worDers .ave t.e rig.t to selfground of violating t.e La(or Code w.ic. ,ro.i(its
managerial em,loyees to B:oin# assist or form any organiGationK !easons7(asis (/M a. &m,loyees of non-stocD# non-,rofit organiGationsK (. Alien em,loyeesK SUGGESTE7 ANSWER' Ies# worDers decide w.et.er t.ey will or will not (ecome mem(ers of a la(or organiGation. <.atPs w.y a unionPs constitution and (y-laws need t.e
la(or organiGationH.
Is t.e contention of t.e Sc.ool tena(leK dismissal of A# $# C and ; validK &x,lain. Is t.e (4M
states t.at managerial em,loyees Care not eligi(le to :oin# assist or form any la(or organiGationC is not
valid. <.e La(or Code does not ,rovide for any sanction for t.e aforesaid acts. <.ese acts could
doctrine for(ids union mem(ers.i,# t.eir rig.t not to (e com,elled to (ecome union mem(ers .as
(een u,.eld. Fowever# if t.e worDer is not a
invalid.
<.e
dismissal
of
t.e
management
( (i
.ow erroneous or tenous may (e t.e (asis of t.e exercise# is a violation of t.e constitutional and
statutory guaranteed rig.ts of self-organiGation# and an act of unfair la(or ,ractice. (Sec. 3# Art. OIII# Constitution- Art. /63# La(or Code. See also Art. /6+ (a # La(or Code .
organiGations .ave t.e rig.t to self-organiGation. <.is is ex,licitly ,rovided for in Art. /63 of t.e La(or Code. A ,ossi(le exce,tion# .owever# are em,loyee-mem(ers of non-stocD non-,rofit coo,eratives.
SUGGESTE7 ANSWER'
<.ere is no su(stantial difference of t.e rig.t of
(( CAC# an em,loyee# sued com,any C$C for unfair la(or ,ractice# Illegal dismissal and damages as a
conseEuence t.ereof. <.e Ar(iter granted APs
self-organiGation (etween worDers in t.e ,rivate sector and t.ose in t.e ,u(lic sector. In t.e ,u(lic
sector# &xecutive 9rder 'o. )+0# t.e ,ur,ose of self-organiGation is stated as Cfor t.e furt.erance and ,rotection of t.eir interest.C In t.e ,rivate
sector# Art. /63 of t.e La(or Code states Cfor t.e
,rayer for reinstatement# (acDwages# and included an award for attorneyPs fees. 9n a,,eal to t.e
'L!C# t.e Commission affirmed t.e Ar(iterPs decision (ut deleted t.e award for attorneyPs fees
correct. Article //0+ of t.e 'ew Civil Code allows t.e award of attorneyPs fees w.en t.e defendantPs
act or omission .as com,elled t.e ,laintiff to
Page ,( of 108
litigate or incur ex,enses to ,rotect .is interest. AttorneyPs fees may (e considered as a ,art of an eEuita(le relief awarded in t.e conce,t of damages. (c @ould your answer (e different if t.e attorneyPs fees awarded (y t.e Ar(iter was over fifteen ,ercent of t.e total awardK @.yK ()M SUGGESTE7 ANSWER: An award of attorneyPs fees w.ic. is over fifteen ,ercent of t.e total award is not in conformity wit. t.e ,rovision of t.e La(or Code (Art. )))(a t.at in cases of unlawful wit..olding of wages# t.e cul,a(le ,arty may (e assessed attorneyPs fees eEuivalent to ten ,ercent of t.e amount of wages recovered.
SUGGESTE7 ANSWER' <.e unionPs stand is not valid. It is ,art of management ,rerogative to contract out any worD# tasD# :o( or ,ro:ect exce,t t.at it is an unfair la(or ,ractice to contract out services or functions ,erformed (y union mem(ers w.en suc. will interfere wit.# restrain or coerce em,loyees in t.e exercise of t.eir rig.ts to selforganiGation. (Art. /6+(c of t.e La(or Code ANOT0ER SUGGESTE7 ANSWER'
<.e unionPs stand t.at t.ere must (e a ,rior consultation (y t.e em,loyer wit. t.e union (efore contracting out can (e effected is valid. Article OIII# Section 3 of t.e Constitution# and Article /44 of t.e La(or Code guarantee t.e rig.t of worDers to ,artici,ate in ,olicy and decision maDing ,rocesses w.ic. affect t.eir rig.ts and (enefits. Jo( contracting will undou(tedly and directly affect t.eir rig.ts# (enefits and welfare. P.ili,,ine Airlines vs. 'L!C# /44 SC!A 30) ()**3 # and 8anila &lectric Com,any us. Juisum(ing# 30/ SC!A )23 ()*** .
UL/: 7 3i"iti2" & ED!?-* 4 23 UL/ (1996) ) ;efine unfair la(or ,ractice# AnswerSUGGESTE7 ANSWER'
U'?AI! LA$9! P!AC<IC& means any unfair la(or ,ractice as ex,ressly defined (y t.e La(or Code (Arts. /6+ and /6* of t.e La(or Code . &ssentially# an unfair la(or ,ractice is any act committed (y an em,loyer or (y a la(or organiGation# its officers# agents or re,resentatives w.ic. .as t.e effect of ,reventing t.e full exercise (y
and collective (argaining. (See Arts /6+ and /6* of t.e La(or Code . / %ive t.ree (3 exam,les of unfair la(or ,ractices on t.e ,art of t.e em,loyer and t.ree (3 exam,les of unfair la(or ,ractices on t.e ,art of t.e la(or union. A'S@&!Any t.ree (3 from t.e following enumeration in t.e La(or Code5 A!<. /6+. Unfair la(or ,ractices of em,loyers. It s.all (e unlawful for an em,loyer to commit any of t.e following unfair la(or ,ractice5 ). <o interfere wit.# restrain or coerce em,loyees in t.e exercise of t.eir rig.t to self- organiGation/. <o reEuire as a condition of em,loyment t.at a ,erson or an em,loyee s.all not :oin a la(or organiGation or s.all wit.draw from one to w.ic. .e (elongs3. <o contract out services or functions (eing ,erformed (y union mem(ers w.en suc. will interfere wit.# restrain or coerce em,loyees in t.e exercise of t.eir rig.ts to self-organiGation-
worD# and ot.er terms and conditions of em,loyment in order to encourage or discourage mem(ers.i, in any la(or organiGation. 'ot.ing in t.is Code or in any ot.er law s.all sto, t.e ,arties from reEuiring mem(ers.i, in a recogniGed collective (argaining agent as a condition for em,loyment# exce,t t.ose em,loyees w.o are already mem(ers of anot.er union at t.e time of t.e signing of t.e collective (argaining agreement. Provided# t.at t.e individual aut.oriGation reEuired under Article /6)# ,aragra,. (o of t.is Code s.all not a,,ly to t.e non-mem(ers of t.e recogniGed collective (argaining agent-
1.
2. +.
6.
<o initiate# dominate# assist or ot.erwise interfere wit. t.e formation or administration of any la(or organiGation# including# t.e giving of financial or ot.er su,,ort to it# or its organiGations# or su,,orters<o discriminate in regard to wages# .ours of
*.
<o dismiss# disc.arge# or ot.erwise ,re:udice or discriminate against an em,loyee for .aving given or (eing a(out to give testimony under t.is Code<o violate t.e duty to (argain collectively as ,rescri(ed (y t.is Code<o ,ay negotiation or attorneyPs fees to t.e union or its officers or agents as ,art of t.e settlement of any issue in collective (argaining or any ot.er dis,ute- or <o violate a collective (argaining agreement.
4.
Page $) of 108
entered into a collective (argaining agreement wit. t.e Uamao Union in re,resentation of t.e ranD and file em,loyees of t.e cor,oration.
<.e C$A was effective u, to /0 June )**4. <.e contract .ad an automatic renewal clause w.ic.
would allow t.e agreement after its ex,iry date to
t.e 8icroc.i, Cor,oration# ,roceeded to ,resent a list of demands to t.e management for ,ur,oses of
collective (argaining. <.e 8icroc.i,s Cor,oration# a multinational cor,oration engaged in t.e ,roduction of com,uter c.i,s for ex,ort# declined to talD wit. t.e union leaders# alleging t.at t.ey
still a,,ly until (ot. ,arties would .ave (een a(le to execute a new agreement. 9n )0 8ay )**4 Uamao Union su(mitted to Pro-
UnitPs
management
t.eir
,ro,osals
for
t.e
renegotiation of a new C$A. <.e next day# Pro-Unit sus,ended negotiations w.ile Uamao Union since
violation of t.e duty to (argain collectively. As suc.# t.e case is under t.e :urisdiction of a La(or
Ar(iter and not of a regular Court
no la(or dis,ute (etween t.e ,arties- .ence# t.e !egional <rial Court .as Jurisdiction over t.e com,laint. Art. /)/ of t.e La(or Code# reads -
,lantation organiGed t.emselves for t.e ,ur,ose of ,romoting t.eir common interest and welfare. <.e
worDers> association ,re,ared a ,etition for
em,loyment or t.e association or re,resentation of ,ersons in negotiating# fixing# maintaining# c.anging or arranging t.e terms and conditions
of em,loyment regardless of w.et.er t.e dis,utants stand in t.e ,roximate relations of
anxious after t.e owner-manager t.reatened t.em wit. mass lay-off if t.e association would ,ress for t.eir demands. 8ost of its mem(ers .ave worDed in t.e mill for )0 to )4 years wit. no im,rovement
in worDing conditions and monetary (enefits. <.e leaders of t.e worDers> association
s,ecial circumstances. In Sundowner ;evelo,ment Cor,oration v ;rilon# )+0 SC!A )6# t.e Court said5 <.e rule is t.at unless ex,ressly assumed# la(or contracts suc. as xxx collective (argaining agreements are not enforcea(le against a
a,,roac.ed you and asDed5 w.at legal ste,s could t.ey taDe to ,rotect t.eir security of tenureK @.at
advice could you give t.emK (4M SUGGESTE7 ANSWER' I would advise t.em to register t.e worDersP association wit. t.e ;e,artment of La(or and &m,loyment. <.en# .ave t.e worDersP association file a ULP case against t.e em,loyer. ANOT0ER SUGGESTE7 ANSWER'
Page $
of 108
<.e worDers are entitled to t.e constitutional (Art. OIII# Sec. 3# )*+2 Constitution and statutory (Art. /2*# La(or Code guarantees of security of tenure. @.en t.is rig.t to security of tenure is violated# an action for illegal dismissal is an availa(le remedy.
If t.ey are dismissed (ecause of union activities# an action for unfair la(or ,ractice can (e filed (Sec. 3# Art. OIII# Constitution- Art. /63# La(or Code. If successful# t.e worDers will (e entitled to full (acDwages# including money value of (enefits# and reinstatement wit.out loss of seniority (Art. /2*# La(or Code .
UL/: S)%A ;t t2 C#i?i"!* /#24 ;)ti2" (200,) Is t.e commission of an unfair la(or ,ractice (y an em,loyer su(:ect to criminal ,rosecutionK Please ex,lain your answer (riefly. (3M SUGGESTE7 ANSWER'
Ies# (ecause unfair la(or ,ractices are not only violations of t.e civil rig.ts of (ot. la(or and management (ut are also criminal offenses against t.e State w.ic. s.all (e su(:ect to ,rosecution and ,unis.ment. (Article /62# La(or Code- See also $.P. $ig. 3+1 as amended (y !.A. 'o. 12)4 . Fowever# t.e criminal as,ect can only (e filed w.en t.e decision of t.e la(or tri(unals# finding t.e existence of unfair la(or ,ractice# s.all .ave (ecome final and executory.
LABOR STAN7AR7S
EBE R *!ti2"4<i-: C2#-2#!ti2" (1999) ?AC<S5 <eofilo Lacson was one of more t.an one .undred ()00 em,loyees w.o were terminated from em,loyment due to t.e closure of L$8 Construction Cor,oration (L$8 .
L$8 was a sister com,any of Lastimoso Construction# Inc. and !L !ealty = ;evelo,ment Cor,oration. All t.ree (3 entities formed w.at came to (e Dnown as t.e Lastimoso %rou, of Com,anies. <.e t.ree (3 cor,orations were owned and controlled (y mem(ers of t.e Lastimoso ?amily- t.eir incor,orators and directors all (elonged to t.e Lastimoso family. <.e t.ree (3 cor,orations were engaged in t.e same line of (usiness# under one management# and used t.e same eEui,ment including man,ower services.
<eofilo Lacson and .is co-em,loyees filed a com,laint wit. t.e La(or Ar(iter against L$8# !L !ealty and Lastimoso Construction to .old t.em :ointly and severally lia(le for (acDwages and se,aration ,ay.
Lastimoso Construction# Inc. and !L !ealty = ;evelo,ment Cor,oration inter,osed a 8otion to
wit. distinct and se,arate ,ersonalities L$8 Construction Cor,oration t.erefore# t.ey cannot (e .eld :ointly severally lia(le for t.e money claims worDers w.o are not t.eir em,loyees. !ule on t.e 8otion to ;ismiss. S.ould (e granted or deniedK @.yK (4M SUGGESTE7 ANSWER'
It is very clear t.at even if L$8 Construction com,any# Lastimoso Construction Com,any# Inc. and !L !ealty = ;evelo,ment Cor,oration all (elong to t.e Lastimoso family and are engaged in t.e same line of (usiness under one management and used t.e same eEui,ment including man,ower services# t.ese cor,orations were se,arate :uridical entities.
cor,oration is an entity se,arate and distinct from its stocD.olders and from ot.er cor,orations to w.ic. it may (e connected. $ut t.is se,arate and distinct ,ersonality of a cor,oration is merely a fiction created (y law for convenience and to ,romote :ustice. So# w.en t.e notion of se,arate :uridical ,ersonality is used to defeat ,u(lic convenience# :ustify wrong# ,rotect fraud or defend crime# or is used as a device to defeat t.e la(or laws# t.is se,arate ,ersonality of t.e cor,oration may(e disregarded or t.e veil of cor,orate fiction ,ierced.
ALTERNATI9E ANSWER'
8otion to ;ismiss s.ould (e denied. In t.e case at (ar# t.e La(or Ar(iter would (e :ustified in ,iercing t.e cor,orate veil and considering t.e t.ree (3 cor,orations as one and t.e same entity as t.e em,loyer of <eofilo Lacson (ecause (ased on t.e facts Ct.e t.ree cor,orations were owned and controlled (y mem(ers of t.e Lstimoso family- t.eir incor,orators and directors all (elonged to t.e Lastimoso family. <.e t.ree (3 cor,orations were engaged in t.e same line of (usiness# under one management and used t.e same eEui,ment including man,ower services.C <.e facts s.ow t.at Ct.e notion of legal entity is used to defeat ,u(lic convenience# :ustify wrong# ,rotect fraud# or defend crime# t.e law will regard t.e cor,oration as an association of ,ersons# or in t.e case of two cor,orations# will merge t.em into one
<.us# only t.e L$8 Construction Cor,oration is t.e em,loyer of <eofllo Lacson. <.e ot.er cor,oration do not .ave any em,loyer-em,loyee relations wit. Lacson. <.e case in Euestion does not include any fact t.at would :ustify ,iercing t.e veil of cor,orate fiction of t.e ot.er cor,orations in order to ,rotect t.e rig.ts of worDers.
In a case (Conce,t $uilders# Inc. v. 'L!C. /42 SC!A )6* # t.e Su,reme Court ruled t.at it is a fundamental ,rinci,le of cor,oration law t.at a
Page 52 of 108
EBE R *!ti2"4<i-: 7 t #?i" d %& 1!;t4 & L!84 (2000) $anco de 8anila and t.e Ang Fusay Janitorial and
Pest Control Agency entered into an Inde,endent Contractor Agreement wit. t.e usual sti,ulations5 s,ecifically# t.e a(sence of em,loyer-em,loyee
generous customers. In time# t.e %!9s formed t.e Solar Ugnayan ng mga Ua(a(ai.ang Inaa,i (SUUI - a la(or union duly registered wit. ;9L&.
relations.i,# and t.e relief from lia(ility clauses. Can t.e $anD# as a client# and t.e Agency# as an inde,endent contractor# sti,ulate t.at no em,loyerem,loyee relations.i, exists (etween t.e $anD
and t.e em,loyees of t.e Agency w.o may (e assigned to worD in t.e $anDK !eason. (4M
Su(seEuently# SUUI filed a ,etition for certification election in order to (e recogniGed as t.e exclusive (argaining agent of its mem(ers. Solar Plexus o,,osed t.e ,etition for certification election on t.e singular ground of a(sence of em,loyer-em,loyee
relations.i, (etween t.e %!9s on one .and and t.e nig.t clu( on t.e ot.er .and.
SUGGESTE7 ANSWER'
<.ey can so sti,ulate if t.e relations.i, is indeed Jo( contracting. Iet t.e sti,ulation cannot ,revail
facts and law and not (y sti,ulation of t.e ,arties. (Insular Life Assurance Co.. Ltd. v. 'L!C. /+2 ALTERNATI9E ANSWER'
Ies# t.ey can sti,ulate ,rovided t.at t.e contract of Inde,endent contractor is valid in accordance
SC!A 621 ()**+ <a(as v. California 8anufacturing Co. Inc.# )1* SC!A 6*2 ()*+* N.
SUGGESTE7 ANSWER' <.e Su,reme Court# in a long line of decisions .as consistently ruled t.at t.e following are t.e
elements of an em,loyer-em,loyee relations.i,5
A. Selection and engagement of t.e em,loyee$. Payment of wagesC. Power of disci,line and dismissal- and ;. Power to control t.e em,loyeePs conduct as
manager from +500 ,.m. to 6500 a.m. everyday including Sundays and .olidays. Suc. is indicative of an em,loyer-em,loyee relations.i, since t.e
manager would (e exercising t.e rig.t of control. EBE R *!ti2"4<i-: S ;)#it& G)!#d4: 1*2!ti"$
trade# Industry# undertaDing# or activity of any Dind uses t.e services of anot.er ,erson (an em,loyee
w.o# receiving com,ensation# is under t.e em,loyerPs orders as regards t.e em,loyment. EBE R *!ti2"4<i-: GROC4 & Ni$<t C*)%4 (1999) ?AC<S5 Solar Plexus $ar and 'ig.t Clu( allowed
(1999) St!t)4 ?AC<S5 Asia Security = Investigation Agency (ASIA executed a one-year contract wit. t.e
$aron Fotel ($A!9' for t.e former to ,rovide t.e latter wit. twenty (/0 security guards to safeguard
t.e ,ersons and (elongings of .otel guests#
among ot.ers. <.e security guards filled u, $aron a,,lication form and su(mitted t.e executed forms
directly to t.e Security ;e,artment of $aron. <.e
(%!9 to worD wit.out com,ensation in its esta(lis.ment under t.e direct su,ervision of its 8anager from +500 ,.m. to 6500 a.m. everyday#
,ay sli,s of t.e security guards (ore $aronPs logo and s.owed t.at $aron deducted t.erefrom t.e for SSS ,remiums# amounts medicare
contri(utions and wit..olding taxes. Assignments of security guards# w.o s.ould (e on duty or on
time. <.e %!9s earned t.eir Dee, exclusively from commissions for food and drinDs# and ti,s from
Page $# of 108
After t.e ex,iration of t.e contract wit. Asia# $aron did not renew t.e same and instead executed anot.er contract for security services wit. anot.er agency. Asia ,laced t.e affected security guards on Cfloating statusC on Cno worD no ,ayC (asis. Faving (een dis,laced from worD# t.e Asia security guards filed a case against t.e $aron Fotel for illegal dismissal# overtime ,ay# minimum wage differentials# vacation leave and sicD leave (enefits# and )3t. mont. ,ay.
$aron Fotel denied lia(ility alleging t.at Asia is t.e em,loyer of t.e security guards and t.erefore# t.eir com,laint for illegal dismissal and ,ayment of money claims s.ould (e directed against Asia. 'evert.eless# $aron filed a <.ird Party Com,laint against Asia. ). Is t.ere an em,loyer-em,loyee relations.i, (etween t.e $aron Fotel# on one .and# and t.e Asia security guards# on t.e ot.er .andK &x,lain (riefly# (3M SUGGESTE7 ANSWER' As a general rule# t.e security guards of a ,rivate security guard agency are t.e em,loyees of t.e latter and not of t.e esta(lis.ment t.at .as entered into a contract wit. t.e ,rivate security guard agency for security services. $ut under t.e facts in t.e Euestion# $aron Fotel a,,ear to .ave .ired t.e security guards# to .ave ,aid t.eir wages# to .ave t.e ,ower to ,romote# sus,end or dismiss t.e security guards and t.e ,ower of control over t.em# namely# t.e security guards were under orders of $aron Fotel as regard t.eir em,loyment.
$ecause of t.e a(ove-mentioned circumstances# $aron Fotel is t.e em,loyer of t.e security guards.
/. Assuming t.at ASIA is t.e em,loyer# is t.e act of ASIA in ,lacing t.e security guards on Cfloating statusC lawfulK @.yK (/M SUGGESTE7 ANSWER'
It is lawful for a ,rivate security guard agency to ,lace its security guard on a Cfloating statusC if it .as no assignment to give to said security guards.
$ut if t.e security guards are ,laced on a Cfloating statusC for more t.an six (1 mont.s# t.e security guards may consider t.emselves as .aving (een dismissed.
Pa(loPs widow filed a ,etition (efore t.e SSS asDing t.at A$C = Co. (e directed to ,ay t.e ,remium contri(utions of Pa(lo and t.at .is name (e re,orted for SSS coverage. A$C = Co. countered t.at Pa(lo was .ired to ,low# .arrow and (urrow# using .is own cara(ao and ot.er im,lements and following .is own sc.edule of worD .ours# wit.out any su,ervision from t.e com,any. If ,roven# would t.is factual setting advanced (y A$C = Co. (e a valid defense against t.e ,etitionK
SUGGESTE7 ANSWER'
A$C = Co. .as a valid defense. Pa(lo s.ould (e an em,loyee of A$C = Co. to (e under t.e com,ulsory coverage of t.e SSS. <o (e an em,loyee# Pa(lo s.ould (e under t.e control of A$C = Co. as regards .is em,loyment. $ut t.e facts s.ow t.at .e was not under t.e control of A$C = Co. as regards .is em,loyment. Among ot.ers# .e .ad .is own sc.edule of worD .ours# wit.out any su,ervision from t.e com,any. <.us# .e is an inde,endent contractor and not an em,loyee. An inde,endent contractor is not under t.e com,ulsory coverage of t.e SSS. Fe may(e covered as a self-em,loyed ,erson. $ut t.en as suc.# A$C = Co. .as no legal o(ligation to re,ort Pa(lo for coverage under t.e SSS (ecause A$C = Co. is not Pa(loPs em,loyer.
elements of .iring# ,ayment of wages# ,ower to dismiss and ,ower to control are ,resumed from t.e fact t.at Pa(lo is worDing 1 days a weeD# for )4 years now. Pa(loPs use of .is ,low# .arrow# (urrow# cara(ao and ot.er im,lements and .is .aving .is own sc.edule of worD .ours wit.out any su,ervision from t.e com,any do not erase t.e element of control on t.e ,art of A$C = Co. (ecause under t.e Ccontrol testC# it is enoug. t.at t.e em,loyerPs rig.t to control exists. It is not necessary t.at t.e same (e exercised (y t.e em,loyer# it is enoug. t.at suc. rig.t to control exists. (!eligious of t.e Airgin 8ary v. 'L!C. 3)1 SC!A 1)6# 1/* ()***
Page $, of 108
(oatmen are t.eir cas. advance and ,eso value of t.eir a(sences# if any. Are t.ese (oatmen entitled to overtime ,ay# .oliday ,ay# and )3t. mont. ,ayK (4M SUGGESTE7 ANSWER' If t.e (oatmen are considered em,loyees# liDe :ee,ney drivers ,aid on a (oundary system# t.e (oatmen are not entitled to overtime and .oliday ,ay (ecause t.ey are worDers w.o are ,aid (y results. Said worDers# under t.e La(or Code are not entitled# among ot.ers# to overtime ,ay and .oliday ,ay. In accordance wit. t.e !ules and !egulations im,lementing t.e )3t. mont. ,ay law# .owever# t.e (oatmen are entitled to t.e )3t. mont. ,ay. @orDers w.o are ,aid (y results are to (e ,aid t.eir )3t. mont. ,ay. ANOT0ER SUGGESTE7 ANSWER'
'o. <.e arrangement (etween t.e (oat owner and t.e (oat o,erators7crew mem(ers ,artooD of t.e nature of a :oint venture. <.e (oatmen did not receive fixed com,ensation as t.ey s.ared only in t.e cas. collections from cargo fees and ,assenger fares# less ex,enses for fuel# food# landing fees and s,are ,arts. It a,,ears t.at t.ere was neit.er rig.t of control nor actual exercise of suc. rig.t on t.e ,art of t.e (oat owner over t.e (oatmen. It is clear t.at t.ere was no em,loyer- em,loyee relations.i, (etween t.e (oat owner and t.e (oatmen. As suc.# t.ese (oatmen are not entitled to overtime ,ay# .oliday ,ay and )3t. mont. ,ay.
Aictor 8onteverde filed a civil case for damages against !u(en Padilla# im,leading %om(urGa College due to t.e latterPs alleged lia(ility as an em,loyer of !u(en Padilla. Under t.e circumstances# could %om(urGa College (e .eld lia(le (y Aictor 8onteverde as an em,loyer of !u(en PadillaK SUGGESTE7 ANSWER'
%om(urGa College is not lia(le for t.e acts of !u(en Padilla (ecause t.ere is no em,loyerem,loyee relations.i, (etween t.em. As ,rovided in t.e !ules and !egulations Im,lementing t.e
relations.i, (etween students on one .and# and sc.ools# colleges# or universities on t.e ot.er# w.ere students worD wit. t.e latter in exc.ange for t.e ,rivilege to study free of c.arge# ,rovided t.e students are given real o,,ortunity# including suc. facilities as may (e reasona(le and necessary to finis. t.eir c.osen courses under suc. arrangement.C ALTERNATI9E ANSWER%om(urGa College can (e .eld lia(le (y Aictor 8onteverde as an em,loyer of !u(en Padilla. A,,lying t.e control test# t.e College is t.e em,loyer of Padilla (ecause in t.e latterPs worD of Dee,ing clean t.e lavatory facilities of t.e sc.ool# .e is under t.e control of t.e College as regards .is em,loyment. Fowever# !u(en Padilla was not acting wit.in .is assigned tasDs. Art. /)+0. 'ew Civil Code ,rovides5 <.e o(ligation im,osed (y Art. /)21 (Juasi-delicts is demanda(le xxx (also from em,loyers (w.o s.all (e lia(le for t.e damages caused (y t.eir em,loyees xxx acting wit.in t.e sco,e of t.eir assigned tasDs# even t.oug. t.e former are not engaged in any (usiness or industry.C It could (e argued t.at !u(en Padilla was not acting wit.in t.e sco,e of .is assigned tasDs- t.us# .is em,loyer# %om(urGa College is not lia(le.
As lawyer of t.e com,any# w.at measures will you taDe to ensure t.e legitimate em,loyment of $or:a Anders and at t.e same time ,rotect P.ili,,ine la(or. ;iscuss fully. SUGGESTE7 ANSWER'
<o ensure t.e legitimate em,loyment of $or:a Anders# a non-resident alien# I will a,,ly at t.e ;e,artment of La(or and &m,loyment for t.e Issuance of an em,loyment ,ermit claiming t.at t.ere is no one in t.e P.ili,,ines w.o can do t.e worD t.at Anders is (eing asDed to do.
