Hear-ye Hear-ye

Do you know that the following are the suggested answers to the PART I of the 2019 Bar
Examinations in Labor Law:

PARTIAL SUGGESTED ANSWERS TO QUESTION NUMBERS 1-5. The following are

just mere guide and no special claim.

A.1.

Define, explain or distinguish the following terms:

(a) Just and authorized causes (2%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

In Libcap Marketing Corp. v. Baquial, G.R. No. 192011, June 30, 2014, the Supreme Court
discussed the two causes for a valid dismissal, as differentiated in the case of Jaka Food
Processing Corporation v. Pacot, as follows:

A dismissal for just cause under Article 282 implies that the employee concerned has
committed, or is guilty of, some violation against the employer, i.e. the employee has
committed some serious misconduct, is guilty of some fraud against the employer, or, as in
Agabon, he has neglected his duties. Thus, it can be said that the employee himself
initiated the dismissal process.
On another breath, a dismissal for an authorized cause under Article 283 does not
necessarily imply delinquency or culpability on the part of the employee. Instead, the
dismissal process is initiated by the employer’s exercise of his management prerogative,
i.e. when the employer opts to install labor saving devices, when he decides to cease
business operations or when, as in this case, he undertakes to implement a retrenchment
program.

Accordingly, it is wise to hold that: (1) if the dismissal is based on a just cause under Article
282 but the employer failed to comply with the notice requirement, the sanction to be
imposed upon him should be tempered because the dismissal process was, in effect,
initiated by an act imputable to the employee; and (2) if the dismissal is based on an
authorized cause under Article 283 but the employer failed to comply with the notice
requirement, the sanction should be stiffer because the dismissal process was initiated by
the employer’s exercise of his management prerogative.

NOTE: The foregoing answer can be found in page 755 of the book entitled Principles and
Cases Labor Relations, Second Edition 2018, by Atty. Voltaire T. Duano. Questions
involving the same subject matter were given during the 2017 [see BQ No. X (B)] and 2000
Bar [see BQ No. VI] Examinations.
(b) Seasonal and project employees (2%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

In Universal Robina Sugar Milling Corporation v. Acibo, G.R. No. 186439, January 15,
2014, the Honorable Supreme Court elucidated the distinction between seasonal
employment and project employment as follows:

A project employment, on the other hand, contemplates on arrangement whereby “the

employment has been fixed for a specific project or undertaking whose completion or
termination has been determined at the time of the engagement of the employee[.]”
(LABOR CODE, Article 280) Two requirements, therefore, clearly need to be satisfied to
remove the engagement from the presumption of regularity of employment, namely: (1)
designation of a specific project or undertaking for which the employee is hired; and (2)
clear determination of the completion or termination of the project at the time of the
employee’s engagement. (See Violeta v. NLRC, 345 Phil. 762, 771 [1997])

Seasonal employment operates much in the same way as project employment, albeit it
involves work or service that is seasonal in nature or lasting for the duration of the season.
(Ibid) As with project employment, although the seasonal employment arrangement
involves work that is seasonal or periodic in nature, the employment itself is not
automatically considered seasonal so as to prevent the employee from attaining regular
status. To exclude the asserted “seasonal” employee from those classified as regular
employees, the employer must show that: (1) the employee must be performing work or
services that are seasonal in nature; and (2) he had been employed for the duration of the
season. (See Hacienda Bino/Hortencia Starke, Inc. v. Cuenca., supra, at 209; and Hda.
Fatima v. Nat’l Fed. of Sugarcane Workers–Food and Gen. Trade, supra at 596)
NOTE: The foregoing answer can be found in pages 681 and 700-702 of the book entitled
Principles and Cases Labor Relations, Second Edition 2018, by Atty. Voltaire T. Duano.
Historically, the question about project employment is always being distinguished with
casual/contractual worker (see 2005 BQ No. II [2b]) or regular employee (see 1996 BQ No.
3) and the question about seasonal employee is about illegal termination (see 2010 PART
II, BQ No. XVII).
(c) Strikes and lockouts (2%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
“Strike” means any temporary stoppage of work by the concerted action of employees as a
result of an industrial or labor dispute while “Lockout” means any temporary refusal of an
employer to furnish work as a result of an industrial or labor dispute.