At t.e same time# to ,rotect P.ili,,ine la(or# I will see to it t.at Anders will .ave an understudy w.o will learn# (y worDing wit. Anders# .ow to install and o,erate t.e .ig.ly so,.isticated and sensitive instruments from Sweden. ALTERNATI9E ANSWER:
<o ,rotect P.ili,,ine La(or# t.e La(or Code ,rovides t.at t.e alien em,loyee s.all not transfer
Page $$ of 108
commercial esta(lis.ment. Is t.e claim of t.e driver validK L/MN SUGGESTE7 ANSWER' <.e driver is a .ouse.el,er. A ,erson is a .ouse.el,er or is engaged in domestic or
,u,ils# a ro(ust and ,recocious )/-year old (oy w.ose ,oor family could (arely afford t.e cost of .is sc.ooling. S.e lives alone at .er .ouse near t.e sc.ool after .er .ousemaid left. In t.e afternoon# s.e lets t.e (oy do various c.ores as cleaning# fetc.ing water and all Dinds of errands
after sc.ool .ours. S.e gives .im rice and P30.00 (efore t.e (oy goes .ome at 2500 every nig.t. <.e sc.ool ,rinci,al learned a(out it and c.arged
.er wit. violating t.e law w.ic. ,ro.i(its t.e
invoDed t.e exce,tion ,rovided in t.e ;e,artment domestic and .ouse.old service.
Is .er defense tena(leK !eason. (4M
SUGGESTE7 ANSWER'
'o# .er defense is not tena(le. Under Article )3*
of t.e La(or Code on Cminimum em,loya(le ageC# no c.ild (elow )4 years of age s.all (e em,loyed
exce,t w.en .e worDs directly under t.e sole res,onsi(ility of .is ,arents or guardian# t.e ,rovisions of t.e alleged ;e,artment 9rder of ;9L& to t.e contrary notwit.standing. A mere
A lady worDer was (orn wit. a ,.ysical deformity# s,ecifically# .ard of .earing# s,eec. im,aired# and color (lind. Fowever# t.ese deficiencies do not
im,air .er worDing a(ility. Can t.e em,loyer classify t.e lady worDer as a .andica,,ed worDer so t.at .er daily wage will only (e seventy-five ,ercent (24M of t.e a,,lica(le daily minimum wageK L4MN SUGGESTE7 ANSWER' 'o# t.e em,loyer cannot classify t.e lady worDer as a .andica,,ed worDer (ecause according to t.e
;Note< Se-. #/ RA ("# a ows a !hi d %e ow 13 $ears of age to work for not "ore than 00 ho'rs a week= &ro(ided* that the work sha not %e "ore than fo'r 728 ho'rs at an$
gi(en da$= &ro(ided* f'rther* that he does not work %etween 8 o>! o!k in the e(ening and 4 o>! o!k in the "orning of the fo owing da$= and &ro(ided* fina $* that
the work is not ha:ardo's or de eterio's to his hea th or "ora s# T?I+ I+ A RECENT @A, APPROAED ON@Y ON BC@Y 08* 0001* whi!h is %e$ond the !'tDoff &eriod of
the Bar E)a"sE
8onday# @ednesday# ?riday - ;rive t.e family car to (ring and fetc. t.e c.ildren to and from sc.ool. <uesday# <.ursday. Saturday - ;rive t.e family
van to fetc. merc.andise from su,,liers and
agreement wit. .er w.ere(y t.e rate to (e ,aid to .er may (e less t.an t.e a,,lica(le legal minimum
wage (ut not less t.an 24M of suc. wage. E?-*2&? "t: 0!"di;!-- d E?-*2& (2000)
Ana CruG .as a low IJ. S.e .as to (e told at least t.ree times (efore s.e understands .er daily worD
assignment. Fowever# .er worD out,ut is at least
Page $% of 108
eEual to t.e out,ut of t.e least efficient worDer in .er worD section. Is 8s# CruG a .andica,,ed worDerK &x,lain. (4M SUGGESTE7 ANSWER'
'o# low IJ or low efficiency does not maDe t.e worDer C.andica,,edC in t.e contem,lation of law. Fandica, means suc. ,.ysical or mental infirmity t.at im,airs ca,acity to worD. <.e deficiency may also (e due to age or in:ury. (Art 2+. La(or Code . E?-*2&? "t: 0!"di;!-- d W2#G #4: C2"t#!;t)!* E?-*2& 4 (2006)
?or .umanitarian reasons# a (anD .ired several .andica,,ed worDers to count and sort out currencies. <.eir em,loyment contract was for six (1 mont.s. <.e (anD terminated t.eir em,loyment on t.e ground t.at t.eir contract .as ex,ired ,rom,ting t.em to file wit. t.e La(or Ar(iter a com,laint for illegal dismissal. @ill t.eir action ,ros,erK (4M ALTERNATI9E ANSWER'
<.eir action will not ,ros,er (ecause t.ey are covered (y t.e fixed term em,loyment contract w.ic. automatically la,sed at t.e end of t.e 1mont. ,eriod ($rent Sc.ool v. Qamora# %.!. 'o. 6+6*6# ?e(ruary 4# )**0- Art. /+0# La(or Code . A contract of em,loyment for a definite ,eriod terminates on its own term at t.e end of its ,eriod. It does not necessarily follow t.at t.e ,arties are for(idden from agreeing on a fixed ,eriod of time for t.e ,erformance of activities usually necessary and desira(le in t.e usual (usiness of t.e em,loyer (Pangilinan v. %en. 8illing# %.!. 'o. )6*3/*# July )/# /006 .
SUGGESTE7 ANSWER' 'o# s.e is actually an office worDer. S.e is not an industrial .omeworDer w.o acce,ts worD to (e fa(ricated or ,rocessed at .ome for a contractor# w.ic. worD# w.en finis.ed# will (e returned to or re,urc.ased (y said contractor. (Art. )44# La(or Code .
ALTERNATI9E ANSWER' Ies. Undenia(ly# .andica,,ed worDers are never on eEual terms wit. t.e (anD as em,loyer. In P.ili,,ine 'ational 9il Com,any-&nergy ;evelo,ment Cor,oration v. 'L!C# %.!. 'o. *2262# 8arc. 3)# )**3# t.e Su,reme Court set down two criteria under w.ic. fixed contracts of em,loyment do not circumvent security of tenure# to wit5 ). <.e fixed ,eriod of em,loyment was Dnowingly and voluntarily agreed u,on (y t.e ,arties# wit.out any force# duress or im,ro,er ,ressure (eing (roug.t to (ear u,on t.e em,loyee and a(out any ot.er circumstances vitiating .is consent- or /. It satisfactorily a,,ears t.at t.e em,loyer and t.e em,loyee dealt wit. eac. ot.er on more or less eEual terms wit. no moral dominance w.atever (eing exercised (y t.e former on t.e latter.
&ven granting t.at t.e .andica,,ed worDers and t.e (anD agreed to term em,loyment# it could not (e said t.at t.ey Cdealt wit. eac. ot.er on more or less eEual terms wit. no moral dominance
SUGGESTE7 ANSWER' 'o# t.ey are not domestic em,loyees. <.ey are (anD em,loyees (ecause t.e rest.ouse and recreational facility are (usiness facilities as t.ey are for use of t.e to, executives and clients of t.e (anD. LArt. )6)# La(or Code- A,ex 8ining Co.# Inc. v. 'L!C# )*1 SC!A /4) ()**) - <raders !oyal $anD v. 'L!C. %.!. 'o. )/2+16# ;ecem(er //. )***N
).
A )2-year old (oy worDing as miner at t.e @alwadi 8ining Cor,oration. SUGGESTE7 ANSWER'
It is a(solutely Pro.i(ited for any ,erson (elow )+ years of age to (e em,loyed in .aGardous worD# .armful to .ealt. and safety (Sec. 3# !ule )/# $ooD 3# ties Im,lementing t.e La(or Code # including construction worD# logging# firefig.ting# mining# Euarrying# stevedoring# docD worD# dee, sea fis.ing and mec.aniGed fis.ing (Sec. +L/N# !ule )# $ooD 6# !ules Im,lementing t.e La(or Code .
/. An ))-year old (oy w.o is an accom,lis.ed singer and ,erformer in different ,arts of t.e country. SUGGESTE7 ANSWER' Under !A. 21)0# Section )/# as amended (y !A. 'o. */3) states t.at5 &m,loyment of c.ildren R c.ildren (elow )4 years of age s.all not (e em,loyed (Art. )3*# La(or Code exce,t w.en t.e following conditions are met5 (a @.en t.e c.ildPs ,artici,ation in ,u(lic entertainment is essential(( <.ere is a written contract a,,roved (y t.e ;9L& and signed (y t.e c.ildPs ,arents or legal guardians# wit. t.e ex,ress consent of t.e c.ild- and (c t.e em,loyer w.o em,loys t.e c.ild must secure a worD ,ermit from t.e ;9L&. 3. A )4-year old girl worDing as a li(rary assistant in a girlsP .ig. sc.ool. SUGGESTE7 ANSWER' S.e may worD as a li(rary assistant ,rovided5 () <.e em,loyment does not endanger .er life# safety# morals and normal develo,ment(/ S.e is given t.e o,,ortunity for ,rimary or secondary education- and (3 <.e em,loyment does not exceed + .ours a day and 60 .ours a weeD (Sees. )/ = )6# !A. 21)0# as amended (y !A. */3) . 6. A )1-year old girl worDing as model ,romoting alco.olic (everages. SUGGESTE7 ANSWER'
Section )6# Article +# !A. 21)0# as amended (y Section 4# !A. */3) states t.at a c.ild s.all (e ,ro.i(ited to act as a model in any advertisement directly or indirectly ,romoting alco.olic (everages# intoxicating drinDs# to(acco and its (y,roducts# gam(ling or any form of violence or ,ornogra,.y.
$. I will advise t.e ,aint manufacturing com,any t.at ft cannot .ire a ,erson w.o is aged seventeen ()2 . Art )3* (c of t.e La(or Code ,rovides t.at a ,erson (elow eig.teen ()+ years of age s.all not (e allowed to worD in an undertaDing w.ic. is .aGardous or deleterious in nature as determined (y t.e Secretary of La(or. Paint manufacturing .as (een classified (y t.e Secretary of La(or as a .aGardous worD.
(a) As the net'or+(s le*al $o#nsel, ho' 'o#ld &o# -#sti)& its de$ision to $an$el .s/ 0artan(s pro*ra% 'hi$h in e))e$t ter%inated her servi$es in the pro$ess ALTERNATI9E ANSWER'
As t.e networDPs legal counsel# I will argue t.at 8s. Aartan is under contract on a fixed term em,loyment (asis. <.e networD cancelled t.e s.ow Cu,on t.e ex,iration of its latest contract wit. 8s. Aartan.C Fence# t.is does not involve dismissal (ut an ex,iration of term. (?elix v. $uenaseda# %.!. 'o. )0*206# January )2#)**4- St. <.eresaPs Sc.ool of 'ovalic.es ?oundation v. 'L!C# %.!. 'o. )//*44# A,ril )4# )**+
4. A )2-year old (oy worDing as a dealer in a casino. SUGGESTE7 ANSWER' Section )6# Article +# !A. 21)0# as amended (y Section 4# !A. */3) ,ro.i(its t.e (oy from worDing as a dealer in a casino as t.is ,romotes gam(ling. 8oreover# ;9L& ;e,t. 9rder 'o. 06# series of )***# ex,ressly ,ro.i(its em,loyment of CteenagersC in gam(ling .alls.
ALTERNATI9E ANSWER' As t.e networDPs counsel# t.ere was no termination of .er services# only t.e ex,iration of .er contract# (eing an inde,endent contractor. (SonGa v. A$S- C$'# %.!. 'o. )3+04)# June )0# /006 (!) As $o#nsel )or the tal+-sho' host, ho' 'o#ld &o# ar*#e &o#r $ase ALTERNATI9E ANSWER=
SUGGESTE7 ANSWER'
As a radio-<A talD s.ow .ost# 8s. Aartan is ,erforming an activity w.ic. is necessary and desira(le in t.e usual trade or (usiness of OIQ &ntertainment 'etworD. Fence# 8s. Aartan is a regular em,loyee and cannot (e terminated exce,t for cause and only after due ,rocess. <.e cancellation of t.e ,rogram is tantamount to closure (ut OIQ &ntertainment 'etworD did not com,ly wit. t.e ,rocedural reEuirements of law#
Page 58 of 108
,rior to t.e intended date of termination. ALTERNATI9E ANSWER' As counsel for t.e talD s.ow .ost# I will argue t.at s.e is a regular em,loyee. ?irst# s.e ,erforms :o( t.at is necessary and desira(le to t.e nature of t.e (usiness of t.e em,loyer- Second# s.e serves for at least one () year w.ic. is an indication of
regular em,loyment.
t.e remarDs did not give due regard to t.e a,,licantsP feelings and it is a c.auvinistic disdain of .er .onor# :ustifying t.e finding of sexual .arassment LAillarama v. 'L!C# /31 SC!A /+0 ()**6 N E?-*2&? "t: W2? ": A"tiBS D)!* 0!#!44? "t A;t (2004) A. Pedrito 8asculado# a college graduate from
t.e ,rovince# tried .is lucD in t.e city and landed a :o( as utility7maintenance man at t.e ware.ouse of a (ig s.o,,ing mall. After worDing as a casual em,loyee for six mont.s#
.e signed a contract for ,ro(ationary em,loyment for six mont.s. $eing well-(uilt
accom,anied t.e a,,licant to t.e door# s.ooD .er .and and ,atted .er on t.e s.oulder. Fe also asDed t.e a,,licant if .e could invite .er for dinner
and dancing at some future time. ;id t.e
Personnel 8anager# (y t.e a(ove acts# commit sexual .arassmentK !eason. (3M SUGGESTE7 ANSWER' Ies# (ecause t.e Personnel 8anager# a man# is in a ,osition to grant or not to grant a favor (a :o( to t.e a,,licant. Under t.e circumstances# inviting t.e
a,,licant for dinner or dancing creates a situation .ostile or unfriendly to t.e a,,licantPs c.ances for
followed .im to t.e men>s comfort room. After seeing t.at no one else was around# 8r. $araD ,laced .is arm over Pedrito>s s.oulder and
softly said5 BIou .ave great ,otential to (ecome regular em,loyee and I t.inD I can give you a favora(le recommendation. Can
you come over to my condo unit on Saturday
evening so we can .ave a little drinDK I>m alone# and I>m sure you want to stay longer wit. t.e com,any.H Is 8r. $araD lia(le for sexual .arassment committed in a worD-related or em,loyment environmentK (4M SUGGESTE7 ANSWER' Ies# t.e elements of sexual .arassment are all
,resent. <.e act of 8r. $araD was committed in a worD,lace. 8r. $araD# as su,ervisor of Pedrito
8asculado# .as aut.ority# influence and moral ascendancy over 8asculado. t.e Euestion liDe 8r. $araD
8anager if s.e .ad t.e ,.ysical attri(utes reEuired for t.e ,osition s.e a,,lied for. <.e Personnel 8anager re,lied5 CIou will (e more attractive if you
will wear micro-mini dresses wit.out t.e
8asculado to t.e comfort room# etc. 8r. $araD was reEuesting a sexual favor from 8asculado
for a favora(le recommendation regarding t.e latterPs em,loyment.
undergarments t.at ladies normally wear.C ;id t.e Personnel 8anager# (y t.e a(ove re,ly# commit an act of sexual .arassmentK !eason. (3M SUGGESTE7 ANSWER'
'o# t.e Personnel 8anagerPs re,ly to t.e a,,licantPs Euestion w.et.er s.e Eualifies for t.e
It is not im,ossi(le for a male# w.o is a .omosexual# to asD for a sexual favor from anot.er
male. ANOT0ER SUGGESTE7 ANSWER' I do not see any sexual favor (eing solicited. condition for a Cfavora(le recommendation is not
Faving a Clittle drinDC in 8r. $araDPs Condo Unit# as one of t.e ,ro.i(ited acts enumerated in Sec. 3 (a of !.A. 2+22# ot.erwise Dnown as t.e Anti-Sexual
Farassment Act of )**4.
ALTERNATI9E ANSWER'
Ies. <.e remarDs would result in an offensive or .ostile environment for t.e em,loyee. 8oreover#
Page $( of 108
E?-*2&? "t: W2? ": A"tiBS D)!* 0!#!44? "t 64= 7i4;#i?i"!ti2" !$!i"4t W2? " (200>) Can an individual# t.e sole ,ro,rietor of a (usiness enter,rise# (e said to .ave violated t.e Anti-Sexual Farassment Act of )**4 if .e clearly discriminates against women in t.e ado,tion of ,olicy standards for em,loyment and ,romotions in t.e enter,riseK &x,lain. SUGGESTE7 ANSWER'
@.en an em,loyer discriminates against women in t.e ado,tion of ,olicy standards for em,loyment and ,romotion in .is enter,rise# .e is not guilty of sexual .arassment. Instead# t.e em,loyer is guilty of discrimination against women em,loyees w.ic. is declared to (e unlawful (y t.e La(or Code. ?or an em,loyer to commit sexual .arassment# .e as a ,erson of aut.ority# influence or moral ascendancy -s.ould .ave demanded# reEuested or ot.erwise reEuired a sexual favor from .is em,loyee w.et.er t.e demand# reEuest or reEuirement for su(mission is acce,ted (y t.e o(:ect of said act.
)31 # and ,ro.i(ited acts (Art. )32T of t.e La(or Code. STILL ANOT0ER SUGGESTE7 ANSWER'
It may (e noted t.at t.e ,olicy is directed only to married women. <.is may violate t.e s,irit of Article )31 of t.e La(or Code w.ic. ,rovides t.at it s.all (e unlawful for an em,loyer to reEuire as a condition of em,loyment or continuation of em,loyment t.at a woman s.all not get married.
Is t.e contention of Lourdes tena(leK ;iscuss fully. SUGGESTE7 ANSWER' <.e contention of Lourdes is tena(le. @.en s.e was not .ired as a regular flig.t attendant (y ?IL- AI!& (ecause s.e disclosed t.at s.e got married w.en s.e was )+ years old. <.e airline com,any violated t.e ,rovision of t.e La(or Code w.ic. states5
CIt s.all (e unlawful for an em,loyer to reEuire as a condition of em,loyment or continuation of em,loyment t.at a woman em,loyee s.all not get married# or to sti,ulate ex,ressly or tacitly t.at u,on getting married a woman em,loyee s.all (e deemed resigned or se,arated# or to actually dismiss# disc.arge# discriminate or ot.erwise ,re:udice a woman em,loyee merely (y reason of .er marriage.C
E?-*2&? "t: W2? ": di4;#i?i"!ti2": i** $!* di4?i44!* (199.) ;inna Ignacio was .ired (y Stag UaraoDe Clu( as a guest relations officer. ;inna was also reEuired to sing and dance wit. guests of t.e clu(. In ;inna IgnacioPs em,loyment contract# w.ic. s.e signed# t.e following sti,ulations a,,eared5 Com,ensation5 <i,s and commissions coming from guests s.all (e su(:ected to )4M deduction.
Page %) of 108
,regnancy will (e considered as a valid ground for a termination of em,loyment. A year later# ;inna Ignaclo reEuested to go on leave (ecause s.e would (e getting married to one
of t.e clu(Ps regular guests. <.e management of t.e clu( dismissed .er. ;inna filed a com,laint for illegal dismissal# nig.t
.ouse. S.e ,olitely declined. Undaunted# 8r. @inDle renewed .is invitation# and Carissa again declined. Fe t.en warned .er to Cwatc. outC (ecause s.e mig.t regret it later on. A few days later# Carissa found t.at .er t.ird and last rating was again C(elow average.C Carissa t.en filed a com,laint for sexual .arassment against 8r. @inDle wit. t.e ;e,artment of La(or and &m,loyment. In .is counter-affidavit# .e claimed t.at .e was enamored wit. Carissa. Fe denied .aving demanded# muc. less received any sexual favors from .er in
suffered to worD# wit. or wit.out com,ensation# in any nig.t clu(# cocDtail lounge# massage clinic# (ar or similar esta(lis.ment# under t.e effective control
or su,ervision of t.e em,loyer for a su(stantial ,eriod s.all (e considered an em,loyee of suc. esta(lis.ment for ,ur,oses of la(or and social
consideration of giving .er an CoutstandingC rating. Fe also alleged t.at t.e com,laint was ,remature
(ecause Carissa failed to refer t.e matter to t.e Committee on ;ecorum and ;isci,line for investigation and resolution (efore t.e case
against .im was filed. In .er re,ly affidavit# Carissa claimed t.at t.ere was no need for a ,rior referral
to t.e Committee on ;ecorum and ;isci,line of .er com,laint. !esolve t.e case wit. reasons. (4M SUGGESTE7 ANSWER' I will .old 8r. Perry @inDle guilty of sexual .arassment. <.is resolution is ,redicated mainly u,on t.e following considerations5
S.e .as (een illegally dismissed. <.e La(or Code ex,ressly ,rovides# t.at CIt s.all (e unlawful for an em,loyer to reEuire as a condition of em,loyment
or continuation of em,loyment t.at a woman
em,loyee s.all not get married# or to sti,ulate ex,ressly or tacitly t.at u,on getting married a woman em,loyee s.all (e deemed resigned or
se,arated# or to actually dismiss# disc.arge#
discriminate or ot.erwise ,re:udice a woman em,loyee merely (y reason of .er marriage.C (Art.
)31 $ecause of .er illegal dismissal# s.e is entitled to (acDwages from t.e time .er com,ensation was wit..eld from .er to t.e time of .er actual
reinstatement.
;inna is not entitled to nig.t differential ,ay#
overtime ,ay and .oliday ,ay (ecause s.e (elongs to one of t.ose classes of em,loyees w.o are not covered (y t.e ,rovision of t.e La(or Code
,roviding for t.ese (enefits. S.e is a worDer ,aid (y results# since .er com,ensation is determined
Carissa is correct in stating t.at t.ere was no need for ,rior referral to t.e Committee on ;ecorum and ;isci,line of .er com,laint (ecause not.ing in t.e
law ,recludes t.e victim of sexual .arassment from instituting a se,arate and inde,endent action for
(y t.e ti,s and commission t.at s.e receives from .er guests.
Page %
of 108
will not get married# ot.erwise# s.e will (e considered resigned or se,arated from t.e service.
Jose,.ine got married. S.e asDed 9wen# t.e ,ersonnel manager# if t.e com,any can reconsider t.e agreement. Fe told Jose,.ine .e can do somet.ing a(out it# insinuating some sexual favors. S.e com,lained to .ig.er aut.orities (ut to no avail. S.e .ires you as .er counsel. @.at action or actions will you taDeK &x,lain. (4M
ALTERNATI9E ANSWER' I will file a criminal case against 9wen for violation of !A. 'o. 2+22# ot.erwise Dnown as t.e CAnti- Sexual Farassment Act of )**4.C I will also file a se,arate and inde,endent action for damages against 9wen. $y reason of t.e fact t.at t.e Com,any did not taDe immediate action t.ereon# I will include t.e Com,any in t.e civil suit for damages and maDe it :ointly and severally lia(le wit. 9wen. ALTERNATI9E ANSWER'
Aside from filing a criminal case against 9wen for violation of t.e Sexual Farassment Law (!.A. 2+22 and a se,arate action for damages# im,leading t.e com,any# I will also file an action for constructive dismissal against t.e Com,any since t.e em,loyee was ,laced in a :o( atmos,.ere im,osing o,,ressive worD conditions contrary to ,u(lic ,olicy and morals.
SUGGESTE7 ANSWER'
IPs case against Q will not ,ros,er# (ecause Q is not t.e em,loyer of I. <.e em,loyer of CIC is COC. CIP would (e an em,loyee of CQC if COC .ere is a la(or-only contractor (ut O is not a la(or-only contractor. Fe ,ossesses t.e necessary ca,ital and eEui,ment needed to effectively carry out its commitment as a service contractor. A,,lying t.e control test# t.e fact t.at CQPsC su,ervisors and em,loyees give ver(al instructions to I as to .ow and w.ere to ,erform .is worD does not necessarily mean t.at t.ere(y .e is under t.e control of Q as regards .is em,loyment as long as O#
of I. It s.ould also (e noted t.at O ,ays t.e salary of I as t.e em,loyee of t.e former. ANOT0ER SUGGESTE7 ANSWER: Ies# IPs case against Com,any CQC will ,ros,er. Com,any CQC will (e deemed t.e direct em,loyer (ecause t.e Com,any directly and s,ecifically controlled t.e manner (y w.ic. t.e worD s.ould (e done and# and (y doing so also t.e result. (See <raders !oyal $anD vs. 'L!C# ;ecem(er /. )*** .
<.e ,resence of t.e element or factor of control# w.ic. is t.e most im,ortant factor in determining t.e existence of an em,loyer-em,loyee relations.i, is ,resent. In !eligious of t.e Airgin 8ary vs. 'L!C# %.!. 'o. )03101# 9cto(er )3# )***# t.e Su,reme Court# ruled5
,ractice for s.o,s liDe Perfect <riangle to collect t.e service fees from customers and ,ay t.e same to t.e inde,endent contractors at t.e end of eac. weeD. <.e auto s.o, ex,lained t.at Pandoy was liDe a ,artner w.o worDed wit.in its ,remises# using ,arts ,rovided (y t.e s.o,# (ut ot.erwise Pandoy was free to render service in t.e ot.er auto s.o,s. 9n t.e ot.er .and# Pandoy insisted t.at .e still was entitled to t.e (enefits (ecause .e was loyal to Perfect <riangle# it (eing a fact t.at .e did not ,erform worD for anyone else. Is Pandoy correctK &x,lain (riefly. (4M
SUGGESTE7 ANSWER'
Pandoy is not correct. Fe is not an em,loyee (ecause .e does not meet t.e fourfold test for .im to (e an em,loyee of Perfect <riangle. All t.at .e could claim is5 .e worDed wit.in t.e ,remises of Perfect <riangle. Pandoy was '9< engaged as an em,loyee (y Perfect <riangle. Fe was '9< ,aid wages (y Perfect <riangle. Perfect <riangle does '9< .ave t.e ,ower to dismiss .im alt.oug. Perfect <riangle may not continue to allow .im to worD wit.in its ,remises. And most im,ortant of all# Pandoy was '9< under t.e control of Perfect <riangle as regards t.e worD .e ,erforms for customers. <.e Su,reme Court .as ruled5 CIn starD contrast to t.e Com,anyPs regular em,loyees# t.ere are inde,endent# free lance o,erators w.o are
As t.is Court .as consistently ruled# t.e ,ower of control is t.e most decisive factor in determining t.e existence of em,loyer- em,loyee relations.i,.
Page 62 of 108
,ermitted (y t.e Com,any to ,osition t.emselves ,roximate to t.e Com,any ,remises. <.ese
inde,endent
o,erators
are
allowed
(y
t.e
Com,any to wait on Com,any customers w.o would (e reEuiring t.eir services. In exc.ange for
ALTERNATI9E ANSWER' a 8y analytical frameworD will (e an analysis of t.e law on Inde,endent contractor and la(or only contracting.
t.e ,rivileges of favora(le recommendation (y t.e Com,any and immediate access to t.e customers
in need of t.eir services# t.ese inde,endent o,erators allow t.e Com,any to collect t.eir
If t.ere is a valid I';&P&';&'< C9'<!AC<9! situation# 8r. ;ado will (e t.e direct em,loyer# and
t.e 8etro %rocery will (e t.e indirect em,loyer. If t.ere is a LA$9!-C9'<!AC<9! only relations.i,# t.e 8etro %rocery will (e t.e em,loyer as it directly .ired t.e em,loyees. SUGGESTE7 ANSWER'
service fee from t.e customer and t.is fee is given (acD to t.e Inde,endent o,erator at t.e end of t.e weeD. In effect# t.ey do not earn fixed wages from t.e Com,any as t.eir varia(le fees are earned (y t.em from t.e customers of t.e Com,any. <.e Com,any .as no control over and does not restrict t.e met.odology or t.e means and manner (y
w.ic. t.ese o,erators ,erform t.eir worD. <.ese o,erators are not su,ervised (y any em,loyee of
t.e Com,any since t.e results of t.eir worD is controlled (y t.e customers w.o .ire t.em.