NOTE: The foregoing answer can be found in page 12 of the book entitled Principles and
Cases Labor Relations, Second Edition 2018, by Atty. Voltaire T. Duano.

(d) Bona fide occupational qualifications (2%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

Bona fide occupational qualifications (BFOQ) are employment qualifications that

employers are allowed to consider while making decisions about hiring and retention of
employees. The qualification should relate to an essential job duty and is considered
necessary for operation of the particular business. This test was discussed by the High
Court in Star Paper Corporation v. Simbol, G.R. No. 164774, April 12, 2006, as follows: We
note that since the finding of a bona fide occupational qualification justifies an employer’s
no-spouse rule, the exception is interpreted strictly and narrowly by these state courts.
There must be a compelling business necessity for which no alternative exists other than
the discriminatory practice. (See note 117, A. Giattina, supra) To justify a bona fide
occupational qualification, the employer must prove two factors: (1) that the employment
qualification is reasonably related to the essential operation of the job involved; and, (2)
that there is a factual basis for believing that all or substantially all persons meeting the
qualification would be unable to properly perform the duties of the job. (Richard G. Flood
and Kelly A. Cahill, The River Bend Decision and How It Affects Municipalities’ Personnel
Rule and Regulations, Illinois Municipal Review, June 1993, p. 7)

NOTE: The foregoing answer can be found in page 48 of the book entitled Principles and
Cases Labor Standards and Social Legislation, Second Edition 2018, by Atty. Voltaire T.
Duano.

(e) Grievance machinery (2%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Grievance machinery a machinery for the adjustment and resolution of grievances arising
from the interpretation or implementation of their Collective Bargaining Agreement and
those arising from the interpretation or enforcement of company personnel policies. (Article
273 [260], Labor Code)

NOTE: The foregoing answer can be found in page 434 of the book entitled Principles and
Cases Labor Relations, Second Edition 2018, by Atty. Voltaire T. Duano. This is the first
time that the term was asked to be defined.

A.2.

X is a member of the Social Security System (SSS). In 2015, he died without any
spouse or children. Prior to the semester of his death, X had paid 36 monthly
contributions. His mother, M, who had previously been receiving regular support
from X, filed a claim for the latter’s death benefits.

(a) Is M entitled to claim death benefits from the SSS? Explain. (2.5%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes, M is entitled to claim the death benefits. According to Section 8 (k) of the SSS Law
(RA 8282 [now RA 11199]) in the absence of the dependent spouse and children the
dependent parents shall be the secondary beneficiaries of the member. In this case, since
X died without any spouse or children his mother M can therefore claim the death benefits.

NOTE: The foregoing answer can be found in page 955 of the book entitled Principles and
Cases Labor Standards and Social Legislation, Second Edition 2018, by Atty. Voltaire T.
Duano. A similar question was asked on the subject last 2017 (see 2017 BQ No. XII [b]).

(b) Assuming that X got married to his girlfriend a few days before his death, is M
entitled to claim death benefits from the SSS? Explain. (2.5%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

No, M is not entitled to claim death benefits of X. According to Section 8 (k) of the SSS Law
(RA 8282 [now RA 11199]) one of the primary beneficiaries is the dependent spouse while
dependent parents are only secondary beneficiaries of the member. M can only be entitled
to the death benefits in the absence of primary beneficiaries such as the dependent
spouse and children. On the assumption that X got married to his girlfriend a few days
before his death, M is not entitled to claim her son’s death benefits from the SSS.

NOTE: The foregoing answer can be found in page 955 of the book entitled Principles and
Cases Labor Standards and Social Legislation, Second Edition 2018, by Atty. Voltaire T.
Duano.

A.3.

A, B, and C were hired as resident-doctors by MM Medical Center, Inc. In the course

of their engagement, A, B, and C maintained specific work schedules as determined
by the Medical Director. The hospital also monitored their work through supervisors
who gave them specific instructions on how they should perform their respective
tasks, including diagnosis, treatment, and management of their patients.