LiDewise# t.e Com,any .as no control as an em,loyer over t.ese o,erators. <.ey are not
em,loyee-em,loyer relations.i,# w.ic. gives rise to certain rig.ts and o(ligation of (ot. em,loyer and em,loyee# suc. as SSS mem(ers.i,# union mem(ers.i,# security of tenure# etc. I"d - "d "t C2"t#!;t2#: Li!%i*iti 4 (2004) A. Clean 8an,ower Inc. (C8I .ad ,rovided :anitorial services to t.e 'ational &conomic ;evelo,ment Aut.ority ('&;A since A,ril )*++. Its service contract was renewed every t.ree mont.s. Fowever# in t.e (idding .eld on July )**/# C8I was disEualified and excluded. In )**3#
su(:ect to t.e regular .ours and days of worD and may come and go as t.ey wis.. <.ey are not
su(:ect to any disci,linary measures from t.e Com,any# save merely for t.e in.erent rules of general (e.avior and good conductC VUs.io
six :anitors of C8I formerly assigned at '&;A filed a com,laint for under,ayment of wages. $ot. C8I and '&;A were im,leaded as res,ondents for
failure to com,ly wit. 'C! @age 9rders 'os. 0) and 0/# w.ic. tooD effect on 'ovem(er )# )**0 and January /# )**/# res,ectively.
worDer assigned# ,lus ten ,ercent ()0M to cover t.e administrative costs related to t.eir
S.ould '&;A# a government agency su(:ect to (udgetary constraints# (e .eld lia(le solidarily wit. C8I for t.e ,ayment of salary differentials due t.e com,lainantsK Cite t.e legal (asis of your answer.
(4M SUGGESTE7 ANSWER' '&;A s.all (e .eld solidarily lia(le wit. C8I for t.e ,ayment of salary differentials due to t.e com,lainants# (ecause '&;A is t.e indirect em,loyer of said com,lainants. <.e La(or Code
really under t.e law t.eir em,loyer. A. Fow will you analyGe t.e ,ro(lem in order to formulate your answerK (3M $. @.at is t.e legal significance# if any# of t.e Euestion of t.e concerned worDers as to w.o is
t.eir em,loyerK (3M
,rovides
t.at
xxx
(A
,erson#
,artners.i,#
association or cor,oration w.ic.# not (eing an em,loyer# contracts wit. an inde,endent contractor
for t.e ,erformance of any worD# tasD# :o( or
SUGGESTE7 ANSWER' a I will analyGe t.e ,ro(lem (y a,,lying t.e fourfold test of em,loyer-em,loyee relations.i,. I will
examine if 8r. ;ado exercises ,ower of control or su,ervision over t.e worDersP manner and met.od
of doing t.eir worD. Control is t.e most im,ortant in examining factor em,loyer-em,loyee
relations.i,. <.e ot.er factors are .iring# ,ayment of wages# and ,ower to dismiss# I will also examine w.et.er t.ere was :o( contracting or la(or-only contracting.
Page %# of 108
@.en a ,erson# not (eing an em,loyer# contracts wit. an inde,endent contractor for t.e ,erformance of any worD# tasD# :o( or ,ro:ect# t.ere is CJ9$ C9'<!AC<I'%.C @.en t.e inde,endent contractor does t.e worD t.at is contracted out# .e is not under t.e control of t.e ,erson w.o contracted out t.e worD to (e done. In CLA$9!-9'LI C9'<!AC<I'%C# a ,erson su,,lies worDers to an em,loyer. Said ,erson does not .ave su(stantial ca,ital or investments in t.e form of tools# eEui,ment# mac.ineries# worD ,remises# among ot.ers# and t.e worDers recruited and ,laced (y suc. ,erson are ,erforming activities related to t.e ,rinci,al (usiness of t.e em,loyer to w.om t.e worDers are su,,lied.
SUGGESTE7 ANSWER'
A. Is Arnold a :o( contractorK &x,lain (riefly. (/M $. @.o is lia(le for t.e claims of t.e worDers .ired (y ArnoldK &x,lain (riefly. (3M SUGGESTE7 ANSWER'
A. 'o. In two cases decided (y t.e Su,reme Court# it was .eld t.at t.ere is C:o( contractingC w.ere () t.e contractor carries on an inde,endent (usiness and undertaDes t.e contract worD in .is own account# under .is own res,onsi(ility according to .is own manner and met.od# free from t.e control and direction of .is em,loyer or ,rinci,al in all matters connected wit. t.e ,erformance of t.e worD exce,t as to t.e results t.ereof- and (/ t.e contractor .as su(stantial ca,ital or investment in t.e form of tools# eEui,ment# mac.ineries# worD ,remises and ot.er materials w.ic. are necessary in t.e conduct of .is (usiness. LLim v. 'L!C# 303 SC!A 63/ ()*** $aguio v. 'L!C# /0/ SC!A 614()**) N In t.e ,ro(lem given# Arnold did not .ave sufficient ca,ital or in vestment for one. ?or anot.er Arnold was not free from t.e control and direction of Sta. 8onica Plywood Cor,. (ecause all worD activities and sc.edules were fixed (y t.e com,any.
$. Sta. 8onica Plywood Cor,. is lia(le for t.e claims of t.e worDers .ired (y Arnold. A finding t.at Arnold is a la(or only contractor is eEuivalent to declaring t.at t.ere exist an em,loyer-em,loyee relations.i, (etween Sta. 8onica Plywood Cor,. and worDers .ired (y Arnold. <.is is so (ecause Arnold is considered a mere agent of Sta. 8onica Plywood Cor,. LLim v. 'L!C# 303 SC!A 63/# ()*** - $aguio et al# v. 'L!C# /0/ SC!A 614 ()**) N
/ A ,erson w.o engages t.e services of a (ona fide CI';&P&';&'< C9'<!AC<9!C for t.e ,erformance of any worD# tasD# :o( or ,ro:ect is t.e indirect em,loyer of t.e em,loyees w.o .ave (een .ired (y t.e inde,endent contractor to ,erform said worD# tasD# :o( or ,ro:ect.
L!%2#BO"*& C2"t#!;t2# 64= I"d - "d "t C2"t#!;t2# (1994) ) @.at is a Cla(or-onlyC contractK / ;istinguis. t.e lia(ilities of an em,loyer w.o engages t.e services of a (onafide Cinde,endent contractorC from one w.o engages a Cla(or-onlyC contractorK SUGGESTE7 ANSWER'
) CLA$9!-9'LIC C9'<!AC< is a contract (etween an em,loyer and a ,erson w.o su,,lies worDers to suc. em,loyer w.ere t.e ,erson su,,lying worDers does not .ave su(stantial ca,ital or investment in t.e form of tools# eEui,ment# mac.ineries# worD ,remises# among ot.ers# and t.e worDers recruited and ,laced (y suc. ,erson are ,erforming activities w.ic. are directly related to t.e ,rinci,al (usiness of suc. em,loyer. (Art. )01# La(or Code
In t.e event t.at t.e inde,endent contractor fails to ,ay t.e wages of .is em,loyees# an indirect em,loyer# in t.e same manner and extent t.at .e is lia(le to em,loyees directly em,loyed (y .im# is J9I'<LI and S&A&!ALLI LIA$L& wit. t.e Inde,endent contractor to t.e em,loyees of t.e latter to t.e extent of t.e worD ,erformed under t.e contract.
As for t.e ,erson w.o engages t.e services of a Cla(or onlyC contractor# t.e latter is considered merely as an agent of t.e former w.o s.all (e res,onsi(le to t.e worDers .ired (y t.e Cla(or onlyC contractor in t.e same manner and extent as if .e directly em,loyed suc. worDers.
ALTERNATI9E ANSWERS:
a An em,loyer w.o engages t.e services of a (ona fide Cinde,endent contractorC is S9LI;A!ILI LIA$L& wit. .is contractor or su(-contractor only for non-,ayment or under,ayment of wages and ot.er la(or standards ,rovisions of t.e La(or Code# w.ereas an
Page %, of 108
em,loyer w.o engages a Cla(or-onlyC contractor is lia(le for all (enefits# terms and conditions of em,loyment t.at it normally grants to its regular or direct em,loyees. ( An em,loyer w.o deals wit. a (ona-fide inde,endent contractor s.all (e lia(le only su(sidiarily# if t.e contractor or su(-contractor fails to ,ay t.e wages to t.e worDers in accordance wit. t.e La(or Code. U,on t.e ot.er .and# an em,loyer w.o deals wit. a Cla(or-onlyC contractor s.all (e ,rimarily res,onsi(le to t.e worDers in t.e same manner and extent as if t.e latter were directly em,loyed (y .im. (Arts )01-)02# La(or Code
of Service &x,orters v. ;rilon# )13 SC!A 3+1 ))*++N . ANOT0ER SUGGESTE7 ANSWER'
<.e ;9L& orders s.ould (e set aside. It is true t.at t.e 8igrant @orDers and 9verseas ?ili,inos Act# ,articularly its Section 4# could (e t.e (asis of t.e ,ower of ;9L& to effect a (an on t.e de,loyment of 9?@s (y OIQ. If t.e (an# .owever# is for t.e ,ur,ose of ,reventing OIQ from trans,orting extremists to terrorist training cam,s a(road# t.is is a ,olice and national security ,ro(lem (etter dealt wit. (y t.e ,olice or t.e 9ffice of t.e 'ational Security Adviser. 8ore im,ortantly# t.e cancellation of t.e license of OIQ reEuires notice and .earing. A(sent suc. notice and .earing# t.e order of cancellation of t.e Secretary of La(or and &m,loyment is null and void (ecause of t.e denial of due ,rocess.
R ;#)it? "t & /*!; ? "t: C!"; **!ti2": C #ti3i;!t 23 R $i4t#!ti2": T#!6 * B!" (2004)
Concerned ?ili,ino contract worDers in t.e 8iddle &ast re,orted to t.e ;e,artment of ?oreign Affairs (;?A t.at OIQ# a ,rivate recruitment and ,lacement agency# is covertly trans,orting extremists to terrorist training cam,s a(road. Intelligence agencies of t.e government allegedly confirmed t.e re,ort. U,on (eing alerted (y t.e ;?A# t.e ;e,artment of La(or and &m,loyment issued orders cancelling t.e licenses of OIQ# and im,osing an immediate travel (an on its recruits for t.e 8iddle &ast. OIQ a,,ealed to t.e 9ffice of t.e President to reverse and set aside t.e ;9L& orders# citing damages from loss of em,loyment of its recruits# and violations of due ,rocess including lacD of notice and .earing (y ;9L&. <.e ;9L& in its answer claimed t.e existence of an emergency in t.e 8iddle &ast w.ic. reEuired ,rom,t measures to ,rotect t.e life and lim( of 9?@s from a clear and ,resent danger ,osed (y t.e ongoing war against terrorism.
R ;#)it? "t & /*!; ? "t: i** $!* # ;#)it? "t t2 ;2"2?i; 4!%2t!$ (200,) () ;uring t.e o,en forum following your lecture to a grou, of managers and F!; ,ersonnel# you were asDed t.e following Euestions5 (a @.at Eualifying circumstances will convert Cillegal recruitmentC to Ceconomic sa(otage#C t.us su(:ecting its ,er,etrator or ,er,etrators to a ,enalty of life im,risonment and a fine of at least P400#000.00K Please ex,lain your answer (riefly. (3M SUGGESTE7 ANSWER= Under Article 3+(( of t.e La(or Code# as amended (y P.;. 'o. /0)+# it ,rovides t.at illegal recruitment s.all (e considered an offense involving economic sa(otage if any of t.e following Eualifying circumstances exists5
() @.en illegal recruitment is committed (y a SI';ICA<&# reEuiring t.ree or more ,ersons w.o cons,ire or confederate wit. one anot.er
S.ould t.e ;9L& orders (e u,.eld or set asideK (4M SUGGESTE7 ANSWER' ). <.e ;9L& order cancelling t.e licenses of OIQ is void (ecause a re,ort t.at an agency is covertly trans,orting extremists is not a valid ground for cancellation of a Certificate of !egistration (Art. /3*# La(or Code and t.ere is failure of due ,rocess as no .earing was conducted ,rior to t.e cancellation (Art. /3+# La(or Code .
/. <.e ;9L& order im,osing t.e travel (an is valid (ecause it is a valid exercise of ,olice ,ower to ,rotect t.e national interest (Sec. 3# Art. OIII# Constitution on full ,rotection to la(or safety of worDers and on t.e rule maDing aut.ority of t.e Secretary of La(or (Art. 4# La(or Code- P.il. Assn.
in carrying out any unlawful or illegal transaction# enter,rise or [email protected] illegal recruitment is committed in a LA!%& SCAL&# as w.en it is committed against t.ree or more ,ersons individually or as a grou,. (Peo,le v. 'avarra# %.!. 'o. ))*31)# ?e(ruary )*# /00)- See also Sec. 1 of !.A. 'o. +06/
R ;#)it? "t & /*!; ? "t: i** $!* # ;#)it? "t: E;2"2?i; S!%2t!$ (2002)
@.en is illegal recruitment considered a crime of economic sa(otageK &x,lain (riefly. (3M SUGGESTE7 ANSWER' According to Art. /+ of t.e La(or Code# illegal recruitment is considered a crime of economic sa(otage w.en committed (y a syndicate or in large scale.
Illegal recruitment is deemed committed (y a
Page %$ of 108
more ,ersons cons,iring and7or confederating wit. one anot.er in carrying out any unlawful or illegal transaction# enter,rise or sc.eme w.ic. is an act of illegal recruitment. Illegal recruitment is deemed committed in large scale if committed against t.ree (3 or more ,ersons individually or as a grou,.
R ;#)it? "t & /*!; ? "t: N2"B T#!"43 #!%i*it& 23 Li; "4 (1995)
R ;#)it? "t & /*!; ? "t: L!#$ S;!* I** $!* R ;#)it? "t (200,)
8aryrose %andaPs a,,lication for t.e renewal ot.er license to recruit worDers for overseas em,loyment was still ,ending wit. t.e P.ili,,ine 9verseas &m,loyment Administration (P9&A . 'evert.eless# s.e recruited Alma and .er t.ree sisters# Ana# Joan# and 8avic# for em,loyment as .ousemates in Saudi Ara(ia. 8aryrose re,resented to t.e sisters t.at s.e .ad a license to recruit worDers for overseas em,loyment. 8aryrose also demanded and received P30#000.00 from eac. of t.em for .er services. Fowever# 8aryrosePs a,,lication for t.e renewal of .er license was denied# and conseEuently failed to em,loy t.e four sisters in Saudi Ara(ia. <.e sisters c.arged 8aryrose wit. large scale illegal recruitment. <estifying in .er defense# 8aryrose declared t.at s.e acted in good fait. (ecause s.e (elieved t.at .er a,,lication for t.e renewal of .er license would (e a,,roved. 8aryrose adduced in evidence t.e Affidavits of ;esistance w.ic. t.e four ,rivate com,lainants .ad executed after t.e ,rosecution rested its case. In t.e said affidavits# t.ey acDnowledge recei,t of t.e refund (y 8aryrose of t.e total amount of P)/0#000.00 and indicated t.at t.ey were no longer interested to ,ursue t.e case against 8aryrose. !esolve t.e case wit. reasons. (4M
A !ecruitment and Placement Agency declared voluntary (anDru,tcy. Among its assets is its license to engage in (usiness. Is t.e license of t.e (anDru,t agency an asset w.ic. can (e sold in ,u(lic auction (y t.e liEuidatorK L4MN SUGGESTE7 ANSWER'
'o# (ecause of t.e non-transfera(ility of t.e license to engage in recruitment and ,lacement. <.e La(or Code (in Article /* ,rovides t.at no license to engage in recruitment and ,lacement s.all (e used directly or indirectly (y any ,erson ot.er t.an t.e one in w.ose favor it was issued nor may suc. license (e transferred# conveyed or assigned to any ot.er ,erson or entity.
It may (e noted t.at t.e grant of a license is a governmental act (y t.e ;e,artment of La(or and &m,loyment (ased on ,ersonal Eualifications# and citiGens.i, and ca,italiGation reEuirements. (Arts. /2-/+# La(or Code
ALTERNATI9E ANSWER'
Illegal recruitment is defined (y law as any recruitment activities undertaDen (y non-licenses or non-.olders of aut.ority. (Peo,le v. Senoron# %.!. 'o. ))*)10# January 30#)**2 And it is large scale illegal recruitment w.en t.e offense is committed against 3 or more ,ersons# individually or as a grou,. (Article 3+L(N# La(or Code In view of t.e a(ove# 8aryrose is guilty of large scale illegal recruitment. Fer defense of good fait. and t.e Affidavit of ;esistance as well as t.e refund given will not save .er (ecause !.A. 'o. +06/ is a s,ecial law# and illegal recruitment is malum prohibitum. (Peo,le v. Saulo# %.!. 'o. )/4*03# 'ovem(er )4# /000
SUGGESTE7 ANSWER' 'o. A cor,oration# seventy ,ercent (20M of t.e aut.oriGed and voting ca,ital stocD of w.ic. is owned and controlled (y ?ili,ino citiGens cannot (e ,ermitted to ,artici,ate in t.e recruitment and ,lacement of worDers# locally or overseas# (ecause Art /2 of t.e La(or Code reEuires at least seventy- five ,ercent (24M .
ALTERNATI9E ANSWER' @it. t.e execution of t.e affidavit of desistance (y t.e com,lainants and t.e refund made (y 8aryrose# t.e case against .er for large scale illegal recruitment will surely fail.
R ;#)it? "t & /*!; ? "t: T#!6 * A$ ";&: /#2<i%iti2" (2006) @onder <ravel and <ours Agency (@<<A is a well-Dnown travel agency and an aut.oriGed sales agent of t.e P.ili,,ine Air Lines. Since ma:ority of its ,assengers are overseas worDers# @<<A a,,lied for a license for recruitment and ,lacement activities. It stated in its a,,lication t.at its ,ur,ose is not for ,rofit (ut to .el, ?ili,inos find em,loyment a(road. S.ould t.e a,,lication (e a,,rovedK (4M ALTERNATI9E ANSWER' <.e a,,lication s.ould (e disa,,roved# as it is ,ro.i(ited (y Article /1 of t.e La(or Code# to wit5 CArticle /1. <ravel agencies and sales agencies of airline com,anies are ,ro.i(ited from engaging in t.e (usiness of recruitment and ,lacement of worDers for overseas
Page 66 of 108
arising out of an emergency# exigency or (usiness !ule I# Part IIP9&A !ules and !egulations %overning t.e !ecruitment and &m,loyment of Land-$ased @orDers (/00/ disEualifies any entity
.aving common director or owner of travel agencies and sales agencies of airlines# including any (usiness entity from t.e recruitment and ,lacement of ?ili,ino worDers overseas# w.et.er t.ey derive ,rofit or not. losses. W!$ : W!$ 7i4t2#ti2": 7 3i"iti2" & E* ? "t4 (2006) @.en is t.ere a wage distortionK ALTERNATI9E ANSWER'
ALTERNATI9E ANSWER'
'o. Section 1 of !A 'o. +06/ considers t.e following act as illegal recruitment5 C(: ?or an
A @A%& ;IS<9!<I9' arises w.en an increase in ,rescri(ed wage rates results in t.e elimination or
severe contraction of intentional Euantitative differences in wage or salary rates (etween and
officer or agent of a recruitment agency to (ecome an officer or mem(er of t.e $oard of any cor,oration engaged in travel agency or to engage directly or indirectly in t.e management of a travel agency.C <.e law considers t.e o,eration of travel
agencies and recruitment agencies as incom,ati(le activities. W!$ 7i4t2#ti2" (2002) A. Fow s.ould a wage distortion (e resolved ()
suc. wage structure (ased on sDills# lengt. of service# or ot.er logical (ases of differentiation
(Article )/6# La(or Code of t.e P.ili,,ines . ALTERNATI9E ANSWER' <.ere is wage distortion w.en t.e following four elements concur5 a. An existing .ierarc.y of ,ositions wit. corres,onding salary rates(. A significant c.ange in t.e salary rate of a lower ,ay class wit.out a concomitant increase in t.e salary rate of a .ig.er one-
SUGGESTE7 ANSWER' A. According to Art. )/6 of t.e La(or Code# in case t.ere is a collective (argaining agreement# a
dis,ute arising from wage distortions s.all (e resolved t.roug. t.e grievance mac.inery ,rovided in t.e C$A# and if remains unresolved# t.roug. voluntary ar(itration. In case t.ere is no collective (argaining agreement# t.e em,loyers
c.
d.
and worDers s.all endeavor to correct suc. distortions . Any dis,ute arising t.erefrom s.all (e settled t.roug. t.e 'ational Conciliation and 8ediation $oard and if it remains unresolved after
ten ()0 calendar days of conciliations# t.en t.e
W!$ : W!$ 7i4t2#ti2": M !"4 23 S2*6i"$ (2006) Fow s.ould a wage distortion (e settledK SUGGESTE7 ANSWER' In organiGed esta(lis.ments# t.e wage distortion s.all (e resolved t.roug. t.e %!I&AA'C& P!9C&;U!& under t.eir collective (argaining agreement# and if it remains unresolved# t.roug. A9LU'<A!I A!$I<!A<I9'. 9n t.e ot.er .and#
in esta(lis.ments w.ere t.ere are no collective (argaining agreements or recogniGed la(or unions#
t.e em,loyers and worDers s.all endeavor to correct suc. distortion. Any dis,ute arising
t.erefrom s.all (e settled t.roug. t.e 'ational Conciliation and 8ediation $oard# and if it remains
unresolved after ten ()0 calendar days of
overtime ,ay# and ,remium ,ayK (4M SUGGESTE7 ANSWER' Article )00 of t.e La(or Code ,ro.i(its t.e elimination and t.e diminution of (enefits (eing en:oyed (y em,loyees at t.e time t.e law was ,assed. <.e em,loyer and em,loyee cannot enter
into an agreement to reduce t.e minimum ,ercentage ,rovided (y law for nig.t differential
correction of a wage distortion# im,licitly excluding striDes or locDouts or ot.er concerted activities as modes of settlement of t.e issue. <.e legislative intent t.at wage distortion s.all (e solved (y voluntary negotiation or ar(itration is made clear in t.e rules (Ilaiv at $uDlod ng 8anggagawa v. 'L!C# %.!. 'o. *)*+0# June /2# )**) .
() Is t.e Com,anyPs action tena(leK (/ @it. res,ect to t.e ,ayment of t.e )3t.-mont. ,ay after t.e San 8iguel Cor,oration# ruling# w.at arrangement# if any# must t.e Com,any maDe in order to exclude from t.e )3t.-mont. ,ay all earnings and remunerations ot.er t.an t.e (asic ,ay. SUGGESTE7 ANSWER'
) <.e Com,anyPs action is not tena(le. <.e ,rinci,le of salutio inde(iti w.ic. is a civil law conce,t is not a,,lica(le in la(or law. <.us# solutio inde(iti is not a,,lica(le to t.e instant case# (;avao ?ruits Cor,orations vs. 'ational La(or !elations Commission# et at. //4 SC!A 41/
ALTERNATI9E ANSWERS'
a <.e Com,anyPs action would (e tena(le if ,ayment was done (y mistaDe# In w.ic. case recovery can (e done under t.e ,rinci,le of solutio inde(iti. $ut if t.ere was no mistaDe# t.e Com,anyPs action would (e untena(le (ecause it would violate Article )00 of t.e La(or Code w.ic. ,ro.i(its elimination or diminution of (enefits. ( 'o. <.e Com,anyPs action is not tena(le. <.e grant (y Conce,cion <extile Co. of a (etter formula# more favora(le to t.e em,loyee# constituted a valid offer (y t.e com,any as t.e offerer and t.e em,loyees as t.e offeree. <.ere .aving (een a meeting of t.e minds of t.e ,arties# t.e rig.ts and o(ligations arising t.erefrom were valid. <.us# any amount received (y virtue t.ereof could not (e recovered# muc. less taDen away unilaterally. <.e ,rinci,le does not a,,ly to t.e case at (ar.
SUGGESTE7 ANSWER' /T After t.e )*+) San 8iguel ruling# t.e Fig. Court
'L!C# on )) 'ovem(er )**3# Accordingly# management may undertaDe to exclude sicD leave# vacation leave# maternity leave# ,remium ,ay for regular .oliday# nig.t differential ,ay and cost of living allowance. Sales commissions# .owever# s.ould (e included (ased on t.e settled rule as earlier enunciated in Songco vs. 'L!C# )+3 SC!A 1)0.
SUGGESTE7 ANSWER' Ies. <.e granting of a (onus is a management ,rerogative# somet.ing given in addition to w.at is ordinarily received (y or strictly due t.e reci,ient. An em,loyer# liDe Suerte Co.# cannot (e forced to distri(ute (onuses w.en it can no longer afford to ,ay. <o .old ot.erwise would (e to ,enaliGe t.e em,loyer for .is ,ast generosity. LProducers $anD of t.e P.il. v 'L!C# 344 SC!A 6+*# (/00) N ANOT0ER SUGGESTE7 ANSWER'
It de,ends. If t.ere is a legal o(ligation on t.e ,art of Suerte Co. to ,ay a (onus of its em,loyees eEuivalent to 40M of t.eir mont.ly com,ensation# (ecause said o(ligation is included in a collective (argaining agreement# t.en Suerte Co. cannot reduce t.e (onus to 4M of t.eir mont.ly com,ensation. $ut if t.e ,ayment of t.e (onus is not a legal o(ligation (ut only a voluntary act on t.e ,art of t.e em,loyer# said em,loyer#
SUGGESTE7 ANSWER' I will advise t.e manufacturing com,any to ,ay t.e casual em,loyee )3t. 8ont. Pay if suc. casual em,loyee .as worDed for at least one () mont. during a calendar year. <.e law on t.e )3t. 8ont. Pay ,rovides t.at em,loyees are entitled to t.e (enefit of said law regardless of t.eir designation or em,loyment status. <.e Su,reme Court ruled in JacDson $uildingCondominium Cor,oration v. 'L!C# /61 SC!A 3/*# ()**4 inter,reting P.;. 'o. +4)# as follows5 xxx em,loyees are entitled to t.e t.irteent.mont. ,ay (enefits regardless of t.eir designation and irres,ective of t.e
Page 68 of 108
unilaterally# can only reduce t.e (onus from 40M to 4M of t.e mont.ly com,ensation of its
(/ It is entirely de,endent on t.e em,loyerPs ca,acity to ,ay. 'ormally discretionary# it (ecomes ,art of t.e regular com,ensation (y reason of long and
to one-mont. (asic ,ay since )*2). U,on t.e effectivity of Presidential ;ecree (P.;. 'o. +4) in )*24 w.ic. granted t.e )3t. mont. ,ay# t.e (anD started giving its em,loyees a one-mont. (asic
,ay as mid-year (onus# one-mont. (asic ,ay as
financial losses. !o(ert SuareG# aside from .is mont.ly salary# receives commissions on t.e sales
.e maDes. Fe also receives allowances. <.e existing C$A (etween Star P.armaceuticals and t.e union# of w.ic. !o(ert SuareG is a mem(er# states t.at any em,loyee se,arated from
under conservators.i, and (y virtue of a monetary (oard resolution of t.e Central $anD# t.e (anD only gave one mont. (asic ,ay mandated (y P.;. +4)# and it no longer gave its em,loyees t.e traditional
mid-year and C.ristmas (onuses. Could A$C $anD (e com,elled# given t.e circumstances# to continue ,aying its em,loyees t.e traditional mid-
year and C.ristmas (onuses in addition to t.e )3t. mont. ,ayK SUGGESTE7 ANSWER'
'o. <.e grant of a (onus is a ,rerogative# not an
o(ligation# of t.e em,loyer. (<raders !oyal $anD v. 'L!C. )+* SC!A /26 ()**0 . <.e matter of giving a (onus over and a(ove t.at w.ic. is reEuired (y law is entirely de,endent on t.e financial ca,a(ility of t.e em,loyer to give it. ($usinessday v. 'L!C.
//) SC!A * ()**3 .
Fence# given t.e circumstances# A$C $anD cannot (e com,elled to continue ,aying its em,loyees t.e
traditional mid-year and C.ristmas (onuses in addition to t.e )3t. mont. ,ay. W!$ 4: B2")4: N!t)# (199,) @.at is a (onusK @.en is it demanda(le as a
$ut for allowances to (e included as ,art of salary# t.ey s.ould (e for services rendered or to (e
rendered# liDe a cost of living allowance. $ut trans,ortation and re,resentation allowances are
t.e recei,t of a (onus .as ri,ened into a rig.t. ALTERNATI9E ANSWER' A (onus is an amount granted and ,aid to an em,loyee for .is industry and loyalty w.ic.
contri(uted to t.e em,loyerPs success and
realiGation of ,rofit.