One day, A, B, and C approached the Medical Director and inquired about the
non-payment of their employment benefits. In response, the Medical Director told
them that they are not entitled to any because they are mere “independent
contractors” as expressly stipulated in the contracts which they admittedly signed.
As such, no employer-employee relationship exists between them and the hospital.
(a) What is the control test in determining the existence of an employer-employee
relationship? (2%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:

In Royale Homes Marketing Corporation v. Alcantara, G. R. No. 195190, July 28, 2014, it
was held: Among the four, the most determinative factor in ascertaining the existence of
employer-employee relationship is the "right of control test". "It is deemed to be such an
important factor that the other requisites may even be disregarded." (Sandigan Savings
and Loan Bank, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission, 324 Phil. 348, 358 [1996])
This holds true where the issues to be resolved iswhether a person who performs work for
another is the latter’s employee or is an independent contractor, (Cosmopolitan Funeral
Homes, Inc. v. Maalat, G.R. No. 86693, July 2, 1990, 187 SCRA 108, 112) as in this case.
For where the person for whom the services are performed reserves the right to control not
only the end to be achieved, but also the means by which such end is reached,
employer-employee relationship is deemed to exist (Id. at 112-113).
NOTE: The foregoing answer can be found in page 366 of the book entitled Principles and
Cases Labor Standards and Social Legislation, Second Edition 2018, by Atty. Voltaire T.
Duano. Questions involving the same subject matter were given during the 2017, 2016,
2015, 2014, 2012, 2003, 2002, 1996, 1999 and 1991 Bar Examinations.

(b) Is the Medical Director’s reliance on the contracts signed by A, B, and C to refute
the existence of an employer-employee relationship correct? If not, are A, B, and C
employees of MM Medical Center, Inc.? Explain. (3%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, the Medical Director’s reliance on the contracts is not correct. In Calamba Medical
Center, Inc. v. NLRC, G.R. No. 176484, November 25, 2008, applying the “control test”,
the Supreme Court ruled that an employment relationship exists between a physician and
a hospital if the hospital controls both the means and the details of the process by which
the physician is to accomplish his task. (Nogales v. Capitol Medical Center, G.R. No.
142625, December 19, 2006, 511 SCRA 204, 221 citing Diggs v. Novant Health, Inc., 628
S.E.2d 851 [2006])

In this case, the element of control is very clear in the given facts. This is because the
resident-doctors in the course of their engagement maintained specific work schedules as
determined by the Medical Director and the hospital also monitored their work through
supervisors who gave them specific instructions on how they should perform their
respective tasks, including diagnosis, treatment, and management of their patients.

NOTE: The foregoing answer can be found in page 385 of the book entitled Principles and
Cases Labor Standards and Social Legislation, Second Edition 2018, by Atty. Voltaire T.
Duano. Although control test is a favorite question in the bar, however, this is the first time
that the subject matter of control involves resident-doctors.

A.4.

Mrs. B, the personal cook in the household of X, filed a monetary claim against her
employer, X, for denying her service incentive leave pay. X argued that Mrs. B did
not avail of any service incentive leave at the end of her one (1) year of service and
hence, not entitled to the said monetary claim.
(a) Is the contention of X tenable? Explain. (2.5%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

Yes, X’s contention is tenable. While under Kasambahay Law (RA 10361) A domestic
worker who has rendered at least one (1) year of service shall be entitled to an annual
service incentive leave of five (5) days with pay any unused portion of said annual leave
shall not be cumulative or carried over to the succeeding years. Unused leaves shall not be
convertible to cash. (Section 29, Article IV, Republic Act No. 10361)
Hence, Mrs. B is not entitled to the said monetary claim.

NOTE: The foregoing answer can be found in page 783 of the book entitled Principles and
Cases Labor Standards and Social Legislation, Second Edition 2018, by Atty. Voltaire T.
Duano.

(b) Assuming that Mrs. B is instead a clerk in X’s company with at least 30 regular
employees, will her monetary claim prosper? Explain. (2.5%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

Yes, Mrs. B's monetary claim will prosper. The Rules to Implement the Labor Code is very
clear that the service incentive leave shall be commutable to its money equivalent if not
used or exhausted at the end of the year. This is the distinction with respect to the service
incentive leave (SIL) of a domestic worker under RA 10361. Moreover, the establishment
is not excluded from paying the SIL as it was regularly employing more than nine (9)
employees.

NOTE: The foregoing answer can be found in page 467 of the book entitled Principles and
Cases Labor Standards and Social Legislation, Second Edition 2018, by Atty. Voltaire T.
Duano.
A.5.

Ms. F, a sales assistant, is one of the eight (8) workers regularly employed by ABC
Convenience Store. She was required to report on December 25 and 30. Should
ABC Convenience Store pay her holiday pay? Explain. (2.5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:

ABC Convenience Store is excluded from paying F her holiday pay. Under the Rules to
Implement the Labor Code the retail and service establishments regularly employing less
than ten (10) workers is excluded from the coverage of holidays with pay Section 1, Rule IV,
Book III, Rules to Implement the Labor Code).

NOTE: The foregoing answer can be found in page 467 of the book entitled Principles and
Cases Labor Standards and Social Legislation, Second Edition 2018, by Atty. Voltaire T.
Duano. A similar question was asked in 2012 [see BQ No. 6]Bar Examinations.
Hear-ye Hear-ye
Do you know that the following are the suggested answers to the PART I of the 2019 Bar
Examinations in Labor Law:
QUESTION NUMBERS 6-10. The following are just mere guide and no special claim.
A.6.
D, one of the sales representatives of OP, Inc., was receiving a basic pay of
P50,000.00 a month, plus a 1% overriding commission on his actual sales
transactions. In addition, beginning three (3) months ago, or in August 2019, D was
able to receive a monthly gas and transportation allowance of P5,000.00 despite the
lack of any company policy therefor.
In November 2019, D approached his manager and asked for his gas and
transportation allowance for the month. The manager declined his request, saying
that the company had decided to discontinue the aforementioned allowance
considering the increased costs of its overhead expenses. In response, D argued
that OP, Inc.’s removal of the gas and transportation allowance amounted to a
violation of the rule on non-diminution of benefits.
Is the argument of D tenable? Explain. (2.5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The argument of D is not tenable. The case of Wesleyan University-Philippines v.
Wesleyan University-Philippines Faculty and Staff Association, G.R. No. 181806, March
12, 2014 laid down the rule as to when to apply the Non-Diminution Rule. This rule,
however, applies only if the benefit is based on express policy, a written contract, or has
ripened into a practice. (Central Azucarera De Tarlac v. Central Azucarera De Tarlac Labor
Union-NLU, G.R. No. 188949, July 26, 2010, 625 SCRA 622, 630-631) While in as held in
Vergara, Jr. v. Coca-Cola Bottlers Philippines, Inc., G.R. No. 176985, April 1, 2013, “To be
considered as a regular company practice, the employee must prove by substantial
evidence that the giving of the benefit is done over a long period of time, and that it has
been made consistently and deliberately.” (See Eastern Telecommunications Philippines,
Inc. v. Eastern Telecoms Employees Union, supra note 15, at 532; Supreme Steel
Corporation v. Nagkakaisang Manggagawa ng Supreme Independent Union
(NMS-IND-APL), supra, at 528; and Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company v. National
Labor Relations Commission, G.R. No. 152928, June 18, 2009, 589 SCRA 376, 384)
In the given facts, the absence of company policy was clearly stated. Moreover, the grant
of the subject gas and transportation is not a regular company practice in the absence of
substantial evidence that it was done over a long period of time or it was made consistently
and deliberately.
Applying the above rule, the discontinuance is not a violation of non-diminution rule.
NOTE: The foregoing answer can be found in pages 517 and 519 of the book entitled
Principles and Cases Labor Standards and Social Legislation, Second Edition 2018, by
Atty. Voltaire T. Duano. A similar question was asked in 2013 [see BQ No. XIII]Bar
Examinations.
A.7.