() %rant of (onus is a ,rerogative# not an o(ligation of t.e em,loyer5 and
Page %( of 108
regular .olidays# (ut also of t.eir regular wage# ,lus t.e ,remium t.ereof. (;9L& &x,lanatory
em,loyee to worD on any regular .oliday (ut suc. em,loyee s.all (e ,aid a com,ensation eEuivalent
to twice .is regular rate. W!$ 4: C2?-)t!ti2": 02*id!& /!&: O6 #ti? /!& (2002) <.is year# 'ational Feroes ;ay (August /4 falls
on a Sunday.
w.ose daily rate is P400.00. A. If $onifacio is reEuired (y .is em,loyer to worD on t.at day for eig.t (+ .ours# .ow muc.
s.ould .e (e ,aid for .is worDK &x,lain. (3M $. If .e worDs for ten ()0 .ours on t.at day# .ow muc. s.ould .e receive for .is worDK &x,lain.
(/M
daily rate Z P140.00. <.is amount of P140.00 s.ould (e multi,lied (y / Z P) #300.00. <.is is t.e amount t.at $onifacio as em,loyee worDing on .is sc.eduled rest day w.ic. is also a regular .oliday#
s.ould receive. Art. *6(c of t.e La(or Code
sc.eduled rest day. $. P)#300.00 w.ic. is t.e amount t.at $onifacio is to receive for worDing on 8ay )# /00/ s.ould (e
divided (y + to determine .is .ourly rate of
res,ective .eirs of t.e deceased miners w.atever were t.e un,aid wages# overtime# .oliday and rest
day com,ensation of said deceased miners wit.out t.e necessity of intestate ,roceedings. <.e claimants# if t.ey are all of age s.all execute an
t.erefor 5
(a Araw ng Uagitingan and %ood ?riday are among t.e )0 ,aid regular .olidays under Article
*6 of t.e La(or Code. Fow muc. will an em,loyee receive w.en (ot. .olidays fall on t.e same dayK
(6M
ot.erwise would reduce t.e num(er of .olidays under &9 'o. /03. If worDed# t.e covered em,loyees are entitled to com,ensation eEuivalent to at least 300M of t.eir (asic wage (ecause t.ey t.e ,ayment not only of t.e two are entitled to
eEuivalent to .is de(t to t.e Credit Union. <.e de(ts of a deceased worDer to t.e Credit Union is
ANOT0ER SUGGESTE7 ANSWER' Ies# if ,ursuant to C$A ,rovision or aut.oriGed (y worDer in writing- ot.erwise. 'o.
4:
,rayed for in t.eir com,laint# we .old t.at ,etitioners are so entitled to t.ese (enefits. <.ree (3 factors lead us to conclude t.at ,etitioners# alt.oug. ,iece rate worDers# were regular
em,loyees of ,rivate res,ondents.
(a &duardo Santiago# a ,ro:ect worDer# was (eing assigned (y .is em,loyer# $agsaD $uilders# to
Laoag# Ilocos 'orte. Santiago refused to com,ly
wit. t.e transfer claiming t.at it# in effect#
would taDe .im away from .is family and .is usual
worD assignments in 8etro 8anila. <.e La(or
lawful transfer order# and .ence# a refusal to worD. %iven t.is fact# t.ere can (e no (asis for t.e
,ayment of attorneyPs fees. (( Could t.e la(or ar(iter .ave validly awarded
University# is ,aid on a regular mont.ly (asis. CruG teac.es for a ,eriod of ten mont.s in a sc.oolyear#
excluding t.e two mont.Ps summer (reaD.
moral and exem,lary damages to Santiago instead of attorneyPs feesK @.yK (3M . SUGGESTE7 ANSWER:
'o# moral and exem,lary damages can (e
awarded only if t.e worDer was illegally terminated in an ar(itrary or ca,ricious manner. ('ueva &ci:a &lectric Coo,erative Inc.# &m,loyees Assn.# us.
'L!C# %.!. 'o. ))1011# January /6# /000- CruG us. 'L!C# %.!. 'o. ))13+6# ?e(ruary 2# /000-
and no teac.ing service were actually rendered (y .er. In s.ort# t.e University invoDed t.e ,rinci,le of
Cno worD# no ,ayC.
Lita CruG seeDs your advice on w.et.er or not s.e is entitled to receive .er &C9LA during semestral
(reaDs. Fow would you res,ond to t.e EueryK SUGGESTE7 ANSWER'
W!$ 4: /!id %& R 4)*t4: 02*id!& /!& (2002) 'emia earns P2.00 for every manicure s.e does in t.e (ar(er s.o, of a friend w.ic. .as nineteen ()*
em,loyees. At times s.e taDes .ome P)24.00 a
Cost of Living Allowance (&C9LA . &ffective )*+)# t.e mandatory living allowances ,rovided for in
earlier Presidential ;ecrees were integrated into t.e (asic ,ay of all covered em,loyees.
(enefitK &x,lain (riefly (4M SUGGESTE7 ANSWER' 'o# 'emia is not entitled to .oliday ,ay. Art. +/ of
t.e La(or Code ,rovides t.at worDers w.o are ,aid (y results are# among ot.ers# not entitled to .oliday
,ay. 'emia is a worDer w.o is ,aid (y results. S.e earns P2.00 for every manicure s.e does.
Page &
of 108
ALTERNATI9E ANSWER:
<.e Cno worD# no ,ayC ,rinci,le does not a,,ly. <.e teac.ers receive t.eir regular salaries during t.e semestral (reaD. <.e law granting emergency
SUGGESTE7 ANSWER' 'o. <.e ,reference of credits esta(lis.ed in Art. ))0 of t.e La(or Code cannot (e invoDed in t.e a(sence of any insolvency ,roceedings#
was enacted ,ursuant to t.e StatePs duty to ,rotect la(or and to alleviate t.e ,lig.t of t.e worDers. <o u,.old t.e sc.oolPs inter,retation of t.e law would run counter to t.e intent of t.e law and constitution
(University of Pangasinan ?aculty Union University of Pangasinan# )/2 SC!A 1*) . v.
<.e ;ecision of t.e La(or Ar(iter .olding Premiere (as foreclosing $anD mortgagee-creditor su(sidiarily lia(le for a money o(ligation of OIQ =
Co# (as mortgagor to Cas,ar# its em,loyee# .as no legal (asis. ). <.ere is no ,rivity of relations.i, (etween t.e $anD and Cas,ar. <.e relations.i,# u,on w.ic.
<.e ,reference could (e exercised only in t.e event of (anDru,tcy or liEuidation of an em,loyerPs
(usiness.
<.e rig.t of first ,reference as regards un,aid wages recogniGed (y t.e La(or Code does not
constitute a lien on t.e ,ro,erty of t.e insolvent
/.
<.e decision of t.e La(or Ar(iter for OIQ = Co. to ,ay a sum of money to Cas,ar was (ased on an action in ,ersonam# not in rem. enforcea(le
3. against any ,arty. (Sundowner Cor,oration vs. drilon. )+0 SC!A )6 ()*+*
<.e reference in t.e ;ecision to Cla(or (enefits due to an em,loyee is su,erior to t.e rig.t of a mortgagee of ,ro,ertyC is mis,laced. <.e
6. ,referential claim rule .as no (asis and runs contrary to law and :uris,rudence. W!$ 4: U"-!id W!$ 4: /# 3 # "; 23 C# dit i" 3!62# 23 E?-*2& 4 (199,) ;istinguis. t.e mortgage created under t.e Civil
Code from t.e rig.t of first ,reference created (y
and t.e (anD. <.e La(or Ar(iter# after .earing# so found t.e com,any lia(le# as claimed (y Jose
Cas,ar# for se,aration ,ay. Premiere $anD was
t.e La(or Code as regards t.e un,aid wages of worDers. &x,lain. SUGGESTE7 ANSWER'
additionally found su(sidiarily lia(le u,on t.e t.esis t.at t.e satisfaction of la(or (enefits due to t.e em,loyee is su,erior to t.e rig.t of a
mortgagee of ,ro,erty. @as t.e La(or Ar(iter
89!<%A%& C!&;I< is a s,ecial ,referred credit under t.e Civil Code in t.e classification of credits. <.e ,reference given (y t.e La(or Code w.en not
attac.ed to any s,ecific ,ro,erty# is an ordinary
Pane < A
,referred credit. ALTERNATI9E ANSWER' If t.e asset of an em,loyer w.ic. .as (ecome
(anDru,t or .as (een liEuidated .as (een mortgaged# t.e ,roceeds of t.e sale of said mortgaged asset is first su(:ect to t.e lien of t.e ,erson to w.om t.e ,ro,erty is mortgaged. Said lien is su,erior to t.e first ,reference en:oyed (y t.e worDers ,ursuant to t.e La(or Code.
&ro!eedings* whi!h are o'tside the .'risdi!tion of the N@RC 7Re&'% i! (# Pera ta8 W!$ 4: W!$ 7i4t2#ti2" (199.) (a ;efine @age ;istortion. (( 8ay a wage distortion# alleged (y t.e
sDills#
differentiation. (( 'o# t.e existence of wage distortion is not a valid ground for a striDe (ecause Art. )/6 of t.e
La(or Code ,rovides for a s,ecific met.od of
worD.
<.e LC?C La(or Union LUnionN filed in (e.alf of
t.e Union. ;$P a,,ealed to t.e 'L!C. ;$P contended in its a,,eal t.at its acEuisition of
t.e mortgage assets of LC?C t.roug. foreclosure
a,,lication of any ,rescri(ed wage increase (y virtue of a law or wage order. Section 3 of !e,u(lic Act 'o. 12/2 ,rescri(es a s,ecific#
detailed and com,re.ensive ,rocedure for t.e
(ut re:ected (y t.e em,loyer can (e a valid ground for staging a striDe if it .a,,ens t.at in re:ecting t.e allegation of wage distortion# t.e em,loyer refuses
to consider t.e issue under t.e grievance
,reference wit. res,ect t.ereto ,ursuant to article ))0 of t.e La(or Code.
Is t.e 'L!C correct in .olding ;$P lia(le to t.e
SUGGESTE7 ANSWER'
'o. ;$P is not lia(le. ;$P .as a lien over t.e
,ro,erties of LC?C w.ic. were mortgaged to ;$P and said lien is su,erior to t.e ,reference t.at t.e
worDers .ave under t.e La(or Code (in Article ))0
W!$ 4: W!$ 4 64= S!*!#&: S)%A ;t t2 Att!;<? "t (1994) ) ;istinguis. CsalaryC from Cwages.C / Are t.ese su(:ect to attac.ment and executionK SUGGESTE7 ANSWER' ) <.e term C@A%&SC a,,lies to com,ensation for manual la(or# sDilled or unsDilled# w.ile salary
denotes a com,ensation for a .ig.er degree of em,loyment. (%aa vs. Court of A,,eals# )60
morals or good customs.C W2#Gi"$ 02)#4: C<!#it!%* I"4tit)ti2": O6 #ti? /!& (2002) Socorro is a clerD-ty,ist in t.e Fos,icio de San Jose# a c.arita(le institution de,endent for its
rendered or to (e rendered. 9n t.e ot.er .and# CSALA!IC is used in t.e law t.at ,rovides for a )3t.-mont. ,ay. In t.is law# (asic salary includes all remuneration or earnings
existence on contri(utions and donations from well wis.ers. S.e renders worD eleven ()) .ours a day
(ut .as not (een given overtime ,ay since .er
CwagesC are exem,t from attac.ment or execution. Salaries are not exem,t from attac.ment or
execution. (%aa vs. Court of A,,eals# )60 SC!A
306 .
Com,any maintains a c.ain of drug stores t.at are o,en everyday till late at nig.t. Jose was informed
t.at .e .ad to worD on Sundays and .olidays at
weeDly rest ,eriods in t.e La(or Code cover every em,loyer# w.et.er o,erating for ,rofit or not. (See
Article *) of t.e La(or Code W2#Gi"$ 02)#4: C2?-# 44 d W2#G W G (200,) (d Under w.at conditions may a Ccom,ressed worD weeDC sc.edule (e legally aut.oriGed as an
worD on Sundays and .olidays# w.ic. Jose signed. Is suc. a waiver (inding on JoseK &x,lain. SUGGESTE7 ANSWER' As long as t.e annual com,ensation is an amount
t.at is not less t.an w.at Jose s.ould receive for
not suffer any loss of overtime ,ay# fringe (enefits or t.eir weeDly or mont.ly taDe-.ome ,ay. (;9L& &x,lanatory $ulletin on t.e !eduction of @orDdays
on @ages issued on July /3# )*+4 ALTERNATI9E ANSWER'
com,ensation t.at is agreed u,on already includes all t.e amounts .e is to receive for overtime worD and for worD on weeDly rest days and .olidays and for nig.t differential ,ay for late nig.t worD.
AL<&!'A<IA& A'S@&!5
CCom,ressed worD weeDC is resorted to (y t.e em,loyer to ,revent serious losses due to causes
(eyond .is control# suc. as w.en t.ere is a su(stantial slum, in t.e demand for .is goods or services or w.en t.ere is lacD of raw materials. (&x,lanatory $ulletin on t.e !eduction of
SUGGESTE7 ANSWER'
Ies. Under Art +1 of t.e La(or Code# nig.t s.ift
<.erefore# %oma is entitled to nig.ts.ift differential for worD ,erformed from )0500 ,m until 1500 am of t.e day following# (ut not from 1500 am to 2500 am
of t.e same day.
to drive for t.e com,anyPs executives even (eyond t.e ordinary eig.t-.our worD day. Fe was ,rovided
wit. a contract of em,loyment w.erein .e would
(e ,aid a mont.ly rate eEuivalent to 34 times .is
ANOT0ER SUGGESTE7 ANSWER' <.e 9mni(us !ules Im,lementing t.e La(or Code
(In $ooD III# !ule II dealing wit. nig.t s.ift
&xce,t for t.e ,rovision t.at ;anilo s.all .ave time off wit. ,ay w.en t.e com,anyPs executives using
t.e cars do not need ;aniloPs service for more t.an
eig.t .ours a day# in lieu of overtime# t.e ,rovisions of t.e contract of em,loyment of ;anilo
are not violative of any la(or law (ecause t.ey
,ay. <.ere is no la(or law reEuiring t.e ,ayment of sicD and vacation leaves exce,t t.e ,rovision for a
five-day service incentive leave in t.e La(or Code.
SUGGESTE7 ANSWER' <.e em,loyer is correct. @.ile Art. ++ of t.e La(or Code clearly ,rovides t.at undertime worD on any ot.er ,articular day s.all not (e offset (y overtime
worD on any ot.er day# t.is rule is ina,,lica(le in
As for t.e ,rovision in ;aniloPs contract of em,loyment t.at .e s.all receive time off wit. ,ay in lieu of overtime# t.is violates t.e ,rovision of t.e
La(or Code w.ic. states t.at undertime worD on any ,articular day s.all not (e offset (y overtime worD on any ot.er day. Permission given to t.e
t.is case ,ertaining to Saturday worD w.ic. in reality does not constitute overtime worD as
Saturday is still a worDing day under t.e law and
ANOT0ER SUGGESTE7 ANSWER' Art# ++ of t.e La(or Code ,rovides t.at undertime
worD on any ,articular day s.all not (e offset (y overtime worD on any ot.er day. <.e C$A (eing
t.e law (etween t.e ,arties and t.e Union .aving s.own t.at t.e em,loyees rendered overtime worD on Saturday# t.e contention of t.e em,loyer is not tena(le. <.e em,loyer cannot use t.e undertime of
9n Saturdays# .owever# t.e com,any reEuires .im to Dee, .is cellular ,.one o,en from +500 A.8. to
4500 P.8. so t.at t.e 8anagement could contact
reEuired to Dee, .is cellular ,.one on so t.at .e could (e contacted w.enever .is services as driver (ecomes necessary.
Social Security SystemK (4M SUGGESTE7 ANSWER' Said .ours on Saturdays s.ould (e considered as
com,ensa(le worDing .ours Cw.ile on callC. In accordance wit. t.e !ules and !egulations
rule is5 CAn em,loyee w.o is reEuired to remain on call in t.e em,loyerPs ,remises or so close t.ereto
t.at .e cannot use t.e time effectively and gainfully for .is own ,ur,ose s.all (e considered
com,any officials as to w.ere .e may (e reac.ed is not worDing w.ile on call. $ut in t.e Euestion# %il
$ates was reEuired to Dee, .is cell ,.one o,en from +500 A.8. to 4500 P.8. <.erefore# $ates s.ould (e considered as worDing w.ile on call# if
as driver as needed. <.us# t.e waiting time of Lito and $ong s.ould (e considered are com,ensa(le
.ours. Note< It !o' d %e arg'ed that in the !ase of Bong
who is not reG'ired to sta$ in the offi!e %'t is
,.one o,en.
<.e com,ensation actually received (y $ates for worDing w.ile on call on Saturdays s.ould (e re,orted to t.e Social Security System (ecause under t.e Social Security Law# com,ensation
means Call actual remuneration for em,loyment.C ANOT0ER SUGGESTE7 ANSWER' If %il $ates can effectively utiliGe t.e Saturdays in .is own interest even Cw.ile on callC# said .ours on Saturdays are not com,ensa(le. Fowever# if
during said .ours on reEuired to attend to leaving w.at .e is com,ensa(le worDing
TERMINATION O1 EM/LOIMENT
B!;G8!$ 4 (2002) A. An em,loyee was ordered reinstated wit. (acDwages. Is .e entitled to t.e (enefits and
Saturdays# $ates is actually urgent worD to t.e extent of doing# t.en t.e same are .ours to t.e extent of t.e
for said .ours worDed on Saturdays s.ould (e re,orted to t.e SSS. <.is is so (ecause t.e (asis
of com,uting t.e SSS contri(ution includes all actual remuneration# including allowances and cas. value of any com,ensation ,aid in any medium ot.er t.an cas..
em,loyed as trucD drivers of Line 8overs# Inc. Usually. Lito is reEuired (y t.e ,ersonnel manager
to :ust stay at t.e .ead office after office .ours (ecause .e could (e called to drive t.e trucDs. @.ile at t.e .ead office. Lito merely waits in t.e
;istinguis. (etween an award for (acD wages and an award for un,aid wages. SUGGESTE7 ANSWER'
An award for $ACU@A%&S is to com,ensate an em,loyee w.o .as (een illegally dismissed# for t.e wages# allowances and ot.er (enefits or t.eir monetary eEuivalent# w.ic. said em,loyee did not receive from t.e time .e was illegally dismissed u, to t.e time of .is actual reinstatement.
claiming#
among
ot.ers#
t.at
t.e
award
for
9n t.e ot.er .and# an award for U'PAI; @A%&S is for an em,loyee w.o .as actually worDed (ut .as not (een ,aid t.e wages .e is entitled to receive for suc. worD done. (Arts. /2* and *2() # La(or Code ALTERNATI9E ANSWER' An award of $ACU@A%&S is given to an em,loyee w.o is un:ustly dismissed. <.e cause of action .ere is t.e un:ust dismissal. 9n t.e ot.er .and# an award of U'PAI; @A%&S is given to an em,loyee w.o .as not (een ,aid .is salaries or wages for services actually rendered. <.e cause of action .ere is non-,ayment of wages or salaries. (%eneral $a,tist $i(le College vs. 'L!C /)* SC!A 46* .
B!;G8!$ 4: B!4i4 (2001) @.at economic com,onents constitute (acDwages for a ranD and file em,loyeeK Are t.ese com,onents eEually a,,lica(le to a managerial em,loyeeK (4M SUGGESTE7 ANSWER'
<.e La(or Code (Art. /2* ,rovides t.at an em,loyee w.o is un:ustly dismissed from worD is entitled to reinstatement and also to .is full (acDwages# inclusive of allowances# and to .is ot.er (enefits or t.eir monetary eEuivalent com,uted from t.e time .is com,ensation was wit..eld from .im u, to .is actual reinstatement.
An em,loyee is entitled to all t.e a(ove (enefit regardless of w.et.er .e is a ranD-and-file em,loyee or a managerial em,loyee. Fowever# (acDwages may also include t.e )3t. mont. ,ay w.ic. are ,aid to ranDand-file em,loyees# as well as (enefits arising from a C$A given only to em,loyees in t.e (argaining unit. 8anagerial em,loyees cannot (e given t.e same since t.ey are ineligi(le to :oin a la(or organiGation.
(acDwages was excessive in t.at it went (eyond t.ree-year rule set fort. in 8ercury ;rug v. CI! (41 SC!A 1*1 . Is $Ps contention tena(leK @.yK (4M
SUGGESTE7 ANSWER'
'o# t.e contention of C$C is not tena(le. !e,. Act 'o. 12)4# w.ic. was enacted in )*+*# in effect set aside t.e t.ree-year rule set fort. in 8ercury ;rug vs. CI! (41 SC!A 1*1 w.en it ,rovided t.at t.e full (acDwages t.at an un:ustly dismissed em,loyee s.all receive s.all (e com,uted from t.e time .is com,ensation was wit..eld from .im u, to t.e time of .is actual reinstatement. <.e word CactualC was inserted in t.e law (y !e,. Act 'o. 12)4. <.us# in accordance wit. t.e aforesaid law# an un:ustly dismissed em,loyee s.all receive .is full (acDwages com,uted from t.e time .is com,ensation was wit..eld from .im u, to t.e time of .is actual reinstatement even if t.is ,eriod is more t.an t.ree years.
s,ecifically declared t.at t.e award of (acDwages was to (e com,uted from t.e time com,ensation was wit..eld from t.e em,loyee u, to t.e time of .is reinstatement.
xxx
<.e clear legislative intent of t.e amendment in !A 'o. 12)4 is to give more (enefits to t.e worDers t.an was ,reviously given t.em under t.e 8ercury ;rug rule. In ot.er words# t.e ,rovision calling for Cfull (acDwagesC to illegally dismissed em,loyees is clear# ,lain and free from am(iguity# and# t.erefore# must (e a,,lied wit.out attem,ted or strained inter,retation.
ANOT0ER SUGGESTE7 ANSWER' 'o# t.e contention of C$C is not tena(le. <.e Su,reme Court (In ?errer vs. 'L!C# July 4# )**3 a(andoned t.e 8ercury ;rug !ule and in )**1 $ustamante vs. 'L!C# /14 SC!A 1) t.e Su,reme Court said5
LJuoting Article /2* of t.e La(or CodeN Under t.e a(ove Euoted ,rovision# it (ecame mandatory to award (acDwages to illegally dismissed regular em,loyees. <.e law
SUGGESTE7 ANSWER'
A is correct. After its amendment (y !e,. Act 'o. 12)4# t.e (acDwages t.at an em,loyee w.o .as
(een un:ustly dismissed is entitled to receive is not limited to .is full (acDwages (ut also includes .is allowances and t.e ot.er (enefits or t.eir monetary eEuivalent. ANOT0ER SUGGESTE7 ANSWER' In t.e case of Consolidated .!ural $anD us. 'L!C# %.!. 'o. )/3+)0# January /0#)***# t.e Su,reme Court ruled t.at allowances of t.e em,loyee s.ould (e included in t.e com,utation of (acDwages.
7i4?i44!*: A)t<2#iJ d C!)4 4 (2002) $. According to Art /+3 of t.e La(or Code# t.e lawful or aut.oriGed causes for t.e termination of an em,loyee are5 ). installation of la(or saving devices /. redundancy 3. retrenc.ment to ,revent losses or6. closing or cessation of o,eration of t.e esta(lis.ment or undertaDing# unless t.e closing is for t.e ,ur,ose of circumventing t.e ,rovisions of t.e La(or Code. Art /+6 also ,rovides t.at an em,loyer may terminate t.e services of an em,loyee w.o .as (een found to (e suffering from any disease and w.ose continued em,loyment is ,ro.i(ited (y law or is ,re:udicial to .is .ealt. as well as to t.e .ealt. of .is co-em,loyees.
7i4?i44!*: A)t<2#iJ d C!)4 4 64= ()4t C!)4 (2004) @.at are t.e aut.oriGed causes for a valid dismissal (y t.e em,loyer of an em,loyeeK @.y are t.ey distinct from t.e :ust causesK (4M SUGGESTE7 ANSWERS' <.e AU<F9!IQ&; CAUS&S for a valid dismissal are t.e following5 ). installation of la(or-saving devices /. redundancy 3. retrenc.ment to ,revent losses 6. t.e closing or cessation of o,eration of t.e esta(lis.ment or undertaDing
SUGGESTE7 ANSWERS'
<.e aut.oriGed causes for a valid dismissal are distinct from :ust causes (ecause w.ere t.e dismissal of an em,loyee is (ased on :ust causes# t.ese :ust causes are acts committed (y t.e em,loyee w.ic. ,rovide t.e (asis for .is dismissal. 9n t.e ot.er .and# w.ere t.e dismissal is (ased on aut.oriGed causes# t.ese aut.oriGed causes are t.e results of t.e ,ro,er exercise (y t.e em,loyer of .is management ,rerogatives. If a valid dismissal is (ased on :ust causes# t.ere is no lia(ility on t.e ,art of t.e em,loyer# alt.oug. sometimes# financial assistance to (e given to t.e dismissed em,loyee is asDed of t.e em,loyer. If a valid dismissal is (ased on aut.oriGed causes# t.e em,loyer .as to ,ay se,aration ,ay exce,t in case
SUGGESTE7 ANSWER' <.e unionPs claim is not correct. In t.e case of 'ational ?ederation of La(or vs. 'L!C# %.!. 'o. )/22)+# 8arc. /. /000# t.e Su,reme Court ruled t.at t.ere is no o(ligation to ,ay se,aration ,ay if t.e closure is not a unilateral and voluntary act of t.e em,loyer. In t.e Euestion# t.e closure was (roug.t a(out (y a unilateral and voluntary act of em,loyer (ut due to t.e act government in t.e im,lementation of Com,re.ensive Agrarian !eform Law.
7i4?i44!*: A)t<2#iJ d C!)4 4: C*24)# & C 44!ti2" 23 B)4i" 44: O*d A$ (2006)
If t.e reason for t.e closure is due to old age of t.e (rot.ers and sisters5 ). Is t.e closure allowed (y lawK (/.4M /. Are t.e em,loyees entitled to se,aration (enefitsK (/.4 M SUGGESTE7 ANSWER' If closure is due to old age R
). I&S# it is allowed (y law. <.e em,loyer may go out of (usiness (y closing t.e same regardless of .is reasons# if done in good fait. and due to causes (eyond .is control. (LA' Pictures &m,loyees and @orDers Association v. LA' Pictures# 'o. L-/36*4# Se,tem(er 30#)*20-J.A#<. %eneral Services v. 'L!C# 'o. L-/163/# Se,tem(er 30# )*20- Ala(ang Country Clu(# Inc. v. 'L!C# %.!. 'o. )421))# August *# /004
SUGGESTE7 ANSWER' /. I&S. 9ne mont. ,ay# or one-.alf mont. ,ay for every year of service# a fraction of at least 1 mont.s or more eEuivalent to one year# w.ic.ever is .ig.er. (Catatista v. 'L!C# %!. 'o. )0/6//# August 3#)**4 .
Page 78 of 108
t.ree (3 elderly (rot.ers and two (/ sisters# .as (usiness losses and financial reverses during t.e last five (4 years# t.ey decided to close t.e (usiness. ). As counsel for t.e cor,oration# w.at ste,s will
In &scareal vs. 'L!C# /)3 SC!A 62/ ()**/ # t.e Su,reme Court ruled t.at t.e law does not reEuire
financial loss as a (asis for redundancy. 7i4?i44!*: A)t<2#iJ d C!)4 4: R d)"d!";& (1999) ?AC<S5 Farvester Inde,endent Aentures (FIA ado,ted a redundancy ,rogram to streamline o,erations. Positions w.ic. overla,,ed eac. ot.er#
or w.ic. are in excess of t.e reEuirements of t.e
(/.4M SUGGESTE7 ANSWER' ). Ste,s to taDe ,rior to closure5 a @ritten 'otice to ;9L& 30 days ,rior to
t.e intended date of termination# s.owing a (ona fide reason for closure-
em,loyees# w.ic. included t.e secretary of t.e local union and t.e com,anyPs Pollution control
9fficer.
). Is I$8 correct in its contention t.at redundancy can (e im,lemented (y FIA only u,on ,rior union
a,,rovalK @.yK (3M SUGGESTE7 ANSWER'
E?-*2&
4 (2001)
Soon after t.e Asian meltdown (egan in 9cto(er )**2# A$C !ealty and 8anagement Cor,oration undertooD a downsiGing ,rogram and terminated
declared redundantK @.yK (/M SUGGESTE7 ANSWER' If t.ere is a law reEuiring com,anies to .ave a
t.at t.e action was ,reci,itate in t.at A$C .ad not ,roved t.at it sustained any losses. Is t.e claim of SUGGESTE7 ANSWER'
<.e claim of t.e em,loyees may or may not (e correct. @.en t.e Cor,oration undertooD its CdownsiGingC ,rogram# it may .ave terminated its em,loyees on eit.er one of two grounds# namely#
,erformed increasing
,erformed as efficiently (y ten ()0 worDers (y detriment to t.e .ealt. and safety of t.e worDersK
(3M SUGGESTE7 ANSWER'
(Article /+3# La(or Code . In Atlantic %ulf and Pacific Com,any vs. 'L!C# %.!. 'o. )/24)1. 8ay
/+# )***# t.e Su,reme Court ruled5
a section or de,artment# or ado,tion of la(or- saving arrangements. Poor forecasting does not invalidate redundancy. ?orecasting after all is not fail-free. [email protected] ?ile Co..Inc. v. 'L!C. )*3 SC!A 114 ()**) N. ( Ies# redundancy can exist w.ere worD efficiency .as (een im,roved mec.anically t.us resulting in excessive or su,erfluous man,ower. [email protected] ?ile Co.# Inc. v. 'L!C# )*3 SC!A 114()**) N.
7i4?i44!*: A)t<2#iJ d C!)4 4: R t# ";<? "t & R d)"d!";& (2001)
(a @.at conditions must ,revail and w.at reEuirements# if any# must an em,loyer com,ly wit. to :ustify7effect a valid retrenc.ment ,rogramK (/M . SUGGESTE7 ANSWER: In t.e case of Asian Alco.ol Cor,. vs. 'L!C# %.!. 'o. )3))0+# 8arc. /4#)***# t.e Su,reme Court stated t.at t.e reEuirements for a valid retrenc.ment must (e ,roved (y clear and convincing evidence5 () t.at t.e retrenc.ment is reasona(ly necessary and liDely to ,revent (usiness losses w.ic.# if already incurred# are not merely de minimis# (ut SU$S<A'<IAL# S&!I9US# AC<UAL and !&AL or if only ex,ected# are reasona(ly imminent as ,erceived o(:ectively and in good fait. (y t.e em,loyer(/ t.at t.e em,loyer served @!I<<&' '9<IC& (ot. to t.e em,loyees and to t.e ;e,artment of La(or and &m,loyment at least one mont. ,rior to t.e intended date of retrenc.ment-
(3 t.at t.e em,loyer ,ays t.e retrenc.ed em,loyees S&PA!A<I9' PAI eEuivalent to one mont. ,ay or at least one mont. ,ay for every year of service# w.ic.ever is .ig.er-
(6 t.at t.e em,loyer exercises its ,rerogative to retrenc. em,loyees in %99; ?AI<F for t.e advancement of its interest and not to defeat or circumvent t.e em,loyeesP rig.t to security of tenure- and (4 t.at t.e em,loyer used ?AI! and !&AS9'A$L& C!I<&!IA in ascertaining w.o would (e dismissed and w.o would (e retained among t.e em,loyees# suc. as status (i.e.# w.et.er t.ey are tem,orary# casual# regular or managerial em,loyees # efficiency# seniority# ,.ysical fitness# age# and financial .ards.i, for certain worDers. (( @.at conditions must ,revail and w.at reEuirements# if any# must an em,loyer com,ly wit. to :ustify7effect a valid redundancy ,rogramK (/M . SUGGESTE7 ANSWER'
In t.e case of Asian Alco.ol Cor,. (su,ra # t.e
w.en t.e service ca,a(ility of t.e worD is in excess of w.at is reasona(ly needed to meet t.e demands on t.e enter,rise. A !&;U';A'< P9SI<I9' is one rendered su,erfluous (y any num(er of factors# suc. as over.iring of worDers# decreased volume of (usiness dro,,ing of a ,articular line ,reviously manufactured (y t.e com,any or ,.asing out of a service activity ,reviously undertaDen (y t.e (usiness. Under t.ese conditions# t.e em,loyer .as no legal o(ligation to Dee, in its ,ayroll more em,loyees t.an are necessary for t.e o,eration of its (usiness.
?or t.e im,lementation of a redundancy ,rogram to (e valid# t.e em,loyer must com,ly wit. t.e following !&JUISI<&S5 () written notice served on (ot. t.e em,loyees and t.e ;e,artment of La(or and &m,loyment at least one mont. ,rior to t.e intended date of retrenc.ment(/ ,ayment of se,aration ,ay eEuivalent to at least one mont. ,ay or at least one mont. ,ay for every year of service w.ic.ever is .ig.er(3 good fait. in a(olis.ing t.e redundant ,ositions- and (6 fair and reasona(le criteria in ascertaining w.at ,ositions are to (e declared redundant and accordingly a(olis.ed.
7i4?i44!*: A)t<2#iJ d C!)4 4: R t# ";<? "t (1995) <.e Com,any Legal Counsel advised t.e $oard of ;irectors as follows5 CA com,any cannot retrenc. to ,revent losses until actual losses occur. <.e Com,any must wait until t.e end of t.e $usiness Iear w.en its $ooDs of Accounts# Profit and Loss Statement s.owing t.e actual loss and $alance S.eet .ave (een audited (y an Inde,endent auditing firm.C Is t.e legal advice of counsel correctKL4MN SUGGESTE7 ANSWER' <.e legal advice is not correct. <.e La(or Code (in Article /+3 ,rovides t.at retrenc.ment may (e resorted to C<9 P!&A&'< L9SS&SC <.us# t.ere could (e legal (asis for retrenc.ment even (efore actual losses as long as t.e losses are imminent and serious. ANOT0ER SUGGESTE7 ANSWER' <.e advise of t.e Com,any Legal Counsel t.at an em,loyer cannot retrenc. to ,revent losses until actual losses occur is not correct. <.e La(or Code ,rovides5 Art. /+3. Closure of esta(lis.ment and reduction of ,ersonnel. <.e em,loyer may also terminate t.e em,loyment of any em,loyee xxx retrenc.ment to ,revent losses.
<.e law does not reEuire t.at retrenc.ment can (e undertaDen (y an em,loyer only after an actual
(usiness loss occurs. <.e Su,reme Court in Lo,eG Sugar Cor,oration v# ?ederation of ?ree @orDers# )+* SC!A )2* ()**0 . said5
In its ordinary connotation# t.e ,.rase Cto ,revent lossesC means t.at t.e retrenc.ment or termination of some em,loyees is aut.oriGed to (e undertaDen (y t.e em,loyer sometime (efore t.e losses antici,ated are actually sustained or realiGed. It is not# in ot.er words# t.e intention of t.e lawmaDer to com,el t.e em,loyer to stay .is .and and Dee, all .is em,loyees until sometime after losses s.all .ave in fact materialiGed- if suc. an intent were ex,ressly written into law# t.e law may well (e vulnera(le to constitutional attacD as taDing ,ro,erty from one man to anot.er# (underscoring su,,liedN
SUGGESTE7 ANSWER'
Ies. %iven t.e factual setting in t.e ,ro(lem# and since Cnot.ing more (.ave (een esta(lis.edC# t.e dismissal of Leo can (e successfully assailed (y .im. <.is is so (ecause t.e (urden of ,roof is u,on t.e em,loyer to s.ow com,liance wit. t.e following reEuisites for reduction of ,ersonnel5
). Losses or ex,ected losses s.ould (e su(stantial and not merely de minimis/. <.e ex,ected losses must (e reasona(ly imminent# and suc. imminence can (e ,erceived o(:ectively and in good fait. (y t.e em,loyer. 3. It must (e necessary and liDely to ,revent t.e ex,ected losses. <.e em,loyer must .ave taDen ot.er measures to cut costs ot.er t.an la(or costs- and 6. Losses if already realiGed# or t.e ex,ected losses must (e ,roved (y sufficient and convincing evidence. (Lo,eG Sugar Cor,. v. ?ederation of Sugar @orDers. )+* SC!A )2*()**0 .
8oreover# t.e notice reEuirements to (e given (y
em,loyees concerned 30 days ,rior to t.e intended date of termination# as well as t.e reEuisite se,aration ,ay# were not com,lied wit..
suc. a ,olicy. <.e reason is sim,le enoug.. A .ost of relevant factors come into ,lay in determining cost efficient measures and in c.oosing t.e em,loyees w.o will (e retained or se,arated to save t.e com,any from closing s.o,. In determining t.ese issues# management ,lays a ,re-eminent role. <.e c.aracteriGation of ,ositions as redundant is an exercise of (usiness :udgment on t.e ,art of t.e em,loyer. It will (e u,.eld as long as it ,asses t.e test of ar(itrariness.
SUGGESTE7 ANSWER'
Again# in Asian Alco.ol Cor,.# t.e Su,reme Court stated t.at wit. regard t.e ,olicy of Cfirst in# last outC in c.oosing w.ic. ,ositions to declare as redundant or w.om to retrenc. to ,revent furt.er (usiness losses# t.ere is no law t.at mandates
Page 81 of 108
Is t.e action taDen (y t.e em,loyer :ustifiedK (4M SUGGESTE7 ANSWER' <.e em,loyerPs act of terminating t.e em,loyment
of %a(riela is not :ustified. <.ere is no s.owing t.at
evaluation test (y t.e 8a.usay 8edical Center is not t.e certification reEuired for disease to (e a
,ro,er medical treatment. ANOT0ER SUGGESTE7 ANSWER' <.e issues involved are as follows5 ). Is t.ere constructive dismissalK /. Is t.ere a valid exercise of management ,rerogativeK 9n t.e first issue# t.ere is constructive dismissal. !S cannot (e ,laced on Coff-detailC and Cfloating
statusC indefinitely. If it lasts for more t.an six (1
St!t)4 (2004)
!S# a security guard# filed a com,laint for illegal
Fe
alleged .e was constructively dismissed after ten years of service to t.e Agency. Faving (een
constructively dismissed t.us entitling .im to se,aration (enefits. (Su,erstar Security Agency v.
'L!C# )+6 SC!A 26# L)**0N .
,laced on Boff-detailH and Bfloating statusH for 1 mont.s already# .e claimed t.e Agency :ust really wanted to get rid of .im (ecause it reEuired .im to
taDe a neuro-,syc.iatric evaluation test (y
8a.usay 8edical Center. !S said .e already su(mitted t.e result of .is evaluation test (y $rent
8edical Clinic as ,recondition to a new
assignment# (ut t.e re,ort was re:ected (y t.e Agency. !S added t.at 8a.usay 8edical Center .ad close ties wit. Star>s ,resident. It could mani,ulate tests to favor only t.ose guards w.om
t.e Agency wanted to retain. Star defended its ,olicy of reliance on 8a.usay 8edical Center (ecause it .as (een duly accredited (y t.e P.ili,,ine 'ational Police. It is not one of t.ose
,lantation in $uDidnon. In )*20# .e was transferred to t.e general cro,s ,lantation in 8isamis 9riental.
8ansueto was ,romoted to t.e ,osition of a mont.ly ,aid regular su,ervisor four years after. Su(seEuently# researc. activity in 8isamis 9riental
was ,.ased out to 8arc. of )*+/ for .aving
du(ious
re,orts.
testing
centers
issuing
ready-made
w.en a guard ran amucD and s.ot an em,loyee of a client-(anD. Star claimed management ,rerogative in assigning its guards# and ,rayed
t.at !S> com,laint (e dismissed. @.at are t.e issuesK (4M Identify and resolve t.em.
SUGGESTE7 ANSWER' <.e facts in t.e Euestion raise t.ese issues5 ). @.en !S was ,laced on Coff-detailC or Cfloating statusC for more t.an six mont.s# can !S claim t.at .e was terminatedK /. Is t.ere a valid reason for t.e termination of !SK
9n t.e first issue# (ased on ,revailing :uris,rudence# !S can (e considered as terminated (ecause .e .as (een ,laced on Coff
detailC or Cfloating statusC for a ,eriod w.ic. is more t.an six (1 mont.s.
9n t.e second issue# it is true t.at disease is a ground for termination. $ut t.e neuro-,syc.iatric
<.ere is no constructive dismissal (y t.e mere act of transferring an em,loyee. <.e em,loyeePs
contention cannot (e sustained sim,ly (ecause a transfer causes inconvenience. <.ere is no constructive dismissal w.ere# as in P.ili,,ine
com,lainant only if t.e claimant claimed and ,roved t.at .e is entitled to attorneyPs fees. ANOT0ER SUGGESTE7 ANSWER'
Article //0+ of t.e 'ew Civil Code allows t.e award of attorneyPs fees w.en t.e defendantPs act or omission .as com,elled t.e ,laintiff to litigate or
incur ex,enses to ,rotect .is interest. AttorneyPs fees may (e considered as a ,art of an eEuita(le relief awarded in t.e conce,t of damages. 7i4?i44!*: 7) /#2; 44: R H)i# ? "t4 (1994) ) ;istinguis. (etween t.e su(stantive and t.e
?urt.ermore# t.e Court ruled t.at an em,loyee .as no vested rig.t to a ,osition# and in :ustifia(le cases em,loyment may (e terminated.
An em,loyerPs rig.t to security of tenure does not
termination and t.e em,loyer s.ould afford t.e em,loyee to (e terminated am,le o,,ortunity to (e .eard and to defend .imself wit. t.e assistance of
.is re,resentative if .e so desires. (Arts. /2* and /22 (( # La(or Code 7i4?i44!*: 7) /#2; 44: R H)i# ? "t4 (2006) Inday was em,loyed (y Ferrera Im,rovements# Inc. (Ferrera Fome
Fome
dismissed
as interior
SUGGESTE7 ANSWER'
An illegally dismissed em,loyee may collect from .is em,loyer AC<UAL or C98P&'SA<9!I damages# 89!AL damages and &O&8PLA!I damages# as well as attorneyPs fees as damages.
decorator. ;uring t.e first year of .er em,loyment# s.e did not re,ort for worD for one mont.. Fence# .er em,loyer dismissed .er from t.e service. S.e
filed wit. t.e La(or Ar(iter a com,laint for illegal dismissal alleging s.e did not a(andon .er worD and t.at in terminating .er em,loyment# Ferrera Fome de,rived .er of .er rig.t to due ,rocess.
ANOT0ER SUGGESTE7 ANSWER' 8oral and exem,lary damages are only ,ro,er
w.ere t.e em,loyee .as (een .arassed and
,osition ,a,er to (e su(mitted to t.e La(or Ar(iter# ex,lain t.e standards of due ,rocess w.ic. s.ould
.ave (een o(served (y Ferrera Fome in terminating your clientPs em,loyment. (4M SUGGESTE7 ANSWER' <.e La(or Code ,rovides t.e following ,rocedure to (e o(served in terminating t.e services of an
P.ili,,ine Aeolus etc.# vs. C.ua (%.!. 'o. )/61)2# A,ril /+# /000- and Lucas vs. !oyo# %.!. 'o.
)31)+4# 9cto(er 30# /000 . (%) M!& t< L!%2# A#%it #+ NLRC 2# C2)#t 23 A-- !*4 6!*id*& !8!#d !tt2#" &L4 3 4 i" 3!62#
23 ! ;2?-*!i"!"t 6 " i3 "2t ;*!i? d 2# -#26 " i" t< -#2; di"$4M W<&M (>N). SUGGESTE7 ANSWER' A La(or Ar(iter# 'L!C and Court of A,,eals may validly award attorneyPs
fees
/+3 of t.e Code5 a. A written notice must (e served on t.e em,loyee s,ecifying grounds for termination
and giving .im o,,ortunity to answer<.e em,loyee s.all (e given am,le o,,ortunity to
a
in favor
of
counsel- and c A written notice of termination indicating t.e grounds to :ustify .is termination (Aga(on v. 'L!C# %.!. 'o. )4+1*3# )2 'ovem(er /006 .
and could (e :ust cause for t.e termination of .er em,loyment. ALTERNATI9E ANSWER'
<.e case s.ould (e decided in favor of 8arimar# t.e sc.ool teac.er. <.e sc.ool failed to adduce evidence in su,,ort of its claim of immoral conduct on t.e ,art of 8arimar- .ence# its claim Ct.at t.e marriage (etween t.e two (teac.er and student is (est ,roof w.ic. confirm t.e sus,icion t.at 8arimar and Sergio indulged in amorous relations inside t.e classroom after office .oursC is a gratuitous statement. ?urt.ermore# marriage (etween two ,arties of dis,arate ages# even as (etween an older teac.er and a younger student is not an immoral act.
In C.ua Jua v Clave# )+* SC!A ))2 ()**0 a case w.ic. is exactly similar to t.e ,ro(lem# t.e Su,reme Court ruled5
@.ere t.ere is no su(stantial evidence of t.e im,uted immoral acts# it follows t.at t.e alleged violation of t.e Code of &t.ics would .ave no (asis. If t.e two eventually fell in love# des,ite t.e dis,arity on t.eir ages and academic levels# t.is only lends su(stance# to t.e truism t.at t.e .eart .as reasons of its own w.ic. reason does not Dnow. $ut# definitely# yielding to t.is gentle and universal emotion is not to (e casually eEuated wit. immorality. <.e deviation of t.e circumstances of t.eir marriage from t.e usual societal ,attern cannot (e considered as a defiance of contem,orary social norms.
SUGGESTE7 ANSWER' <.e fact t.at 8arimar and Sergio got married is not (y itself sufficient ,roof t.at 8arimar as a 3) year old teac.er# tooD advantage of .er ,osition to court Sergio# a )1-year old student# w.om s.e was tutoring after regular class .ours. <.us# 8arimar could not (e considered as violating t.e sc.oolPs Code of &t.ics w.ic. could .ave (een a valid cause for .er termination. 8arimarPs falling in love wit. .er student cannot (e considered serious misconduct w.ic. is a Just cause for termination of em,loyment.
9f course# if it is ,roven t.at 8arimar and Sergio indulged in amorous relations inside t.e classroom after class .ours# t.is would constitute serious misconduct on t.e ,art of 8arimar as a teac.er
Antonio. ($aguio v. 'L!C# %.!. 'os. 2*0060+# 9cto(er 6# )**) (!) Antonio(s $lai% )or overti%e and other !ene)its/ SUGGESTE7 ANSWER'
I will dismiss AntonioPs claim for overtime and ot.er (enefits for lacD of merit as against Iosi. In legitimate :o( contracting# t.e ,rinci,al em,loyer (Iosi (ecomes :ointly and severally lia(le wit. t.e :o( contractor (@agan only for t.e ,ayment of t.e em,loyeePs (Antonio wages w.enever t.e contractor fails to ,ay t.e same. 9t.er t.an t.at# t.e ,rinci,al em,loyer (Iosi is not res,onsi(le for any ot.er claim made (y t.e em,loyee (Antonio . (San 8iguel Cor,. v. 8A&!C Integrated Services# Inc.# %.!. 'o. )6612/# July )0# /003
Code was inter,reted (y t.e Su,reme Court in Aris P.ili,,ines# Inc. v. 'L!C# as follows5
CIt is not dis,uted t.at ,rivate res,ondent .as done# indeed .e admitted to .ave committed# a serious misconduct. In order to constitute a C:ust causeC for dismissal# .owever# t.e act com,lained of must (e related to t.e ,erformance of t.e duties of t.e em,loyee suc. as would s.ow .im to (e t.ere(y unfit to continue worDing for t.e em,loyer.C 7i4?i44!*: ()4t C!)4 : /#2%!ti2"!#& E?-*2& 4: Ri$<t4 (2006) ;uring t.eir ,ro(ationary em,loyment# eig.t (+ em,loyees were (erated and insulted (y t.eir su,ervisor. In ,rotest# t.ey walDed out. <.e su,ervisor s.outed at t.em to go .ome and never to re,ort (acD to worD. Later# t.e ,ersonnel manager reEuired t.em to ex,lain w.y t.ey s.ould not (e dismissed from em,loyment for a(andonment and failure to Eualify for t.e ,ositions a,,lied for. <.ey filed a com,laint for illegal dismissal against t.eir em,loyer.
As a La(or Ar(iter# .ow will you resolve t.e caseK ()0M SUGGESTE7 ANSWER' As a La(or Ar(iter I will resolve t.e case in favor of t.e eig.t (+ ,ro(ationary em,loyees due to t.e following considerations5 ). Pro(ationary em,loyees also en:oy security of tenure ($i(oso v. Aictoria 8illing# %.!. 'o. L- 66310# 8arc. 3)# )*22 . /. In all cases involving em,loyees on ,ro(ationary status# t.e em,loyer s.all maDe Dnown to t.e em,loyee at t.e time .e is .ired# t.e standards (y w.ic. .e will Eualify for t.e ,ositions a,,lied for. 3. <.e filing of t.e com,laint for illegal dismissal effectively negates t.e em,loyerPs t.eory of a(andonment (!iGada v. 'L!C# %.!. 'o. *1*+/# Se,tem(er /)# )*** . 6. <.e order to go .ome and not to return to worD constitutes dismissal from em,loyment. 4. <.e eig.t (+ ,ro(ationary em,loyees were terminated wit.out :ust cause and wit.out due ,rocess In view of t.e foregoing# I will order reinstatement to t.eir former ,ositions wit.out loss of seniority rig.ts wit. full (acDwages# ,lus damages and attorney fees.
SUGGESTE7 ANSWER' <.e acts of Sergio constituted serious misconduct. <.us# t.ere was :ust cause for .is termination. <.e fact t.at .e was under t.e influence of liEuor at t.e time t.at .e did w.at .e did does not mitigate# instead it aggravates# .is misconduct. $eing under t.e influence of liEuor w.ile at worD is (y itself serious misconduct. ALTERNATI9E ANSWER'
<.e dismissal is not :ustified (ecause t.e serious misconduct committed (y t.e em,loyee is not in connection wit. .is worD. Art. /+/(g of t.e La(or
unsatisfactory (y t.e com,any and JA was ,erem,torily dismissed wit.out any .earing.
<.e day following .is termination from em,loyment. JA filed a case of illegal dismissal
'o# t.e award of se,aration ,ay is not ,ro,er (ecause t.e em,loyee was terminated for serious misconduct and ,ayment of se,aration ,ay will (e
to reward an em,loyee for a wrong doing. In
P.ili,,ine Long ;istance <ele,.one Co.# vs 'L!C# )16 SC!A 12) ()*++ . @e .old t.at .encefort. se,aration ,ay s.all (e allowed as a measure of social :ustice only in t.ose
instances w.ere t.e em,loyee is validly dismissed for causes ot.er t.an serious misconduct or t.ose
reflecting .is moral c.aracter.
<.e ,olicy of social :ustice is not intended to
countenance wrongdoing. Com,assion for t.e ,oor is an im,erative of every .uman society (ut
termination of an em,loyee# t.e La(or Code (in Article /22L(N reEuires t.at t.e em,loyer furnis.
t.e worDer w.ose em,loyment is soug.t to (e terminated a written notice containing a statement
of t.e causes for termination and s.all afford am,le o,,ortunity to (e .eard and to defend
According to t.e La(or Code# S&PA!A<I9' PAI is to (e ,aid to an em,loyee w.ose em,loyment is
terminated due to t.e installation of la(or saving
decide t.e caseK &x,lain (riefly (3M SUGGESTE7 ANSWER' I will decide t.at t.e termination of JA was legal. It was for :ust cause. JAPs misa,,ro,riation of com,any funds and various infractions detrimental
to t.e (usiness of t.e com,any duly ,roven (y su(stantial evidence constitute a willful (reac. (y JA of t.e trust re,osed in .im (y .is em,loyer w.ic. is a :ust cause for termination. (See Article /+/ $ut I will award .im indemnity of# say Pl#000# for t.e failure of t.e em,loyer to give .im due ,rocess.
misconduct.
In t.e case# ;aisy was dismissed (ecause of
em,loyee until A,ril )**0 w.en APs services were terminated due to loss of confidence in A.
Fowever# (efore effecting APs dismissal# $ accorded A due ,rocess including full o,,ortunity
to answer t.e c.arges against .im in t.e course of t.e investigation. @as $ :ustified in dismissing A after t.e investigationK @.yK (4M SUGGESTE7 ANSWER' In t.e case of PL;< vs. 'L!C (%.!. 'o. )01*62# ?e(ruary ))# )*** # t.e Su,reme Court ruled t.at t.e (asic reEuisite for dismissal on t.e ground of loss of confidence is t.at t.e em,loyee concerned must (e one .olding a ,osition of trust and confidence. !anD-and-file em,loyees may only (e dismissed for loss of confidence if t.e same is (ecause of a willful (reac. of trust (y a ranD and file em,loyee of t.e trust re,osed in .im (y .is em,loyer or duly aut.oriGed re,resentative (Art. /+/(c # La(or Code . ANOT0ER SUGGESTE7 ANSWER'
C$C is :ustified in dismissing CAC for loss of confidence after according .im t.e rig.t to ,rocedural due ,rocess. Fowever# t.e following guidelines must (e o(served# as ruled in 'oDom vs. 'L!C# %.!. 'o. )60036. July )+# /0005
). loss of confidence s.ould not (e simulated/. it s.ould not (e used as su(terfuge for causes w.ic. are im,ro,er# illegal or un:ustified3. it may not (e ar(itrarily asserted in t.e face of overw.elming evidence to t.e contrary- and 6. it must (e genuine# not a mere after t.oug.t to :ustify t.eir action
SUGGESTE7 ANSWER' ;ismissal for a JUS< CAUS& is founded on faults or misdeeds of t.e em,loyee. Se,aration ,ay# as a rule# will not (e ,aid. &xam,les5 serious misconduct# willful diso(edience# commission of crime# gross and .a(itual neglect# fraud and ot.er causes analogous to t.e foregoing. (Art /+/# La(or Code . <ermination for AU<F9!IQ&; CAUS&S are (ased on (usiness exigencies or measures ado,ted (y t.e em,loyer# not constituting faults of t.e em,loyee. Payment of se,aration ,ay at varying amounts is reEuired. &xam,les5 redundancy# closure# retrenc.ment# installation of la(or saving device and aut.oriGed cause. (Art. /+3-/+6# La(or Code .
.is sevent. year# .e (ecame a steward of .is la(or union. Since t.en .e (ecame dis,utatious and o(stinate and .is ,erformance fell (elow ,ar. 9ne day .is manager told .im to ,icD u, some documents from a certain (anD w.ic. were needed to close a (usiness transaction. !oman did not o(ey. Fe said .e .ad an im,ortant ,ersonal engagement. 8oreover# .e did not want to drive a ve.icle t.at was not air-conditioned. @.en .is immediate su,ervisor asDed .im in t.e afternoon to drive an air-conditioned car# !oman again refused. Fe said .e did not want to drive as .e wanted to leave t.e office early. !oman was asDed to ex,lain. After .earing .is ex,lanation# !oman was dismissed for willful diso(edience. !oman filed a case for illegal dismissal against t.e ;ou(le-<en Cor,oration wit. ,rayer for reinstatement and full (acD wages wit.out loss of seniority rig.ts# ,lus moral and exem,lary damages and attorneyPs fees. !oman contended t.at since t.ere was no emergency situation and t.ere were ot.er drivers availa(le# .is refusal to drive for t.e manager# and later for .is su,ervisor# was not serious enoug. to warrant .is dismissal. 9n t.e ot.er .and# .e claimed t.at .e was (eing ,unis.ed (ecause of .is activities as a steward of .is union. If you were t.e La(or Ar(iter# would you sustain !omanK ;iscuss fully.
If I were t.e La(or Ar(iter# I will not sustain !oman. It is true t.at it would (e an unfair la(or ,ractice for an em,loyer to discriminate against .is em,loyee for t.e latterPs union activities.
$ut in t.e case# t.e Cor,oration is not discriminating against !oman (ecause .e is a union official. @.en t.e 8anager of !oman told .im to ,icD u, some documents from a certain (anD# t.is was a lawful order and w.en !oman did not o(ey t.e order# .e was diso(edient- and w.en .e diso(eyed a similar reEuest made later in t.e afternoon of same day# .e was guilty of willful diso(edience to do w.at management asDed .im to do. <.is is :ust cause for .is termination.