W Gas Corp. is engaged in the manufacture and distribution to the general public of
various petroleum products. On January 1, 2010, W Gas Corp. entered into a
Service Agreement with Q Manpower Co., whereby the latter undertook to provide
utility workers for the maintenance of the former’s manufacturing plant. Although
the workers were hired by Q Manpower Co., they used the equipment owned by W
Gas Corp. in performing their tasks, and were likewise subject to constant checking
| based on W Gas Corp.’s procedures.
On February 1, 2010, Mr. R, one of the utility workers, was dismissed from
employment in line with the termination of the Service Agreement between W Gas
Corp. and Q Manpower Co. Thus, Mr. R filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against
W Gas Corp., claiming that Q Manpower Co. is only a labor-only contractor. In the
course of the proceedings, W Gas Corp. presented no evidence to prove Q
Manpower Co.’s capitalization.
(a) Is Q Manpower Co. a labor-only contractor? Explain. (2.5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Q Manpower Co. is a labor-only contractor. In Valencia v. Classique Vinyl products
Corporation, G. R. No. 206390, January 30, 2017 it was ruled that generally, the
presumption is that the contractor is a labor-only [contractor] unless such contractor
overcomes the burden of proving that it has the substantial capital, investment, tools and
the like. W Gas Corp. and Q Manpower Co. failed to overcome this presumption. Therefore
it is a labor-only contractor.
NOTE: The foregoing answer can be found in page 556 of the book entitled Principles and
Cases Labor Standards and Social Legislation, Second Edition 2018, by Atty. Voltaire T.
Duano.
(b) Will Mr. R’s complaint for illegal dismissal against W Gas Corp. prosper? Explain.
(2.5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes, Mr. R’s complaint for illegal dismissal against W Gas Corp. will prosper. In this case,
since the arrangement between W Gas Corp. and Q Manpower Co. is labor-only
contracting, due to its failure to overcome the presumption, the latter shall be considered
merely as an agent of the former, who shall be responsible to the workers in the same
manner and extent as if the latter were directly employed by him. The liability of W Gas
Corp. for illegal dismissal is based on Article 109 of the Labor Code which says that every
employer shall be held responsible with his contractor or subcontractor for any violation of
any provision of this Code.
NOTE: The foregoing answer can be found in pages 551 and 557 of the book entitled
Principles and Cases Labor Relations, Second Edition 2018, by Atty. Voltaire T. Duano.
This question is a favorite topic in the Bar Examinations.
A.8.
Ms. T was caught in the act of stealing the company property of her employer. When
Ms. T admitted to the commission of the said act to her manager, the latter advised
her to just tender her resignation; otherwise, she would face an investigation which
would likely lead to the termination of her employment and the filing of criminal
charges in court.
Acting on her manager’s advice, Ms. T submitted a letter of resignation. Later on,
Ms. T filed a case for constructive dismissal against her employer. While Ms. T
conceded that her manager spoke to her in a calm and unforceful manner, she
claimed that her resignation was not completely voluntary because she was told
that should she not resign, she could be terminated from work for just cause, and
worse, criminal charges could be filed against her.
(a) What is the difference between resignation and constructive dismissal? (2%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Doble, Jr. v. ABB, Inc. G.R. No. 215627, June 5, 2017 discussed the difference between
constructive dismissal and resignation, citing Gan v. Galderma Philippines, Inc.,701 Phil.
612 (2013), as follows:
To begin with, constructive dismissal is defined as quitting or cessation of work because
continued employment is rendered impossible, unreasonable or unlikely; when there is a
demotion in rank or a diminution of pay and other benefits. It exists if an act of clear
discrimination, insensibility, or disdain by an employer becomes so unbearable on the part
of the employee that it could foreclose any choice by him except to forego his continued
employment. There is involuntary resignation due to the harsh, hostile, and unfavorable
conditions set by the employer. The test of constructive dismissal is whether a reasonable
person in the employee’s position would have felt compelled to give up his
employment/position under the circumstances.
On the other hand, “[r]esignation is the voluntary act of an employee who is in a situation
where one believes that personal reasons cannot be sacrificed in favor of the exigency of
the service, and one has no other choice but to dissociate oneself from employment. It is a
formal pronouncement or relinquishment of an office, with the intention of relinquishing the
office accompanied by the act of relinquishment. As the intent to relinquish must concur
with the overt act of relinquishment, the acts of the employee before and after the alleged
resignation must be considered in determining whether he or she, in fact, intended to sever
his or her employment.” (Gan v. Galderma Philippines, Inc., et al., supra, at 638-639.
[Citations omitted])
NOTE: The foregoing answer can be found in page 750 of the book entitled Principles and
Cases Labor Relations, Second Edition 2018, by Atty. Voltaire T. Duano. This is the first
time that the subject terms was asked to be distinguished from each other.
(b)Will Ms. T’s claim for constructive dismissal prosper. Explain?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Ms. T’s claim for constructive dismissal will not prosper. It is settled that there is nothing
reprehensible or illegal when the employer grants the employee a chance to resign and
save face rather than smear the latter's employment record, as in this case.
The facts belie Ms. T’s argument that her employer constructively dismissed her. These
circumstances show that she was given the option to voluntarily resign from the company
instead of dealing with an investigation which might result in her dismissal. Verily, the
manager’s decision to give Ms. T a graceful exit rather than to file an action for redress is
perfectly within the discretion of the former; as it is not uncommon that an employee is
permitted to resign to avoid the humiliation and embarrassment of being terminated for just
cause after the exposure of her malfeasance.
In sum, the company did not constructively dismiss Ms. T; but rather, the latter voluntarily
resigned from her job in order to avoid a full-blown administrative trial regarding her
misdeeds which could potentially result in her termination for just cause. While it may be
said that she did not tender her resignation wholeheartedly, circumstances of her own
making did not give her any other option but to voluntarily do so.
The foregoing is based on the ponencia of Justice Perlas Bernabe in Central Azucarera de
Bais, Inc. v. Siason, G.R. No. 215555, July 29, 2015.
A.9.
After due proceedings, the Labor Arbiter (LA) declared Mr. K to have been illegally
dismissed by his former employer, ABC, Inc. As a consequence, the LA directed
ABC, Inc. to pay Mr. K separation pay in lieu of reinstatement as well as his full
backwages.
While ABC, Inc. accepted the finding of illegal dismissal, it nevertheless filed a
motion for reconsideration, claiming that the LA erred in awarding both separation
pay and full backwages, and instead, should have ordered Mr. K’s reinstatement to
his former position without loss of seniority rights and other privileges, but without
payment of backwages. In this regard, ABC, Inc. pointed out that the LA’s ruling did
not contain any finding of strained relations or that reinstatement was no longer
feasible. In any case, it appears that no evidence was presented on this score.
(a)Is ABC, Inc.’s contention to delete the separation pay, and instead, order
reinstatement without backwages correct? Explain. (3%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes, ABC Inc.’s contention is correct. It is a established doctrinal rule that even in cases of
illegal dismissal, the doctrine of strained relations is not applied indiscriminately as to bar
reinstatement, especially when the employee has not indicated an aversion to returning to
work (Coca-Cola Bottlers Phils., Inc. v. Daniel, G.R. No. 156893, June 21, 2005) or does
not occupy a position of trust and confidence in (Globe-Mackay Cable and Radio
Corporation v. NLRC, G.R. No. 82511, 3 March 1992, 206 SCRA 701, 712) or has no say
in the operation of the employer’s business. (Abalos v. Philex Mining Corporation, G.R. No.
140374, November 27, 2002) Although litigation may also engender a certain degree of
hostility, it has likewise been ruled that the understandable strain in the parties’ relations
would not necessarily rule out reinstatement which would, otherwise, become the rule
rather than the exception in illegal dismissal cases. (Procter and Gamble Philippines v.
Bondesto, G.R. No. 139847, March 5, 2004)
NOTE: The foregoing answer can be found in page 649 of the book entitled Principles and
Cases Labor Relations, Second Edition 2018, by Atty. Voltaire T. Duano. This is the first