ALTERNATI9E ANSWER' a 'o. <.e existence of an emergency situation is irrelevant to t.e c.arge of willful diso(edience- an o,,osite ,rinci,le would allow a worDer to s.ield .imself under .is self-designed conce,t of Cnon- emergency situationC to deli(erately defy t.e directive of t.e em,loyer. !oman was given adeEuate o,,ortunity under t.e circumstances to answer t.e c.arge. Fis ex,lanation was taDen into consideration in arriving at t.e decision to dismiss .im.
( If it can (e esta(lis.ed t.at t.e true and (asic motive for t.e em,loyerPs act is derived from t.e
SUGGESTE7 ANSWER'
Page 87 of 108
em,loyeePs union affiliation or activities# t.e allegation (y t.e em,loyer of anot.er reason
). @ill 8ariet ;emetrioPs refusal to transfer 9scar Pimentel was an agent su,ervisor# rising
from t.e ranDs# in a estate. In order to com,any issued a su,ervisors reEuiring agent su,ervisors cor,oration engaged in real ,romote t.e (usiness# t.e memorandum to all agent t.em to su(mit a feasi(ility com,lied exce,t 9scar. constitute t.e offense of insu(ordinationK &x,lain (riefly. (/MT SUGGESTE7 ANSWER' 8ariet ;emetrioPs transfer constitutes t.e offense
study wit.in t.eir res,ective areas of o,eration. All !eminded (y t.e com,any to com,ly wit. t.e memorandum# 9scar ex,lained t.at (eing a dro,out in sc.ool and uneducated# .e would (e una(le
to su(mit t.e reEuired study. <.e com,any found t.e ex,lanation unacce,ta(le and terminated .is em,loyment. Aggrieved# 9scar filed a com,laint for illegal dismissal against t.e com,any. ;ecide t.e
case. SUGGESTE7 ANSWER' ?or failure to com,ly wit. t.e memorandum to su(mit a feasi(ility study on .is area of o,eration#
9scar can not (e terminated (,resuma(ly for
,osition as would de,rive t.e com,any of its ,rerogative to c.ange .is assignment or transfer .im w.ere .e will (e most useful. @.en .is
two reEuisites5 () t.e em,loyeePs assailed conduct must .ave (een willful or intentional# t.e willfulness
(eing c.aracteriGed (y a wrongful and ,erverse
em,loyee and must ,ertain to t.e duties w.ic. .e .ad (een engaged to disc.arge. In t.e case at (ar# at least two reEuisites are a(sent# namely5 () 9scar did not willfully diso(ey t.e memorandum wit. a ,erverse attitude- and (/ t.e directive to maDe a feasi(ility study did not
,ertain to .is duties. Fence# t.e termination from
could (uy food on credit and en:oy a /4M discount ,rovided t.at t.ey ,resent t.eir Identification Card
(I; and wear t.eir com,any uniform. 'iDDo# an
em,loyee of U'IA&!SAL# used t.e I; of %alo# a
co-em,loyee in (uying food at 8A!APS. An alert 8A!APS discovered em,loyee of t.e misre,resentation of 'iDDo (ut not wit.out engaging .im in a .eated argument. 'iDDo (oxed
8A!APS em,loyee resulting in serious ,.ysical in:uries to t.e latter. U'IA&!SAL dismissed 'iDDo from t.e com,any. 'iDDo sued U'IA&!SAL for
illegal dismissal.
invectives at .er in t.e ,resence of em,loyees and visitors for a minor infraction s.e committed. 8ariet
was reduced to tears out of s.ame and felt so
(itter a(out t.e incident t.at s.e filed a civil case
for damages against t.e com,any ,resident (efore t.e regular courts. Soon t.ereafter# 8ariet received a memorandum transferring .er to t.e 9ffice of t.e
%eneral 8anager wit.out demotion in ranD or diminution in ,ay. 8ariet refused to transfer.
@it. res,ect to t.e civil suit for damages# t.e com,any lawyer filed a 8otion to ;ismiss for lacD
<.e facts are not clear w.et.er t.e canteen is wit.in t.e com,any ,remises. If it is# t.en t.e act of 'iDDo in (oxing 8araPs em,loyee may (e considered as a valid ground for disci,linary action. Fowever# in t.is case# t.e ,enalty of dismissal is not commensurate to t.e misconduct allegedly committed.
7i4?i44!*: ()4t C!)4 4: Q)it;*!i?4 (1999) Can a final and executory :udgment (e com,romised under a C!elease and JuitclaimC for a lesser amountK (3M SUGGESTE7 ANSWER'
Ies# as long as t.e C!elease and JuitclaimC is signed (y t.e very same ,erson entitled to receive w.atever is to (e ,aid under t.e final and executory :udgment t.at was t.e su(:ect of t.e com,romise agreement and t.at t.e C!elease and JuitclaimC was signed voluntarily. In Al(a Patio de 8aDati v. 'L!C5 A final and executory :udgment can no longer (e altered# even if t.e modification is meant to correct w.at is ,erceived to (e an erroneous conclusion of fact or law# and regardless of w.et.er t.e modification is attem,ted to (e made (y t.e court rendering it or (y t.e .ig.est court of t.e land. 8oreover# a )inal and e2e$#tor& -#d*%ent $annot !e ne*otiated# .ence# any act to su(vert it is contem,tuous.
It was incum(ent u,on t.e counsel for t.e com,lainant to .ave seen to it t.at t.e interest of all com,lainants was ,rotected. <.e Euitclaim and t.e release in t.e ,re,aration of w.ic. .e assisted clearly worDed to t.e grave disadvantage of t.e com,lainants. <o render t.e decision of t.is Court meaningless (y ,aying t.e (acD-wages of t.e affected em,loyees in a muc. lesser amount clearly manifested a willful disres,ect of t.e aut.ority of t.is Court as t.e final ar(iter of cases (roug.t to it.
A )inal and e2e$#tor& -#d*%ent $annot !e $o%pro%ised #nder a 3Release and 4#it$lai% C if said C!elease and Juitclaim is clearly to t.e grave disadvantage of t.e affected em,loyees (y ,aying t.em muc. lesser amounts t.an w.at t.ey were entitled to receive under t.e :udgment. (See Al(a Patio de 8aDati vs. 'L!C# /0) SC!A 344 . 2= M!& !" 2#di"!#& #!"GB!"dB3i* ?-*2& % t #?i"!t d 32# *244 23 t#)4t !"d ;2"3id "; M I3 42+ 8<!t -#223 i4 # H)i# dM I3 "2t+ 8<& "2tM
() vote for or assent to ,atently unlawful acts of t.e cor,oration(/ act in (ad fait. or wit. gross negligence in directing t.e cor,orate affairs(3 are guilty of conflict of Interest to t.e ,re:udice of t.e cor,oration# its stocD.olders or mem(ers# and ot.er ,ersons.
In la(or cases# t.e Su,reme Court .as .eld cor,orate directors and officers solidarity lia(le wit. t.e cor,oration for t.e termination of em,loyment of em,loyees done wit. malice or (ad fait.. (Sunio v. 'L!C. )/2 SC!A 3*0- %eneral $anD and <rust Co. v. Court of A,,eals# )34 SC!A 14* .
7i4?i44!*: Li!%i*it&: C2#-2#!t O33i; #4 (199.) Are t.e ,rinci,al officers of a cor,oration lia(le in t.eir ,ersonal ca,acity for non-,ayment of un,aid wages and ot.er monetary (enefits due its em,loyeesK SUGGESTE7 ANSWER' As a general rule# t.e o(ligations incurred (y t.e ,rinci,al officers and em,loyees of a cor,oration are not t.eirs (ut t.e direct
ALTERNATI9E ANSWER' 'o. Unless t.ey are guilty of malice or (ad fait. in connection wit. t.e non-,ayment of un,aid wages and ot.er monetary (enefits due to em,loyees.
7i4?i44!*: /!** R i"4t!t ? "t (200,) (c @.at is meant (y C,ayroll reinstatementC and w.en does it a,,lyK (6M SUGGESTE7 ANSWER' Page '( of 108
motion of t.e interested ,arty. (See Article //6 2= M!& t< NLRC 2#d # t< -!** # i"4t!t ? "t 23 S<!#2" C2? t!M W<&M (2N) SUGGESTE7 ANSWER: <.e 'L!C may '9< order t.e ,ayroll
7i4?i44!*: /!** R i"4t!t ? "t: R i"4t!t ? "t O#d # (1999) ?AC<S5 In t.e illegal dismissal case filed (y
reinstatement of S.aron Cometa. <.e La(or Code (Article //3 ,rovides t.at in t.e immediate
reinstatement of a dismissed em,loyee# t.e
immediate reinstatement and ,ayment of full (acDwages. <.e Com,any a,,ealed to t.e 'L!C.
?ollowing .er lawyerPs advise t.at t.e
t.e reinstatement of t.e em,loyee in t.e ,ayroll is at t.e o,tion of t.e em,loyer and not of t.e 'L!C
or t.e La(or Ar(iter w.o .ave t.e ,ower only to direct reinstatement. 7i4?i44!*: R i"4t!t ? "t (1994)
reinstatement. @.en t.e Com,any refused# .er lawyer# Atty. 8aximiano Anunciacion# filed a motion to cite t.e em,loyer in contem,t. Acting on
t.e motion# t.e 'L!C ordered t.e ,ayroll reinstatement of S.aron Cometa. 1= C!" t< ;2?-!"& 2# !"& 23 it4 233i;i!*4 %
SUGGESTE7 ANSWER'
Ies. <.e com,any or any of its officials can (e
cited for contem,t. It is noted t.at in .is decision#
t.e La(or Ar(iter s,ecifically directed t.e immediate reinstatement of S.aron Cometa. <.is
reinstatement will not ,re:udice t.e em,loyee# (ecause tec.nicalities of law and ,rocedure are
immediately executory# even ,ending a,,eal. ?I!S<LI# .e can admit t.e dismissed
em,loyee (acD to worD under t.e same terms and conditions ,revailing ,rior to .is dismissal or se,aration or to a su(stantially eEuivalent ,osition if t.e former ,osition is already filled
u,.
S&C9';LI# t.e em,loyer can (e reinstated in t.e ,ayroll. ?ailing to exercise any of t.e a(ove
o,tions# t.e em,loyer can (e com,elled under PAI' 9? C9'<&8P<# to ,ay instead t.e salary of t.e em,loyee effective from t.e date t.e em,loyer failed to reinstate des,ite an executory writ of execution served u,on .im. Under Art. /)+ of t.e La(or Code# t.e 'L!C .as t.e ,ower to cite ,ersons for direct and indirect contem,t. ANOT0ER ALTERNATI9E ANSWER'
Page () of 108
LABOR LAW Bar Q & A (as arranged by Topics) 19942006 (4 @.en t.e em,loyer .as lost .is trust and
cause for termination- Fearing- and 'otice of <ermination. <.e La(or Code reads5 A. 'otice and Fearing Art# /22. 8iscellaneous ,rovisions. - xxx
(( xxx <.e em,loyer s.all furnis. t.e worDer
.e is to (e reinstated(/ @.en .e is already dead(3 @.en reinstatement will not serve t.e interest of t.e ,arties- and (6 @.en .e .as o(tained regular and eEuivalent su(stantially em,loyment
elsew.ere.
SC!A 2 ()**)
xxx 'ot only must t.e dismissal (e for a valid or unaut.oriGed cause as ,rovided (y law xxx (ut
t.e rudimentary reEuirements of due ,rocess -
;U& P!9C&SS (y t.e em,loyer. ?or termination of em,loyment (ased on any of t.e
(UST CAUSES for termination# t.e reEuirements
). A @!I<<&' '9<IC& s.ould (e served on t.e em,loyee s,ecifying t.e ground or grounds for reasona(le o,,ortunity wit.in w.ic. to ex,lain .is side. /. A F&A!I'% or C9'?&!&'C& s.ould (e .eld during w.ic. t.e em,loyee concerned# wit. t.e
assistance of counsel if t.e em,loyee so
t.e evidence ,resented against .im. 3. A @!I<<&' '9<IC& 9? <&!8I'A<I9'# if termination is t.e decision of t.e em,loyer#
s.ould (e served on t.e em,loyee indicating t.at u,on due consideration of all t.e
$oard !oom# wit.out counsel or re,resentative# in connection wit. t.e investigation of t.e foreclosed
cas. registers w.ic. you sold wit.out aut.ority.C 8r. $ato .imself conducted t.e investigation# and two (/ days t.ereafter# .e dismissed JoDo. <.e
stating t.e
(anD ,remised its action in dismissing JoDo solely on t.e latterPs admission of t.e offense im,uted to
Page (
of 108
.im (y t.e '$I in its interrogation on Se,tem(er 3# )**+. Aside from t.is sworn statement# no ot.er evidence was ,resented (y t.e (anD to esta(lis. t.e cul,a(ility of JoDo in t.e fraudulent sale of t.e (anDPs foreclosed ,ro,erties. ). Is t.e dismissal of JoDo ;iaG (y 'ort.Sout. $anD legally :ustifiedK &x,lain (riefly. (3M SUGGESTE7 ANSWER' <.e dismissal of JoDo ;iaG (y 'ort.-Sout. $anD is not legally :ustified# ;iaG was not given t.e reEuired due ,rocess (y t.e $anD. Fe s.ould .ave (een given a written notice t.at .e was (eing terminated and a statement of t.e causes for .is termination. Fe was instead given a :ust notice a(out an investigation relative to an incident.
It was also contrary to law for t.e $anD to tell ;iaG t.at .e s.ould attend t.e investigation Cwit.out counsel or re,resentative.C Instead# .e s.ould .ave (een afforded as ,rovided in t.e La(or Code (in Article /22 L(N am,le o,,ortunity to (e .eard and to defend .imself wit. t.e assistance of .is re,resentative if .e so desires.
If t.e evidence t.at was t.e (asis for t.e termination of JoDo ;iaG was only .is own statement CextractedC from .im (y t.e '$I w.en JoDo was wit.out t.e assistance of counsel# t.en t.e statement cannot (e su(stantial evidence for JoDoPs termination. ALTERNATI9E ANSWER' 'o. Under Sec. )/ of Art. in of t.e )*+2 Constitution any Cconfession or admission o(tained in violation of Sec. )/ and )2 s.all (e inadmissi(le in evidence against .imC. Since t.e sole (asis for .is dismissal was t.e confession ,rocured (y t.e '$I in violation of .is rig.t to counsel w.ic. is inadmissi(le for any ,ur,ose and any ,roceeding including an administrative case# .is dismissal is illegal. ;iaGPs termination is liDewiseillegal (ecause .e was de,rived of .is rig.t to due ,rocess since during t.e investigation .e was reEuired to attend wit.out counsel or re,resentative. /. Can !eu(en PadillaPs ,artici,ation in t.e fraudulent sale of t.e (anDPs foreclosed ,ro,erties (e made to rest solely on t.e unilateral declaration of JoDo ;iaGK @.yK (/M SUGGESTE7 ANSWER' 'o. <.e unilateral declaration of JoDo# w.ere JoDo .as not (een su(:ected to crossexaminations cannot (e considered as su(stantial evidence- it is :ust .earsay. ALTERNATI9E ANSWER'
'o. <.e unilateral declaration of JoDo is not enoug.. Suc. declaration must (e corro(orated (y
very least# w.at t.e $anD s.ould do s.ould (e to confront !eu(en Padilla wit. t.e declaration of JoDo (Century <extile 8ills# Inc. vs. 'L!C# )1) SC!A1/+ .
case of illegal dismissal t.at Atty. 9liGa may .ave filed# .e is found to (e grossly incom,etent# t.is is :ust cause for .is dismissal. (Art. /22(( # La(or Code ALTERNATI9E ANSWER'
Ies. <.e examinee su(mits t.at Atty. 9liGaPs case will ,ros,er. @ell-settled is t.e rule t.at even managerial em,loyees are entitled to t.e constitutional guarantee of security of tenure. In t.e case at (ar# t.ere was a clear de,rivation of Atty. 9liGaPs rig.t to due ,rocess. <.e (lanDet accusation of Cincom,etenceC .ardly Eualifies as com,liance wit. t.e su(stantive reEuirements for an em,loyeePs dismissal. <.e written notice t.at .is services were no longer needed also fall s.ort of t.e ,rocedural reEuirements of notice and o,,ortunity to (e .eard# t.e twin ingredients of due ,rocess. / <.e La(or Code gives t.e Secretary of La(or and &m,loyment t.e ,ower to sus,end t.e effects of a termination made (y an em,loyer ,ending resolution of a la(or dis,ute in t.e event of a ,rima facie finding (y t.e ;e,artment of La(or and &m,loyment (efore w.om suc. dis,ute is ,ending t.at t.e termination may cause serious la(or dis,ute or is in im,lementation of a mass lay-off. <.e termination of Atty. 9liGa does not cause a serious la(or dis,ute considering t.at .e is a
) @ill .is case ,ros,erK / Pending .earing# may Atty. 9liGa asD t.e Secretary of La(or to sus,end t.e effects of t.e termination of t.e services of an em,loyee and to order .is tem,orary reinstatementK SUGGESTE7 ANSWER' ) Fis case will ,ros,er. Fe was not given ,rocedural due ,rocess. Fe was not given t.e reEuired notice# namely# a written notice containing a statement of t.e causes for termination# and .e was not afforded am,le o,,ortunity to (e .eard and to defend .imself. $ut if# (efore t.e La(or Ar(iter# in a .earing of t.e
managerial em,loyee. It is not in im,lementation of a mass lay-off. <.us# ,ending .earing# t.e Secretary of La(or and &m,loyment may not sus,end t.e effects of t.e termination and order .is tem,orary reinstatement. (Art. /22L(N
Pending a,,eal# w.at rig.ts are availa(le to Juan relative to t.e favora(le decision of t.e La(or Ar(iterK &x,lain. SUGGESTE7 ANSWER' Juan can asD for immediate reinstatement ,ending resolution of t.e a,,eal filed (y t.e com,any wit. t.e 'L!C. At t.e o,tion of .is em,loyer# .e may (e admitted (acD to worD or merely reinstated in t.e ,ayroll.
Juan ;uD.a asDs for immediate reinstatement wit. full (acD wages and wit.out loss of seniority rig.ts. @ill t.e com,laint of Juan ;uD.a for illegal dismissal ,ros,erK &x,lain. SUGGESTE7 ANSWER' Ies# t.ere may (e :ust cause for terminating Juan ;uD.a. $ut .e was not accorded t.e reEuired due ,rocess of law. ALTERNATI9E ANSWER'
<.e com,laint of Juan ;uD.a for illegal dismissal will ,ros,er in t.e sense t.at t.e com,laint will (e .eard (y a La(or Ar(iter. Fis (eing (arred from entering com,any ,remises is tantamount to dismissal. In t.e .earings# t.e em,loyer will .ave t.e (urden of ,roving t.at t.ere is :ust cause for terminating Juan# ,ossi(ly on t.e (asis of willful (reac. of trust. 9n t.e ot.er .and# Juan will (e given t.e o,,ortunity to ,rove t.at .is failure to remit .is collection is not (ecause of dis.onesty#
/. Assuming t.at .e cannot (e reinstated# w.at rig.t can .e immediately assert against .is em,loyerK &x,lain. SUGGESTE7 ANSWER' Assuming t.at Juan cannot (e reinstated (ecause t.ere is :ust cause for .is dismissal# .e would nevert.eless (e entitled to an indemnity from .is em,loyer# (ecause .e was denied due ,rocess of law (y said em,loyer. ALTERNATI9E ANSWER' Juan can ,ursue t.e case of illegal dismissal (efore a La(or Ar(iter w.ere .e will assert t.e rig.t to defend .imself# ie.# to ex,lain .is failure to remit .is collections. 3. Su,,ose Juan ;uD.a ,roved during t.e .earing t.at .e was ro((ed of .is collections and# conseEuently# t.e La(or Ar(iter decided in .is favor. In t.e meantime# t.e Ladies %arments Com,any a,,ealed to t.e 'ational La(or !elations Commission ('L!C .
SUGGESTE7 ANSWER' <.e ruling of t.e 'L!C affirming t.e La(or Ar(iterPs decision ordering Lyric <.eater to ,ay P))4#6/0.2* re,resenting se,aration ,ay and (acDwages is wrong. <.e La(or Ar(iterPs decision is wrong (ecause5 a It is ,remature. <.ere was still no termination. All t.at was done (y t.e em,loyer (Lyric <.eater was to ,lace t.e em,loyee (8elody under a /0-day sus,ension# meanw.ile directing .er to ex,lain w.y s.e s.ould not (e dismissed for violation of com,anyPs memoranda.
( <.e order for Lyric <.eater to ,ay se,aration ,ay .as no factual (asis. Se,aration ,ay is to (e ,aid to an em,loyee w.o is terminated due to t.e Installation of la(or saving devices# redundancy# retrenc.ment to ,revent losses or t.e closing or cessation of o,eration of t.e esta(lis.ment undertaDing. 'one of t.ese events .as taDen ,lace. 'eit.er is se,aration ,ay .ere in lieu of reinstatement. 8elody is not entitled to reinstatement (ecause t.ere Is a :ust cause for .er termination.
Page (# of 108
<.e order for Lyric <.eater to ,ay (acDwages .as no factual (asis. If after investigation# Lyric <.eater dismisses 8elody# t.ere is :ust cause for suc. termination. <.ere is willful diso(edience (y t.e em,loyee of t.e lawful orders of .er em,loyer in connection wit. .er worD. S.e did not :ust violate t.e lawful order of t.e em,loyer. S.e violated it five times. 8elody did not give any :ustifia(le reason for violating t.e com,anyPs memorandum ,ro.i(iting t.e encas.ment of c.ecDs. LJo Cinema Cor,. v. Avellana# %! 'o. )3/+32# June /+# /00)N
E?-*2& E?-*2&
<omas and CruG .ave (een em,loyed for t.e last // years in various ca,acities on (oard t.e s.i,s of $A!U9 S.i,,ing Com,any. <.eir em,loyment was made t.roug. a local manning com,any. <.ey .ave signed several ten ()0 mont. em,loyment contracts wit. $A!U9 S.i,,ing. <.e 'L!C ruled t.at t.ey were contractual em,loyees and t.at t.eir em,loyment was terminated eac. time t.eir contracts ex,ired is t.e ruling of t.e 'L!C correctK &x,lain your answer fully. (4M
SUGGESTE7 ANSWER' Ies. A contract of em,loyment for a definite ,eriod terminates (y its own terms at t.e end of suc. ,eriod. Since <omas and CruG signed ten ()0 - mont. contracts# t.eir em,loyment terminates (y its own terms at t.e end of eac. ten ()0 -mont. ,eriod. <.e decisive determinant in term em,loyment s.ould not (e t.e activities t.at t.e em,loyee is called u,on to ,erform (ut t.e day certain agreed u,on (y t.e ,arties for t.e commencement and termination of t.eir em,loyment relation (not t.e c.aracter of .is duties as (eing Cusually necessary or desira(le in t.e usual (usiness of t.e em,loyerC . Sti,ulation in t.e em,loyment contracts ,roviding for Cterm em,loymentC or Cfixed ,eriod em,loymentC are valid w.en t.e ,eriod are agreed u,on Dnowingly and voluntarily (y t.e ,arties wit.out force# duress or im,ro,er ,ressure exerted on t.e em,loyeeand w.en suc. sti,ulations were not designed to circumvent t.e laws on security of tenure. L$rent Sc.ool v. Qamora# )+) SC!A 20/ ()**0 N
8oreover# in $rent Sc.ool v. Qamora# su,ra# t.e Su,reme Court stated t.at Art. /+0 of t.e La(or Code does not a,,ly to overseas em,loyment. In Pa(lo Coyoca v. 'L!C# /63 SC!A )*0# ()**4 # t.e Su,reme Court also .eld t.at a seafarer is not a
governed (y t.e rules and regulations governing overseas em,loyment and t.e said rules do not ,rovide for se,aration or termination ,ay. ?rom t.e foregoing cases# it is clear t.at seafarers are considered contractual em,loyees. <.ey cannot (e considered as regular em,loyees under Art /+0 of t.e La(or Code. <.eir em,loyment is governed (y t.e contracts t.ey sign every time t.ey are re.ired and t.eir em,loyment is terminated w.en t.e contract ex,ires. <.eir em,loyment is contractually fixed for a certain ,eriod of time. <.ey fall under t.e exce,tion of Art /+0 w.ose em,loyment .as (een fixed for a s,ecific ,ro:ect or undertaDing t.e com,letion or termination of w.ic. .as (een determined at t.e time of engagement of t.e em,loyee or w.ere t.e worD or services to (e ,erformed is seasonal in nature and t.e em,loyment is for t.e duration of t.e season. @e need not de,art from t.e rulings of t.is court in t.e two aforementioned cases w.ic. indeed constitute stare decisis wit. res,ect to t.e em,loyment status of seafarers. L;ouglas 8illares v. 'L!C# et. al. 3/+ SC!A 2*# (/000 N <.erefore# <omas and CruG are contractual em,loyees. <.e ruling of t.e 'L!C is correct.
years cannot (ut (e a,,reciated as sufficient evidence of t.e necessity and indis,ensa(ility of ,etitionerPs service to t.e Lem,loyerPsN trade. Aerily# as ,etitioners .ad rendered /0 years of service# ,erforming activities t.at were necessary and desira(le in t.e trade (of t.e em,loyer # t.ey are# (y ex,ress ,rovision of Art. /+0 of t.e La(or Code# considered regular em,loyees. L8illares v. 'L!C# 3/+ SC!A 2* (/000 N
E?-*2& : C2"t#!;t)!* W2#G # 64= C!4)!* W2#G # (200,) Fow is t.e ,ro:ect worDer different from a casual or contractual worDerK $riefly ex,lain your answers. ALTERNATI9E ANSWER'
A CC9'<!AC<UAL @9!U&!C is a generic term used to designate any worDer covered (y a written contract to ,erform a s,ecific undertaDing for a fixed ,eriod. 9n t.e ot.er .and# a CP!9J&C< @9!U&!C is used to designate worDers in t.e construction industry# .ired to ,erform a s,ecific undertaDing for a fixed ,eriod# co-terminus wit. a ,ro:ect or ,.ase t.ereof determined at t.e time of t.e engagement of t.e em,loyee. (Policy Instruction 'o. )*# ;9L& In addition# to (e considered a true ,ro:ect worDer# it is reEuired t.at a termination re,ort (e su(mitted to t.e nearest ,u(lic em,loyment office u,on t.e com,letion of t.e construction ,ro:ect. (Aurora Land Pro:ects Cor,. v. 'L!C# %.!. 'o. ))6233# January /# )**2
Page (, of 108
In contrast# t.ere is no suc. reEuirement for an ordinary contractual worDer. ALTERNATI9E ANSWER'
A P!9J&C< @9!U&! ,erforms :o( t.at is necessary and desira(le to t.e nature of t.e (usiness of t.e em,loyer. 9n t.e ot.er .and# a CASUAL @9!U&! ,erforms :o( t.at is not necessary or desira(le to t.e nature of t.e (usiness of t.e em,loyer. (Art. /+0# La(or Code A ,ro:ect worDer (ecomes a regular em,loyee if t.e em,loyer fails to su(mit as many re,orts to t.e ;9L& on terminations as t.ere were ,ro:ects actually finis.ed. (Audion &lectric Co. v. 'L!C# %.!. 'o. )0116+# June )2# )*** 9n t.e ot.er .and# a casual worDer (ecomes a regular em,loyee if .e .as rendered service for at least one () year w.et.er t.e same is continuous or (roDen. (Art. /+0# La(or Code
E?-*2&
: /#2%!ti2"!#& E?-*2&
4 (1995)
<.e services of an em,loyee were terminated u,on t.e com,letion of t.e ,ro(ationary ,eriod of em,loyment for failure to Eualify# for t.e ,osition. <.e em,loyee filed a com,laint for Illegal ;ismissal on t.e ground t.at t.e em,loyer failed to inform .im in writing t.e reasona(le standards for regular em,loyment.
@ill t.e com,laint for Illegal ;ismissal ,ros,erK L4MN SUGGESTE7 ANSWER' Ies# t.e Com,laint for Illegal ;ismissal will ,ros,er. <.e La(or Code ,rovides5 Art. /+). P!9$A<I9'A!I &8PL9I8&'<# xxr <.e services of an em,loyee w.o .as (een engaged on a ,ro(ationary (asis may (e terminated xxx w.en .e fails to Eualify as a regular em,loyee in accordance wit. reasona(le standards made Dnown to t.e em,loyee at t.e time of .is engagement. <.e Su,reme Court in A.8. 9reta and Co.# Inc. v. 'L!C# )21 SC!A /)+ ()*+* # ruled5
<.e law is clear to t.e effect t.at in all cases involving em,loyees engaged on ,ro(ationary (asis# t.e em,loyer s.all maDe Dnown to t.e em,loyee at t.e time .e is .ired# t.e standards (y w.ic. .e will Eualify as a regular em,loyee.
<.e failure of t.e em,loyer to inform t.e em,loyee of t.e Eualification for regulariGation is fatal. <.e failure violates t.e rules of fair ,lay w.ic. is a c.eris.ed conce,t in la(or law. ANOT0ER SUGGESTE7 ANSWER'
<.e com,laint for illegal dismissal will ,ros,er. <.e La(or Code (in Article /+) ,rovides t.at a ,ro(ationary em,loyee may (e terminated w.en .e fails to Eualify as a regular em,loyee in accordance wit. reasona(le standards made
of t.e latterPs engagement. In t.e Euestion# t.e ,ro(ationary em,loyee was not informed of suc. reasona(le standards at t.e time .e was em,loyed. <.us# if .e is to (e legally terminated# it s.ould (e (ecause of gross and .a(itual neglect of duties.
E?-*2& : /#2%!ti2"!#& E?-*2& 4 (2001) @.at limitations# if any# do t.e law and :uris,rudence im,ose on an em,loyerPs rig.t to terminate t.e services of a ,ro(ationary em,loyeeK (/M SUGGESTE7 ANSWER'
<.e La(or Code Lin Art. /+) ,rovides t.at t.e services of an em,loyee w.o .as (een engaged on a ,ro(ationary (asis may (e terminated for a :ust cause or w.en .e fails to Eualify as a regular em,loyee in accordance wit. reasona(le standards made Dnown (y t.e em,loyer to t.e em,loyee at t.e time of .is engagement. If t.e ,ro(ationary em,loyee is (eing terminated for :ust cause# .e must# of course# (e given due ,rocess (efore .is termination#
,erform activities w.ic. are usually necessary or desira(le in t.e usual (usiness or trade of t.e em,loyer. 9n t.e ot.er .and# a P!9J&C< &8PL9I&& is one w.ose em,loyment is fixed for a s,ecific ,ro:ect or undertaDing- t.e com,letion or termination of w.ic. .as (een determined at t.e time of t.e engagement of t.e em,loyee. (See Art. /+0 of t.e La(or Code
4 64=
8ariano 8artillo was a mason em,loyed (y t.e A$C Construction Com,any. &very time t.at A$C .ad a ,ro:ect# it would enter into an em,loyment contract wit. 8artillo for a fixed ,eriod t.at coincided wit. t.e need for .is services# usually for a duration of t.ree to six mont.s. Since t.e last ,ro:ect involved t.e construction of a 60-storey (uilding# 8artillo was contracted for )6 mont.s. ;uring t.is ,eriod# A$C granted wage increases to its regular em,loyees# com,osed mostly of engineers and ranD-and-file construction worDers as a result of t.e :ust concluded C$A negotiations# feeling aggrieved and discriminated against# 8artillo and ot.er similarly-situated ,ro:ect worDers demanded t.at increases (e extended to t.em# inasmuc. as t.ey s.ould now (e considered regular em,loyees and mem(ers of t.e (argaining unit. $riefly ex,lain your answers. (1M
E?-*2& : /#2A ;t E?-*2& 64= R $)*!# E?-*2& (1996) ;istinguis. t.e ,ro:ect em,loyees from regular em,loyees. SUGGESTE7 ANSWER'
A !&%ULA! &8PL9I&& is one engaged to
Page ($ of 108
(a If you were A$CPs legal counsel# .ow would you res,ond to t.is demandK ALTERNATI9E ANSWER'
<.e demand is wit.out legal (asis. <.e sim,le fact t.at t.e em,loyment of ,etitioners as ,ro:ect em,loyees .ad gone (eyond one () year does not detract from# or legally dissolve# t.eir status as ,ro:ect em,loyees. <.e second ,aragra,. of Article /+0 of t.e La(or Code# ,roviding t.at an em,loyee w.o .as served for at least one () year s.all (e considered a regular em,loyee# relates to casual em,loyees# not to ,ro:ect em,loyees. (ALU<UCP v. 'L!C# %.!. 'o. )0**0/# August /# )**6 In t.e case of 8ercado# Sr. v. 'L!C# %.!. 'o. 2*+1*# Se,tem(er 4# )**)# t.e Su,reme Court ruled t.at t.e ,roviso in t.e second ,aragra,. of Article /+0 of t.e La(or Code relates only to casual em,loyees and is not a,,lica(le to t.ose w.o fall wit.in t.e definition of said ArticlePs first ,aragra,.# i.e.# ,ro:ect em,loyees. <.e familiar rule is t.at a ,roviso is to (e construed wit. reference to t.e immediately ,receding ,art of t.e ,rovision to w.ic. it is attac.ed# unless t.ere is clear legislative intent to t.e contrary. 'o suc. intent is o(serva(le in Article /+0 of t.e La(or Code.
ALTERNATI9E ANSWER'
If I were A$CPs legal counsel# I will argue t.at t.e ,ro:ect worDers are not regular em,loyees (ut fixed-term em,loyees. Sti,ulation in em,loyment contracts ,roviding for term em,loyment or fixed ,eriod were agreed u,on Dnowingly and voluntarily (y t.e ,arties wit.out force# duress or im,ro,er ,ressure# (eing (roug.t to (ear u,on t.e em,loyee and a(sent any ot.er circumstances vitiating .is consent# or w.ere it satisfactorily a,,ears t.at t.e em,loyer and em,loyee dealt wit. eac. ot.er on more or less eEual terms wit. no moral dominance w.atever (eing exercised (y t.e former over t.e latter. (Pangilinan v. %eneral 8illing Cor,.# %.!. 'o. )6*3/*# July )/# /006
,erformance during .er last stint was C(elow average.C Since t.ere was no union to re,resent .er# Uitc.ie seeDs your advice as a la(or lawyer a(out .er c.ances of getting .er :o( (acD. @.at will your advice (eK (4M ALTERNATI9E ANSWER'
<.e re,eated re.iring and t.e continuing need of Uitc.iePs services for 6 years are sufficient evidence of t.e necessity and indis,ensa(ility of .er services to FI<&CPs (usiness or trade. (8agsalin v. 'ational 9rganiGation for @orDing 8en# et al.# %.!. 'o. )6+6*/# 8ay *# /003 @.ere a ,erson t.us engaged .as (een ,erforming t.e :o( for at least one year# even if t.e ,erformance is not continuous or is merely intermittent# t.e law deems t.e em,loyment as regular wit. res,ect to suc. activity and w.ile suc. activity exists. (Paguio v. 'L!C# %.!. 'o. )62+)1# 8ay *# /003 Fence# !itc.ie is considered a regular em,loyee of FI<&C and as suc.# s.e cannot (e terminated exce,t for cause and only after due ,rocess.
em,loyee.
E?-*2&
: R $)*!# E?-*2&
4 (1994)
Aldric. Qamora# a welder# was .ired on ?e(ruary )*2/ (y Asian Contractors Cor,oration (ACC for a ,ro:ect. Fe was made to sign a contract sti,ulating t.at .is services were (eing .ired for t.e com,letion of t.e ,ro:ect# (ut not later t.an ;ecem(er 30# )*2/# w.ic.ever comes first.
After ;ecem(er )*2/# Qamora# (eing a man of many talents# was .ired for different ,ro:ects of ACC in various ca,acities# suc. as car,enter# electrician and ,lum(er. In all of t.ese engagements# Qamora signed a contract similar to .is first contract exce,t for t.e estimated com,letion dates of t.e ,ro:ect for w.ic. .e was .ired.
@.at is QamoraPs status wit. ACCK Is .e a contract worDer# a ,ro:ect em,loyee# a tem,orary or a regular em,loyeeK State your reason.
ALTERNATI9E ANSWER'
I will advice Uitc.ie to file a case of constructive dismissal wit. t.e !egional Ar(itration (ranc. of t.e 'L!C .aving territorial :urisdiction over t.e worD,lace of t.e com,lainant (ecause t.e constant re-.iring of Uitc.ie maDes .er a regular
SUGGESTE7 ANSWER' Qamora could (e a ,ro:ect em,loyee if .is worD is coterminous wit. t.e ,ro:ect for w.ic. .e was .ired.
$ut in t.e case# Qamora was re.ired after t.e com,letion of every ,ro:ect t.roug.out t.e ,eriod of .is em,loyment wit. t.e com,any w.ic. ranged
Page (% of 108
for Euite a long time. <.us# .e s.ould (e considered a regular em,loyee# (P.ili,,ine 'ational Construction Cor,oration vs. 'ational La(or !elations Commission# et al# %.! 'o. *4+)1# /2 9cto(er )*2/. J. %rino-AEuino
ALTERNATI9E ANSWER' a Qamora is a regular em,loyee (ecause .e was engaged to worD in various ,ro:ects of ACC for a considera(le lengt. of time# on an activity t.at is usually necessary desira(le in t.e usual (usiness or trade of ACC. (8e.ita(el ?urniture vs. 'L!C# //0 SC!A 10/
( Qamora is a regular em,loyee. Article /+0 of t.e La(or Code declares wit. unmistaDa(le clarity5 <F& P!9AISI9'S 9? @!I<<&' A%!&&8&'< <9 <F& C9'<!A!I '9<@I<FS<A';I'%# xxx an em,loyment s.all (e deemed to (e regular w.ere t.e em,loyee .as (een engaged to ,erform activities w.ic. are usually necessary or desira(le in t.e usual (usiness or trade of t.e em,loyer.C Fe is not a C9'<!AC< or <&8P9!A!I @9!U&! (ecause even t.e ,rovisions of t.e simulated contracts were not followed w.en .is :o( was used continuously. Fe is not a ,ro:ect em,loyee# as t.e term is understood in Art. /+0 or under Policy Instruction 'o. /0.
E?-*2&
: R $)*!# E?-*2&
4 (199,)
IL&C9 is an electric coo,erative w.ic. acce,ted fres. graduates from a vocational sc.ool as lineman trainees for six (1 mont.s after w.ic. t.ey were .ired as ,ro(ationary em,loyees for anot.er ten ()0 mont.s. <.ereafter# t.ey were made regular em,loyees. <.ese em,loyees t.en soug.t entitlement to salary increases under t.e existing Collective $argaining Agreement (C$A w.ic. were given at t.e time w.en t.ey were not yet regular em,loyees# .ence# not yet mem(ers of t.e em,loyeesP union. IL&C9 denied t.eir claims (ecause t.ey were not yet regular mem(ers w.en t.e C$A tooD effect and t.erefore not entitled to wage ad:ustments t.ereunder.
!esolve t.e Issue. ;iscuss fully. SUGGESTE7 ANSWER' In im,lementing a C$A t.at ,rovides for salary increases to regular em,loyees# it is (ut logical t.at said salary increases s.ould (e given to em,loyees only from t.e time t.ey are regular em,loyees.
%iven t.e facts mentioned in t.e Euestion# t.e lineman trainees t.at IL&C9 .ired (ecame regular em,loyees six (1 mont.s after t.ey were .ired. <.e La(or Code ,rovides t.at ,ro(ationary em,loyment s.all not exceed six (1 mont.s from t.e date t.e em,loyee started worDing. ;ou(le
w.en t.e line man trainees were given an additional ,ro(ationary ,eriod of anot.er ten ()0 mont.s# may (e considered as a circumvention of t.e rule on ,ro(ationary em,loyment.
August )**+# .is services were terminated. Fe worDed for a total of ten ()0 years ()*+2-)**+ in t.e five (4 se,arate ,ro:ects.
<.us# (ecause t.ey were already regular em,loyees after t.e first six (1 mont. ,eriod# from said date# t.ey are entitled to t.e C$A increases ,rovided for regular em,loyee. ALTERNATI9E ANSWER' <.ey are not entitled to t.e wage ad:ustments under t.e C$A t.at were given w.en t.ey were not yet regular em,loyees.
$ut if (y virtue of t.eir (ecoming regular em,loyees# t.ey are now ,art of t.e a,,ro,riate collective (argaining unit defined (y t.e C$A# t.eir not (eing union mem(ers is not a (ar to t.eir recei,t of any wage ad:ustments given under t.e C$A# after t.ey (ecome regular em,loyees.
Six mont.s after .is se,aration# t.e %rou, won a (id for a large construction ,ro:ect. <.e %rou, did not engage t.e services of &ngineer CAC as a Pro:ect &ngineer for t.is new ,ro:ectinstead# it engaged t.e services of &ngineer C$C. &ngineer CAC claims t.at (y virtue of t.e nature of .is functions# i.e.# &ngineer in a Construction %rou,# and .is long years of service .e .ad rendered to t.e %rou,# .e is a regular em,loyee and not a ,ro:ect engineer at t.e time .e was first .ired. ?urt.ermore# t.e .iring of &ngineer C$C s.owed t.at t.ere is a continuing need for .is services. Is t.e claim of &ngineer CAC correctK L4MN SUGGESTE7 ANSWER' <.e claim of &ngineer CAC t.at .e is a regular em,loyee and not a ,rotect em,loyee is not correct. <.e La(or Code ,rovides5
Art. /+0. R $)*!# !"d C!4)!* E?-*2&? "t . An em,loyment s.all (e deemed to (e regular w.ere t.e em,loyee .as (een engaged to ,erform activities w.ic. are usually necessary or desira(le in t.e usual (usiness or trade of t.e em,loyer# exce,t# w.ere t.e em,loyment .as (een fixed for a s,ecific ,ro:ect or undertaDing t.e com,letion of w.ic. .as (een determined at
E?-*2& E?-*2&
4 64= /#2A ;t
A Construction %rou, .ired &ngineer CAC as a Pro:ect &ngineer in )*+2. Fe was assigned to five (4 successive se,arate ,ro:ects. All five (4 Contracts of &m,loyment .e signed# s,ecified t.e name of t.e ,ro:ect# its duration# and t.e tem,orary-,ro:ect nature of t.e engagement of .is services. U,on com,letion of t.e fift. L4t. ,ro:ect in
(underscoring su,,lied
In all t.e five (4 successive contracts of em,loyment of &ngineer CAC t.e name of t.e ,ro:ect# its duration# and t.e tem,orary ,ro:ect nature of t.e engagement of .is services are
,articular em,loyee is a C,ro:ect em,loyeeC as distinguis.ed from a Cregular em,loyeeC is w.et.er or not t.e CP!9J&C< &8PL9I&&C was assigned to carry out a Cs,ecific ,ro:ect or undertaDing#C t.e duration and sco,e of w.ic. were s,ecified at t.e
time t.e em,loyee was engaged for t.e ,ro:ects.
2// ()**3
<.e fact t.at t.e ,etitioners worDed for several ,ro:ects of ,rivate res,ondent com,any is no (asis to consider t.em as regular em,loyees.
In t.e ,ro(lem given# t.ere is no s.owing t.at 9mar was informed t.at .e was to (e assigned to
a Cs,ecific ,ro:ect or undertaDing.C 'eit.er .as it
(een esta(lis.ed t.at .e was informed of t.e
$y t.e very nature of t.eir em,loyerPs (usiness# t.ey will always remain ,ro:ect em,loyees
regardless of t.e num(er of ,ro:ects in w.ic. t.ey .ave worDed.
8oreover# t.e re-.iring of 9mar is sufficient evidence of t.e necessity or t.e indis,ensa(ility of
.is services to t.e com,anyPs (usiness. LAurora Land Pro:ects Cor, v. 'L!C# /11 SC!A 6+()**2TN Fence# 9mar is correct in claiming t.at .e is a regular em,loyee of ;esign Consultants# Inc. ANOT0ER SUGGESTE7 ANSWER'
ceases to exist. Suc. ,ro:ect em,loyee .as no legal rig.t to insist t.at .e s.ould (e em,loyed (y t.e Construction %rou, for a su(seEuent ,ro:ect of said %rou,.
Agreement (C$A . At t.at ,oint# negotiations for a new C$A was in ,rogress. Fence# (ot. t.e Union
and t.e Com,any .ad very little time to address APs grievance. In fact# said grievance# as it were# sle,t t.e slee, of t.e dead# (eing resolved only wit. finality on 'ovem(er /3# )*+3 w.en t.e
E?-*2&
(2002) ;esign Consultants# Inc. was engaged (y t.e P'CC to su,ervise t.e construction of t.e Sout.
&x,ressway &xtension. ;esign Consultants# Inc. .ired 9mar as a driver for two (/ years. After .is
two-year contract ex,ired# .e was extended
%eneral 8anager of t.e Com,any affirmed APs dismissal on t.e fift. and t.e last ste, of t.e
grievance mac.inery.
A filed an action for illegal dismissal wit. t.e
mont.s. <.ese
stages and (efore t.e com,letion of t.e extension ,ro:ect. 9mar claims t.at (ecause of t.ese re,eated contracts# .e is now a regular em,loyee
of ;esign Consultants. Inc. Is .e correctK &x,lain
)*+3. <.e Com,any immediately filed a 8otion to ;ismiss on t.e ground of ,rescri,tion# invoDing
Article /*0 of t.e La(or Code.
(riefly. (4M
If you were t.e La(or Ar(iter# .ow would you resolve t.e Com,anyPs 8otion to ;ismissK SUGGESTE7 ANSWER'
As t.e La(or Ar(iter# I will deny t.e 8otion to ;ismiss. @.ere an em,loyee was dismissed and t.e matter of .is dismissal was t.en referred to t.e grievance mac.inery ,ursuant to t.e ,rovision in t.e existing collective (argaining agreement# and t.e grievance mac.inery .ad a final meeting after Euite a long w.ile t.ereafter# t.e com,laint for Illegal dismissal was t.en filed# t.e action was not (arred (y lac.es# as t.e ,endency of t.e matter (efore t.e grievance mac.inery affected t.e ri,eness of t.e cause of action for illegal dismissal. (!adio Communications of t.e P.ili,,ines# Inc. (!CPI # vs. 'ational La(or !elations Commission# et al %.! 'o. )0/*4+# /4 June )**3# J. ;avide# Jr. //3 SC!A 141.
distinct from a criminal action. &ac. may ,roceed inde,endently of eac. ot.er.
<.e rig.t to file an action for illegal dismissal is not de,endent u,on t.e outcome of t.e criminal case. %uilt or innocence in t.e criminal case is not determinative of t.e existence of a :ust or aut.oriGed cause for a dismissal. LPe,siCola $ottling Co. v. %uanGon )2/ SC!A 42)()*+* T
SUGGESTE7 ANSWER'
$. I agree wit. t.e statement. A case of illegal dismissal filed (y an em,loyee w.o .as (een terminated wit.out a :ust or aut.oriGed cause is not a money claim covered (y Art. /*) of t.e La(or Code. An em,loyee w.o is un:ustly dismissed from worD is entitled to reinstatement and to .is (acDwages. A case of illegal dismissal is (ased u,on an in:ury to t.e rig.t to security of tenure of an em,loyee. <.us# in accordance wit. Art ))61# it must (e instituted wit.in four years. LCallanta v. Carnation P.il. )64 SC!A /1+()*+1 $aliwag <ransit v. 9,le )2) SC!A /40()*+* International Farvester 8acleod# Inc. v. 'L!C# /00 SC!A +)2()**) N
ALTERNATI9E ANSWER' If I were t.e La(or Ar(iter# I will deny t.e motion to dismiss (ecause t.e action for Illegal dismissal .as not yet ,rescri(ed. <.e ,rescri,tive ,eriod for an action for illegal dismissal is four V6T years. (Callanta vs. Carnation #)64 SC!A /1+
$. State your agreement or disagreement wit. t.e following statement and ex,lain your answer (riefly5 <.e ,eriod of ,rescri,tion in Article /*) of t.e La(or Code a,,lies only to money claims so t.at t.e ,eriod of ,rescri,tion for ot.er cases of in:ury to t.e rig.ts of em,loyees is governed (y t.e Civil Code. <.us# an action for reinstatement for in:ury to an em,loyeePs rig.ts ,rescri(es in four (6 years as ,rovided in Article ))61 of t.e Civil Code. (3M SUGGESTE7 ANSWER'
A. I agree. <.e two (/ cases# namely5 t.e criminal case w.ere t.e em,loyee is t.e accused- and t.e case for illegal dismissal# w.ere t.e em,loyee would (e t.e com,lainant# are two (/ se,arate and inde,endent actions governed (y different rules# venues# and ,rocedures. <.e criminal case is wit.in t.e :urisdiction of t.e regular courts of law and governed (y t.e rules of ,rocedure in criminal cases. <.e action for t.e administrative as,ect of illegal dismissal would (e filed wit. t.e 'L!C and governed (y t.e ,rocedural rules of t.e La(or Code.
/# 4;#i-ti6 - #i2d: i** $!* di4?i44!* (199.) <.e general manager of JunD ?ood 8anufacturing Cor,oration dismissed Andrew <an# a ranD-and-file em,loyee# on t.e ground of insu(ordination. <.e general manager served on Andrew <an t.e letter of termination effective u,on recei,t w.ic. was on 0+ 8arc. )**/. S.ocDed (y .is unex,ected dismissal# Andrew <an confronted t.e general manager and .it t.e latter on t.e .ead wit. a lea, ,i,e.
JunD ?ood 8anufacturing filed a com,laint in court against Andrew <an for less serious ,.ysical in:uries. Some.ow# Andrew <an was acEuitted (y t.e court assigned to .ear t.e criminal case. A few days following .is acEuittal# or on 0) 8arc. )**1# Andrew <an filed com,laint against t.e com,any for illegal dismissal# reinstatement and t.e ,ayment of (acDwages and damages.
a
(
@as t.e com,laint filed (y Andrew <an for illegal dismissal wit.in t.e reglementary ,eriod granted (y lawK
@.at reliefs may Andrew <an (e entitled to if t.e La(or Ar(iter finds :ust cause for termination (ut t.at t.e reEuirements of notice and .earing are not com,lied wit.K
SUGGESTE7 ANSWER'
(a Ies. <.e com,laint was filed wit.in four (6 years from t.e date Andrew <an was dismissed (y .is em,loyer. Illegal dismissal# as a cause of action# ,rescri(es after four (6 years from t.e time t.e cause of action# namely# illegal dismissal tooD ,lace. <.is is ,ursuant to t.e Civil Code w.ic.
Page 99 of 108
a ,erson s.ould (e initiated wit.in four years from t.e time t.e rig.t of t.e action accrues. (Art. ))61 of t.e Civil Code (( Andrew <an would (e entitled to an indemnity
of P)#000 to P)0#000 from .is em,loyer for t.e latterPs non-com,liance of t.e reEuirements of notice and .earing in cases of termination of em,loyment. (@en,.il P.ili,,ines v. 'L!C# )21 SC!A 11
t.e em,loyee .as (een forced to execute it# suc. reason gains im,ortance if t.e consideration is
unconsciona(le# low and t.e em,loyee .as (een tricDed Into acce,ting it. (@yet.-Suaco v. 'L!C# /)* SC!A 341 R 4i$"!ti2": 92*)"t!#&: Q)it;*!i?4 (1999) ?AC<S5 International 8otors Cor,oration (I8C undertooD a reorganiGation of t.e com,any and
su,eriors
lose .is
of
Jo(
t.e
u,on
,ossi(le
t.e
merger
of
(etween
t.e two
rig.t-siGing of its ,ersonnel com,lement due to t.e current financial crisis. <.e affected em,loyees were given t.e o,tion to resign wit. corres,onding generous (enefits attending suc. o,tion. <.e said
em,loyees o,ted to resignation on account of t.ese negotiated (enefits- and after recei,t of w.ic.# t.ey executed Euitclaims in favor of I8C. Immediately t.ereafter# t.e em,loyees voluntarily resigned for valua(le consideration and t.at# in any
U,on resignation .e was given se,aration ,ay eEuivalent to one mont.Ps ,ay ,er year of service# alt.oug. tec.nically s,eaDing# .e is not entitled t.ereto (eing a resigned em,loyee. 8r. Santos
executed a Euitclaim and @aiver u,on recei,t of
.is se,aration ,ay (enefits. <.e merger (etween t.e two com,anies turned out to (e a (uy-out (y t.e latter of t.e former. At t.is ,oint# Com,any APs em,loyees# save for a .andful#
were dismissed u,on ,ayment of se,aration ,ays eEuivalent to t.ree (3 mont.s for every year of service (ecause of t.e UnionPs efforts on t.e worDersP (e.alf. ?eeling aggrieved# Santos su(seEuently c.arged Com,any A wit. discrimination# dismissal# constructive under,ayment# resignation# se,aration (enefits and reinstatement. <.e La(or Ar(iter and 'L!C sustained Com,any
since t.e facts clearly indicate t.at t.e Cem,loyees were given t.e o,tion to resign wit. corres,onding
generous (enefits attending suc. o,tionC and t.at
violence# undue influence or any ot.er vice or APs ,osition t.at SantosP Euitclaim is valid# and t.at as a manager .e Dnew t.e im,ort of w.at .e was
signing and# t.erefore# esto,,ed from claiming defect. ALTERNATI9E ANSWER'
<.e com,any is not guilty of Illegal dismissal.
ot.erwise.
Are t.e La(or Ar(iter and t.e 'L!C correctK
SUGGESTE7 ANSWER'
<.e La(or Ar(iter and t.e 'L!C are correct. Santos was not coerced into resigning. Fe voluntarily resigned. <.en# u,on recei,t of t.e
se,aration ,ay t.at tec.nically .e was not entitled to receive# .e voluntarily executed a Euitclaim and waiver. <.ese facts s.ow (eyond dou(t t.at .e is esto,,ed from claiming .e was a victim of discrimination. (&nieda 8onttUa vs. 'ational La(or
!elations Commission# et al# %.! 'o# 2)406# )2
t.e future of Com,any A# .e was made to (elieve t.at t.e deal (etween Com,any A and Com,any $
Page
LABOR LAW Bar Q & A (as arranged by Topics) 19942006
)) of 108
null and void. In a case (Aeloso v. ;9L&# /00 SC!A /0) t.e Su,reme Court .eld t.at Cdire necessityC is not an acce,ta(le ground for annulling t.e releases# es,ecially since it .as not (een s.own t.at t.e em,loyees .ad (een forced to execute t.em. It .as not (een ,roven t.at t.e considerations for t.e Euitclaims were unconsciona(ly low and t.at t.e ,etitioners .ad (een tricDed into acce,ting t.em.
receive said retirement (enefits regardless of age or service record wit. t.e com,any or to t.e a,,lica(le se,aration ,ay ,rovided (y law#
()0 years in I%$ Cor,oration. Under t.e terms of t.e ,ersonnel ,olicy on retirement# any em,loyee w.o .ad reac.ed t.e age of 14 and com,leted at least ten ()0 years of service would (e com,ulsorily retired and ,aid 30 daysP ,ay for every year of service.
!icDy 8arvin# w.ose immigrant visa to t.e USA .ad :ust (een a,,roved# cele(rated .is 10t. (irt.day recently. Fe decided to retire and move to California w.ere t.e son w.o ,etitioned .im .ad settled. <.e com,any refused to grant .im any retirement (enefits on t.e ground t.at .e .ad not yet attained t.e com,ulsory retirement age of 14 years as reEuired (y its ,ersonnel ,olicy- moreover# it did not .ave a ,olicy on o,tional or early retirement.