time that the subject was asked.
(b)Assuming that on appeal, the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC)
upholds the decision of the LA, where, how, and within what time frame should ABC,
Inc. assail the NLRC ruling? (2%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The decision of the NLRC can be assailed to the Court of Appeals by petition for certiorari
under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court and within sixty (60) days from receipt of the resolution
denying the motion for reconsideration.
NOTE: The foregoing answer can be found in pages 154 to 158 of the book entitled
Principles and Cases Labor Relations, Second Edition 2018, by Atty. Voltaire T. Duano.
This is the first time that the subject was asked.
A.10.
For purposes of prescription, within what periods from the time the cause of action
accrued should the following cases be filed:
(a) Money claims arising from employer-employee relations (1%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
All money claims and benefits arising from employer relations shall be filed within three (3)
years from the time the cause of action accrued; otherwise, they shall be forever barred.
(Section 1, Rule II, Book VII, Rules to Implement the Labor Code, Article 306. [291], Labor
Code)
NOTE: The foregoing answer can be found in page 935 of the book entitled Principles and
Cases Labor Relations, Second Edition 2018, by Atty. Voltaire T. Duano. Question
involving the same subject matter was given during the 2013 [see BQ No. IV (2)] Bar
Examinations.
(b) Illegal dismissal (1%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Teekay Shipping Philippines, Inc. v. Concha, G.R. No. 185463, February 22, 2012 ruled: In
Callanta v. Carnation Philippines, Inc., 229 Phil. 279, 288 (1986), this Court ruled that
actions based on injury to rights prescribe in four (4) years under Article 1146 of the Civil
Code rather than three (3) years as provided for the Labor Code. An action for damages
involving a plaintiff separated from his employment for alleged unjustifiable causes is one
for injury to the rights of the plaintiff, and must be brought within four (4) years. (Valencia v.
Cebu Portland Cement, et al., 106 Phils. 732, 735 [1959])
NOTE: The foregoing answer can be found in page 948 of the book entitled Principles and
Cases Labor Relations, Second Edition 2018, by Atty. Voltaire T. Duano. Questions
involving the same subject matter were given during the 2013 [see BQ No. IV], 2002 [see
BQ No. I (A and B)], 1997 [see BQ No. XII] and 1994 [see BQ No. XI] Bar Examinations.
(c) Unfair labor practice (1%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
All unfair labor practice arising from Book V shall be filed with the appropriate agency
within one (1) year from accrual of such unfair labor practice; otherwise, they shall be
forever barred. (Article 305 [290], Labor Code)
NOTE: The foregoing answer can be found in page 934 of the book entitled Principles and
Cases Labor Relations, Second Edition 2018, by Atty. Voltaire T. Duano. This is the first
time that the prescription of ULP was asked.
(d) Offenses under the Labor Code (1%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Offenses penalized under this Code and the rules and regulations issued pursuant thereto
shall prescribe in three (3) years. (Article 305 [290], Labor Code)
NOTE: The foregoing answer can be found in page 934 of the book entitled Principles and
Cases Labor Relations, Second Edition 2018, by Atty. Voltaire T. Duano. Question
involving the same subject matter was given during the 2012 [see BQ No. 71] Bar
Examinations.
(e) Illegal recruitment (1%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
For illegal recruitment under RA 8042, Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act of
1995, the prescription for (simple) illegal recruitment is five (5) years. (Section 12 of RA
8042, Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995) And in case it involves
economic sabotage the prescription is twenty (20) years. (Section 12 of RA 8042, Migrant
Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995) while illegal recruitment under, considered
offenses penalized under this Code and the rules and regulations issued pursuant thereto
shall prescribe in three (3) years. (Article 305 [290], Labor Code)
NOTE: The foregoing answer can be found in pages 276-277 and 290 of the book entitled
Principles and Cases Labor Standards and Social Legislation, Second Edition 2018, by
Atty. Voltaire T. Duano. This is the first time that this type of question was asked in the Bar
Examinations.