<aDing u, t.e cudgels for !icDy 8arvin# t.e union raised t.e issue in t.e grievance mac.inery as sti,ulated in t.e C$A. 'o settlement was arrived at# and t.e matter was referred to voluntary ar(itration. If you were t.e Aoluntary Ar(itrator# .ow would you decideK $riefly ex,lain t.e reasons for your award. (4M SUGGESTE7 ANSWER'
I will decide t.e case in accordance wit. t.e !etirement Law. (!.A. 'o. 216) Under t.e law# !icDy 8arvin is entitled to 9,tional !etirement at age 10 since .e .as served t.e Com,any for at least 4 years# in fact )0 years already. Fe will also receive //.4 days for every year of service. (Ca,itol @ireless v. Confesor# %.!. 'o. ))2)26# 'ovem(er )3# )**1
w.ic.ever is .ig.er.C <.e Com,any# due to ,oor (usiness conditions# decided to cease o,erations and gave its em,loyees t.e reEuired one mont.Ps advance notice as well as notice to ;9L&# wit. t.e furt.er advice t.at eac. em,loyee may claim .is corres,onding se,aration or retirement (enefits w.ic.ever is .ig.er after executing t.e reEuired waiver and Euitclaim.
;ino !amos and .is co-em,loyees w.o .ave all rendered more t.an /4 years of service# received t.eir retirement (enefits. Soon after# !amos and ot.ers similarly situated demanded for t.eir se,aration ,ay. <.e Com,any refused# claiming t.at under t.e C$A t.ey cannot receive (ot. (enefits. @.o is correct# t.e em,loyees or t.e Com,anyK SUGGESTE7 ANSWER' <.e em,loyees are correct. In t.e a(sence of a categorical ,rovision in t.e !etirement Plan and t.e C$A t.at an em,loyee w.o receives se,aration ,ay is no longer entitled to retirement (enefits# t.e em,loyee is entitled to t.e ,ayment of (ot. (enefits ,ursuant to t.e social :ustice ,olicy. (Conrado 8. AEuino# et al v. 'ational La(or !elations Commission# et al# %.! 'o. +2143# )) ?e(ruary )**/ ALTERNATI9E ANSWER'
a <.e Com,any is correct. <.e C$A clearly ,rovides t.at em,loyees w.o are terminated are
entitled to retirement (enefits or se,aration ,ay# w.ic.ever is .ig.er. <.e C$A# t.erefore# does not give t.e em,loyees a rig.t to (ot. retirement ,ay and se,aration ,ay. Fence# t.ey cannot (e entitled to (ot.. <.e exclusion of one (y t.e ot.er is deducti(le not only from t.e term CorC (ut also (y t.e Eualifying ,.rase Cw.ic.ever is .ig.erC. <.is ,.rase would (e immaterial if t.e em,loyees were entitled to (ot..
( ;ino and .is co-em,loyees were correct. In t.e case of University of t.e &ast vs. 'L!C# it was clarified t.at t.e retirement (enefits arising from t.e C$A is an 9(ligation &x Contractu w.ile se,aration ,ay under Art. /+6 is an 9(ligation &x- Lege. <.us# t.e Com,any s.ould grant (ot. (enefits to t.ose w.o were se,arated due to CL9SU!& and at t.e same time were Eualified to retire. (Ci,riano v. San 8iguel# /6 SC!A 203
Page
) of 108
em,loyment. 'ot satisfied# $. UDol filed action wit. t.e Ar(itration $ranc. of t.e 'L!C claiming t.at .is retirement (enefits were not com,uted ,ro,erly. Is $. UDolPs claim meritoriousK @.at are t.e com,onents of .is retirement (enefitsK (/M #
SUGGESTE7 ANSWER'
UDolPs claim is meritorious. Fis retirement (enefit is to (e com,uted in accordance wit. Article /+2# w.ic. reads5 CIn t.e a(sence of a retirement ,lan or agreement ,roviding for retirement (enefits of em,loyees in t.e esta(lis.ment# an em,loyee may retire ... and s.all (e entitled to retirement ,ay eEuivalent to at least one-.alf ()7/ mont. salary for every year of service# a fraction of at least six mont.s (eing considered as one w.ole year. <.e same Article t.en ex,lains t.at t.e term one-.alf ()7/ mont. salary means fifteen days ,lus one- twelft. ()7)/ of t.e )3t. mont. ,ay and t.e cas. eEuivalent of not more t.an five (4 days of service incentive leaves.
<.e com,onents of retirement ,ay are5 1. )4 days ,ay 2. )7)/ of t.e )3t. mont. ,ay. and +. cas. eEuivalent of not more t.an five (4 days of service incentive leave. (%) W<!t D; -ti2"(4) d2( 4) t< *!8 2" # ti# ? "t % " 3it4 -#26id (4) i3 !"&M (>N)= SUGGESTE7 ANSWER' !etail# service and agricultural esta(lis.ments or o,erations em,loying not more t.an ten ()0 em,loyees or worDers are exem,ted from t.e coverage of t.e ,rovision on retirement (enefits in t.e La(or Code. Also# w.ere t.ere is a retirement ,lan of t.e em,loyer t.at grants more t.an w.at t.e La(or Code grants.
SOCIAL LEGISLATIONS
E?-*2& 4 C2?- "4!ti2" A;t: W2#GB C2"" ;t d 7i4!%i*it& (1996) &frenia !eyes was a classroom teac.er assigned (y t.e ;e,artment of &ducation# Culture and S,orts (;&CS in Panitan# Ca,iG. S.e .as (een in t.e government service since )*4) u, to 'ovem(er# )*+4 w.en s.e retired at 44 due to ,oor .ealt..
In 8arc.# )*+/# w.ile s.e was teac.ing .er %rade ) ,u,ils t.e ,ro,er way of scru((ing and swee,ing t.e floor# s.e accidentally sli,,ed. Fer (acD .it t.e edge of a desD. S.e later com,lained of weaD lower extremities and difficulty in walDing. After an O-ray examination# s.e was found to (e suffering from PottPs disease and was advised to undergo an o,eration. In )*+4# s.e filed wit. t.e %SIS a claim
'o. 1/1# as amended. <.e %SIS granted t.e claim and awarded &frenia ,ermanent ,artial disa(ility (enefits.
After s.e underwent a surgical o,eration on .er s,ine in 'ovem(er# )*+4# .er condition worsened.
In )**0# &frenia filed wit. t.e %SIS a ,etition for conversion of .er disa(ility status to ,ermanent total disa(ilities wit. corres,onding ad:ustment of (enefits. %SIS denied t.e claim stating t.at after &freniaPs retirement# any ,rogression of .er ailment is no longer com,ensa(le.
of a,,lying t.e a(ove ,rovision of t.e La(or CodeK Li(erally construing said ,rovision. !eyes may (e considered still as an em,loyee so t.at s.e could receive additional (enefits for t.e ,rogression of .er ailment. ALTERNATI9E ANSWERS'
a 'o. @.en an em,loyee is constrained to retire at an early age due to .is illness and t.e illness ,ersists even after retirement# resulting in .is continued unem,loyment# suc. condition amounts to total disa(ility w.ic. s.ould entitle .im to t.e maximum (enefits allowed (y law. Fer disa(ility w.ic. s.ould entitle .er to t.e maximum falls wit.in t.e definition of ,ermanent total disa(ility. ( 'o# t.e %SIS erred in denying t.e claim. 'ote# t.at t.e original claim and grant of (enefits was (ased on Presidential ;ecree 'o# 1/1# or $ooD IA# <itle II of t.e La(or Code5 &m,loyees Com,ensation and State Insurance ?und. <.e same law does not ,rovide for se,aration fee from em,loyment as a (asis for denial of (enefits.
Is t.e %SIS correct in denying t.e claim. &x,lain. SUGGESTE7 ANSWER' Considering t.at t.e disa(ility of !eyes is worD connected# t.e ,rovisions of t.e La(or Code dealing wit. em,loyees com,ensation s.ould determine .er rig.t to (enefits. According to said ,rovisions# if any em,loyee under ,ermanent ,artial disa(ility suffers anot.er in:ury w.ic. results in a com,ensa(le disa(ility greater t.an t.e ,revious in:ury# t.e State Insurance ?und s.all (e lia(le for t.e income (enefit of t.e new disa(ility even after .er retirement. @as !eyes still an Cem,loyeeC for t.e ,ur,ose
<.e worsening of t.e sc.ool teac.erPs condition is a direct result# or a continuing result of t.e first in:ury w.ic. was deemed worD-connected (y t.e %SIS and .ence com,ensa(le.
In ;io,enes vs. %SIS# /04 SC!A 33) ()**/ # t.e Su,reme Court cautioned against a too strict
Page
)" of 108
contest.C
constitutional mandate on ,rotection to la(or and t.e ,romotion of social Justice. Said t.e Court5
<.e %SIS and t.e &CC s.ould (e commended for t.eir vigilance against un:ustified claims t.at
will only de,lete t.e funds intended to (e dis(ursed for t.e (enefit only of deserving
(een diminis.ed if not com,letely im,aired as a com,ensation of t.eir service in t.e government. A .umanitarian im,ulse dictated (y no less t.an t.e Constitution itself under t.e
social :ustice ,olicy# calls for a li(eral and
dead on arrival. <.e deat. certificate s.owed t.at .e died of cardiac arrest due to accidental
electrocution. Pe,ay Palay,ay (Pitoy 8onderoPs common-law
wife for more t.an twenty years and a Pitoy
8ordero Jr. (.is only son filed a claim for deat. (enefits wit. t.e %overnment Service Insurance System (%SIS # w.ic. was denied on t.e ground
t.at Pitoy 8ordenoPs deat. did not arise out of and in t.e course of em,loyment and t.erefore not com,ensa(le (ecause t.e accident occurred in .is
.ouse and not in t.e sc.ool ,remises. I4 / -!& /!*!&-!& "tit* d t2 3i* ! ;*!i? 32# d !t< % " 3it4 8it< t< GSISM W<&M (2N) SUGGESTE7 ANSWER' <.e (eneficiaries of a mem(er of t.e %SIS are entitled to t.e (enefits arising from t.e deat. of said mem(er. ;eat. (enefits are called survivors.i, (enefits under t.e %SIS Law. 'ot (eing a (eneficiary# Pe,ay Palay,ay to not
official# was t.e to, executive of a government owned and controlled cor,oration (%9CC . @.ile ins,ecting an ongoing ,ro:ect in a remote village in
8indanao# s.e suffered a stroDe and since t.en .ad (een confined to a w.eelc.air. At t.e time
s.e sto,,ed worDing (ecause of .er illness in line of duty# Atty. CL8 was only sixty years old (ut s.e .ad (een an active mem(er of t.e %SIS for t.irty
years wit.out any (reaD in .er service record.
SUGGESTE7 ANSWER' <.e (enefits Atty. CL8 could claim from t.e %SIS
are5 () &m,loyees com,ensation w.ic. s.all include
(ot. income and medical and related (enefits# including re.a(ilitation(/ <em,orary total disa(ility (enefit(3 Permanent total disa(ility (enefit(6 Se,aration (enefit- and (4 !etirement (enefit.
I4 t< ;!)4 23 d !t< 23 /it2& M2#d "2 (;!#di!; !## 4t d) t2 !;;id "t!* * ;t#2;)ti2" i" <i4
<2)4 ) ;2?- "4!%* M W<&M (>N)= SU%%&S<&; A'S@&!5
GSIS: 7 !t< B " 3it (1999) ?AC<S5 Pitoy 8ondero was em,loyed as a ,u(lic sc.ool teac.er at t.e 8arinduEue Fig. Sc.ool from July )# )*+3 until .is untimely demise on 8ay /2# )**2.
9n A,ril /2# )**2# a memorandum was issued (y t.e sc.ool ,rinci,al# w.ic. reads5 CIou are .ere(y
designated to ,re,are t.e 89;&L ;A8 ,ro:ect#
Page
)# of 108
t.e answer is5 Ies# .e can (ecause t.e !ules Im,lementing Paternity Leave Act says t.at t.e
availment s.ould not (e later t.an 10 days after t.e date of delivery. /!t #"it& L !6 : M!t #"it& L !6 (200,) 8ans @eto .ad (een an em,loyee of 'o,olt Assurance Com,any for t.e last ten ()0 years. Fis
%.!. 'o. )/)464# 'ovem(er )6# )**1 <aDing toget.er :uris,rudence and t.e ,ertinent guidelines
of t.e &CC wit. res,ect to claims for deat.
wife of six (1 years died last year. <.ey .ad four (6 c.ildren. Fe t.en fell in love wit. Jovy# .is coem,loyee# and t.ey got married.
em,loyee must .ave (een executing an order for t.e em,loyer# it is not difficult to understand
t.en w.y Q.o,Ps claim was denied (y t.e
%SIS.
(<ancinco
v.
%overnment
Service
Insurance
System#
%.!.
'o.
)3/*)1#
.as a new wife w.o will (e giving (irt. for t.e first
time# t.erefore# .is entitlement to ,aternity leave (enefits would (egin to run anew. (1M (a) Whose $ontention is $orre$t, Weto or the 5R6 %ana*er ALTERNATI9E ANSWER' <.e contention of @eto is correct. <.e law ,rovides t.at every married male is entitled to a
,aternity leave of seven (2 days for t.e first four
,erforming a ,olice function# it cannot (e said t.at .is deat. occurred elsew.ere ot.er t.an t.e ,lace
w.ere .e was su,,osed to (e (ecause .e was
.is second wife and t.at @eto .ad 6 c.ildren wit. .is first wife is (eside t.e ,oint. <.e im,ortant fact is t.at t.is is t.e first c.ild of Jovy wit. @eto. <.e law did not distinguis. and we s.ould t.erefore not
distinguis.. <.e ,aternity leave was intended to ena(le t.e .us(and to effectively lend su,,ort to .is wife in
out of wedlocD# and again (y a different fat.er. Can 8s. 8ira claim maternity (enefits under t.e Social
Security Act of )**2K !eason. (4M
.er ,eriod of recovery and7or in t.e nursing of t.e newly (orn c.ild. (Sec. 3# !A. 'o. +)+2 <o deny
@eto t.is (enefit would (e to defeat t.e rationale
SUGGESTE7 ANSWER'
Ies# s.e can claim maternity (enefit. &ntitlement t.ereto is not de,endent on t.e claimantPs (eing legally married. (Sec. )6-A# Social Security Act of
for t.e law. 8oreover# t.e case of @eto is a gray area and t.e dou(t s.ould (e resolved in .is favor. ALTERNATI9E ANSWER'
)**2 .
/!t #"it& L !6 (2002)
Page
), of 108
co.a(iting. @it. t.e deat. of @etoPs first wife# t.e first (6 deliveries ,rovided (y law# s.all a,,ly to t.e new legitimate s,ouse of @eto wit. w.om .e is co.a(iting. ALTERNATI9E ANSWER' Since !.A. 'o. +/+/ is silent on t.e matter# t.e dou(t s.ould (e resolved in favor of t.e second wife. (!) Is 7ov& entitled to %aternit& leave !ene)its Ies# JovyPs maternity (enefit is ,ersonal to .er and s.e is entitled under t.e law to avail .erself of t.e same for t.e first four times of .er deliver. (!.A. 'o. +/+/
o(servance of clu( rules# .e can (e disci,lined (y (eing (arred from t.e ,remises of $arili %olf. Is 8arvin wit.in t.e com,ulsory coverage of t.e Social Security SystemK @.yK (4M SUGGESTE7 ANSWER'
$ecause .e is not an em,loyee of t.e $arili %olf = Country Clu(# 8arvin is not wit.in t.e com,ulsory coverage of t.e Social Security System. 8arvin is not an em,loyee of t.e clu( (ecause under t.e s,ecific circumstances of .is relations wit. t.e clu(# .e is not under t.e orders of t.e clu( as regards em,loyment w.ic. would .ave made .im an em,loyee of t.e clu(. (See 8anila %olf = Country Clu(# Inc. v. IAC# /32 SC!A /02
SSS: C2?-)*42#& C26 #!$ (199,) $ig ?oot Com,any of Paete# Laguna# .as (een in t.e (usiness of manufacturing wooden sandals for ex,ort since 4 'ovem(er )*+0. 9n 4 January )**6 it em,loyed an additional la(or com,lement of t.irty worDers# two su,ervisors and two de,artment managers. 9n 4 ?e(ruary )**6 it .ired five car,enters to fix t.e roof and walls of its factory w.ic. were destroyed (y ty,.oon CFuaning.C
@.o among t.e aforementioned ,ersons are com,ulsorily covered (y t.e Social Security Law and w.en s.ould t.ey (e considered effectively coveredK ;iscuss fully. SUGGESTE7 ANSWER'
Assuming t.at all of t.em were not yet over sixty years of age# t.e additional la(or com,lement of t.irty worDers# two su,ervisors and two de,artment managers were com,ulsorily covered (y t.e Social Security Law on 4 January )**6# w.en t.ey were em,loyed. According to said law# worDers are covered on t.e day of t.eir em,loyment.
$ut 8arvin is wit.in t.e com,ulsory coverage of t.e SSS as a self-em,loyed ,erson. (See Section *-A# Social Security Law of )*42
SUGGESTE7 ANSWER'
'o# (ecause coverage under t.e SSS is com,ulsory w.ere em,loyer-em,loyee relations exist. Fowever# if t.e ,rivate ,lan is su,erior to t.at of t.e SSS# t.e ,lan may (e integrated wit. t.e SSS ,lan. Still# it is integration and not exem,tion from SSS law. (P.ili,,ine $looming 8ills Co.# Inc. v. Social Security System# )2 SC!A )02()*11 - !A. 'o. ))1) as amended (y !A 'o. +/+/T.
$ut t.e five car,enters w.ic. t.e com,any .ired to fix t.e roof and walls of its factory were not under t.e com,ulsory coverage of t.e Social Security Law (ecause said car,enters are casual em,loyees. <.e Social Security Law ,rovides t.at em,loyment ,urely casual and not for t.e ,ur,ose of occu,ation or t.e (usiness of t.e em,loyer are not under its com,ulsory coverage.
SUGGESTE7 ANSWER'
Page
)$ of 108
'o. Under Section + (: of !A ))1)# as amended# em,loyment of ,urely casual and not for t.e ,ur,ose of t.e occu,ation or (usiness of t.e em,loyer are exce,ted from com,ulsory coverage. An em,loyment is ,urely casual if it is not for t.e ,ur,ose of occu,ation or (usiness of t.e em,loyer. In t.e ,ro(lem given# ?alcon ?actory is a com,any engaged in t.e assem(ling of automotive com,onents.
<.e fifty (40 ,ersons (engineers# arc.itects and construction worDers were .ired (y ?alcon ?actory to renovate its (uilding. <.e worD to (e ,erformed (y t.ese fifty (10 ,eo,le is not in connection wit. t.e ,ur,ose of t.e (usiness of t.e factory. Fence# t.e em,loy of t.ese fifty (40 ,ersons is ,urely casual. <.ey are# t.erefore# exce,ted from t.e com,ulsory coverage of t.e SSS law.
ANOT0ER SUGGESTE7 ANSWER' I agree wit. t.e contention t.at t.e em,loyees .ired (y t.e owners of ?ALC9' factory as construction worDers in t.e renovation of its (uilding s.ould (e under t.e com,ulsory coverage of t.e Social Security Law.
It is true t.at in connection wit. ?ALC9' ?actory# w.ic. is engaged in t.e assem(ling of automotive com,onents# t.e construction worDers may (e considered casual em,loyees (ecause t.eir em,loyment is not for t.e ,ur,ose of occu,ation of (usiness of ?ALC9' ?actory. As suc.# in accordance wit. Section +V: of t.e Social Security Law# t.ey are exce,ted form t.e com,ulsory coverage of t.e Social Security System.
$ut t.ey could also (e considered ,ro:ect em,loyees of ?ALC9' ?actory and as suc. could (e under t.e com,ulsory coverage of t.e SSS# a,,lying Art 6 of t.e La(or Code t.at ,rovides t.at all dou(ts in t.e Im,lementation and inter,retation of t.e ,rovisions of La(or Law s.all (e resolved in favor of la(or. <.e em,loyees .ere t.erefore# s.ould (e considered as under t.e com,ulsory coverage of t.e SSS.
SSS: GSIS: B " 3i;i!*it&: /2#t!%i*it& /#26i4i2"4 23 RA .699 (200,) Fow are t.e C,orta(ilityC ,rovisions of !e,u(lic Act 'o. 21** (eneficial or advantageous to SSS and %SIS mem(ers in terms of t.eir credita(le em,loyment services in t.e ,rivate sector or t.e government# as t.e case may (e# for ,ur,oses of deat.# disa(ility or retirementK Please ex,lain your answer (riefly. (3M SUGGESTE7 ANSWER'
Porta(ility ,rovisions of !.A. 'o. 21** s.all (enefit a covered worDer w.o transfers em,loyment from one
sectors# w.ose credita(le services or contri(utions in (ot. systems credited to .is service or contri(ution record in eac. of t.e system and s.all (e totaliGed for ,ur,oses of old-age# disa(ility# survivors.i, and ot.er (enefits. (Sec. 3# !.A. 'o. 21** <.e C,orta(ilityC ,rovisions of !.A. 'o. 21** allow t.e transfer of funds for t.e account and (enefit of t.e worDer w.o transfers from one system to anot.er. <.is is advantageous to t.e SSS and %SIS mem(ers for ,ur,oses of deat.# disa(ility or retirement (enefits. In t.e event t.e em,loyees transfer from t.e ,rivate sector to t.e ,u(lic sector# or vice-versa# t.eir credita(le em,loyment services and contri(utions are carried over and transferred as well.
In t.e event t.at t.e claim is denied on t.e SSS7%SIS level# claimant may a,,eal to t.e &m,loyees Com,ensation Commission w.ere .e may ,rove t.e causal connection (etween in:ury and nature of worD.
SSS: GSIS: ()#i4di;ti2": B " 3it C*!i?4 (199,) Is it necessary for an em,loyee to litigate in order to esta(lis. and enforce .is rig.t to com,ensationK &x,lain. SUGGESTE7 ANSWER' 'o. All t.at an em,loyee does to claim em,loyeePs com,ensation is to file a claim for said (enefits wit. t.e SSS (for t.ose in t.e ,rivate sector or %SIS (for t.ose in t.e ,u(lic sector .
SUGGESTE7 ANSWER'
Page
)% of 108
<.e lum(er com,anyPs contention is not correct. <.e Social Security Law (in Sec. //(( ,rovides t.at t.e rig.t to institute t.e necessary action against an em,loyer may (e commenced wit.in twenty (/0 years from t.e time t.e delinEuency is Dnown or t.e assessment is made (y t.e SSS# or from t.e time t.e (enefit accrues# as t.e case may (e.
SSS:GSIS: E?-*2& 4 C2?- "4!ti2" A;t (199.) State t.e res,ective coverages of VaT t.e Social Security Law5 (( t.e !evised government Service Insurance Act and (c t.e &m,loyees Com,ensation Act. SUGGESTE7 ANSWER' (a C26 #!$ 23 SSS (Sec. *. !A +/+/ s.all (e com,ulsory u,on all em,loyees not over sixty years of age and t.eir em,loyers. ?ili,inos recruited in t.e P.ili,,ines (y foreign(ased em,loyers for em,loyment a(road may (e covered (y t.e SSS on a voluntary (asis. Coverage in t.e SSS s.all also (e com,ulsory u,on all self-em,loyed ,ersons earning P)#+00 or more ,er annum.
(( M ?% #4<i- i" t< G26 #"? "t S #6i; I"4)#!"; S&4t ? (Art. 3# !A+/*) s.all (e com,ulsory for all ,ermanent em,loyees (elow 10 years of age u,on a,,ointment to ,ermanent status# and for all elective officials for t.e duration of t.eir tenure. Any ,erson# w.et.er elected or a,,ointed# in t.e service of an em,loyer is a covered em,loyee if .e receives com,ensation for suc. service. (c C26 #!$ i" t< St!t I"4)#!"; 1)"d (Art# )1+# La(or Code s.all (e com,ulsory u,on all em,loyers and t.eir em,loyees not over sixty (10 years of age- Provided# t.at an em,loyee w.o is over (10 years of age and ,aying contri(utions to Eualify for t.e retirement or life insurance (enefit administered (y t.e System s.all (e su(:ect to com,ulsory coverage. <.e &m,loyees Com,ensation Commission s.all ensure adeEuate coverage of ?ili,ino em,loyees em,loyed a(road# su(:ect to regulations as it may ,rescri(e. (Art# )20T
Any ,erson com,ulsorily covered (y t.e %SIS including t.e mem(ers of t.e Armed ?orces of t.e P.ili,,ines# and any ,erson em,loyed as casual# emergency# tem,orary# su(stitute or contractual# or any ,erson com,ulsorily covered (y t.e SSS are covered (y t.e &m,loyees Com,ensation Program.
Samson Security Agency LSA8S9' undertooD to ,rovide /6 .ours security service to Jarillo !ealty (JA!ILL9 in t.e latterPs construction o,erations. <.e contract (etween SA8S9' and JA!ILL9 ex,ressly sti,ulated t.at SamsonPs security guards are its em,loyees and not t.at of JA!ILL9. SA8S9' undertooD to .old JA!ILL9 free from any lia(ility w.atsoever resulting from in:uries w.ic. its (SA8S9'Ps guards may suffer or (e ex,osed to suffer as guards of JA!ILL9Ps construction o,erations. <o facilitate ,ayment. JA!ILL9 undertooD to ,ay directly to t.e guards t.e agreed wages# w.ic. are su(seEuently deducted from t.e mont.ly ,ayments to SA8S9' under its contract wit. JA!ILL9. JA!ILL9# in turn# c.arges SA8S9' for t.e eEui,ment su,,lied to t.e guards suc. as uniforms# ,istols and ammunition and cost of training of guards JA!ILL9 wants re,laced.
;uring a storm# several scaffoldings of JA!ILL9 fell and Dilled two (/ guards w.ose families later sued JA!ILL9. JA!ILL9# in turn# im,leaded SA8S9' as t.ird-,arty defendant (efore t.e Ar(iter. ;ecide w.o s.ould (e .eld lia(le. SUGGESTE7 ANSWER' Lia(ility lies against t.e State Insurance ?und administered (y t.e SSS. <.is is a case of deat. in connection wit. t.e em,loyeesP worD. Jarillo is deemed to (e t.e em,loyer of t.e guards in view of t.e direct ,ayment of wages to t.e guards. <.us# if t.ere are (enefits arising from em,loyer-em,loyee relations.i,# Jarillo s.ould (e .eld answera(le.
NOTE< The aw in(o (ed* na"e $ the aw on e"& o$ees !o"&ensation and +tate Ins'ran!e H'nd was e)&ress $ e)! 'ded fro" this $ears %ar e)a"ination in @a%or and +o!ia @egis ation#
St!t I"4)#!"; 1)"d (199,) @.at is t.e extent of an em,loyerPs intervention in t.e com,ensation ,rocess and t.e ,ayment of (enefits to em,loyees under t.e State Insurance ?undK &x,lain. SUGGESTE7 ANSWER'
<.e new law esta(lis.es a State Insurance ?und (uilt u, (y t.e contri(utions of em,loyers (ased on t.e salaries of t.eir em,loyees. <.e em,loyer does not intervene in t.e com,ensation ,rocess and it .as no control over t.e ,ayment of (enefits.
UnliDe under t.e em,loyers are no income and medical (e ,aid to covered @orDmenPs Com,ensation Act# longer directly lia(le for t.e and related (enefits t.at are to em,loyees if t.ey s.ould suffer
Page
)& of 108
now from t.e State Insurance ?und w.ic. is constituted from t.e contri(utions collected from em,loyers.
St#!& Q) 4ti2"4
St#!& /#2%* ?: /2*iti;!* L!8: /28 # 23 t< /# 4id "t: 1TAA (2006)
Armstrong Cor,oration# a foreign cor,oration# intends to engage in t.e ex,loration of P.ili,,ine natural resources. 8r. Antonio !eyes offered t.e forest land .e owns to t.e ,resident of t.e cor,oration. 8ay Armstrong Cor,oration enter into a financial and tec.nical assistance agreement
(?<AA wit. 8r. !eyes to ex,lore# develo,# and utiliGe t.e landK &x,lain. (4M SUGGESTE7 ANSWER' NO. 9nly t.e President may enter into financial and tec.nical assistance agreements for large- scale ex,loration develo,ment and utiliGation of natural resources (Art. OII# Sec. /# )*+2 Consti- tution . 8oreover# forest lands are inaliena(le lands of t.e state (La $ugal R $Plaran <ri(al Association# Inc. v. !amos# %.!. 'o. )/2++/# ;ecem(er )# /006 . N#B# This a&&ears to %e a &ro&er G'estion for Po iti!a @aw#