SUGGESTED ANSWER:
A termination based on just cause under Art. 282 of the Labor Code means that the
employee has committed a wrongful act or mission inimical to the interests of the employer,
which justifies the severance of the employer - employee relationship , eg . , the employee has
committed some serious misconduct ; gross insubordination ; fraud or loss of trust and
confidence ; gross and habitual neglect of duty ; dime committed against the employer and his
family ; other analogous cases . Payment of separation pay is not mandated by law.
On the other hand, termination based on authorized cause under Art. 283 and Art. 284 of
the Labor Code means that there exists a ground which the law itself authorizes to be invoked to
justify the termination of an employee even if he has not committed any wrongful act or omission
. Under the same provisions , authorized causes are classified into two ( 2 ) classes , namely
Business - related causes such as installation of labor - saving devices ; retrenchment ;
redundancy ; or closure not due to serious losses ; and Health - related causes , such as disease .
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Seasonal employees are those who are called to work from time to time according to the
occurrence of varying need during a season, and the employment is only for the duration of said
season . They are laid off after completion of the required phase of work for the season.
Project employees are those who are assigned to carry out a specific project or
undertaking, the duration and scope of which were specified at the time the employees were
engaged for the project, hence, the services of the project employees are coterminous with the
project for which they were hired . [ Article 295, Labor Code]
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Strikes are any temporary stoppage of work by the concerted Action of employees as a
result of an industrial labor dispute; whereas, lockouts are the temporary refusal of an employer
to furnish work as a result of an industrial or labor dispute. [ Article 219 [ 2121 par. o and p Pabor
Code )
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Employment in particular jobs may not be limited to persons of a particular sex , religion
, or national origin unless the employer can show that sex , religion , or national origin is an actual
qualification for performing the job . The qualification is called a bona fide occupational
qualification ( BFOQ ) . [ Armando Yrasuegui o Philippine Airlines , Inc. , G.R. No. 168081 , October
17 , 2008 ]
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
In bona fide occupational qualifications , the employer must prove that ( 1 ) the
employment qualification is reasonably related to the essential operation of the job involved ;
and ( 2 ) that there is factual basis for believing that all or substantially all persons meeting the
qualification would be able to properly perform the duties of the job . Armando Yrasuegui o
Philippine Airlines , Inc. , G.R. No. 168081 , October 17 , 2008 ]
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Under the Labor Code, grievance machinery refers to the mechanism for the adjustment
and resolution of grievances arising from the interpretation or implementation of a Collective
Bargaining Agreement and those arising from the interpretation or enforcement of company
personnel policies. It is part of the continuing process of Collective Bargaining.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes. R.A. 8282, otherwise known as the SSS Law, states that if a member has no primary
beneficiaries , his secondary beneficiaries shall De entitled to a lump sum benefit equivalent to
thirty - six ( 36 ) times the monthly pension . Thus, the mother of X , as a secondary beneficiary ,
is ntitled to a lump sum death benefits for X , who has made at least 36 monthly contributions .
[ Section 13 in relation to Sec . 8 ( K ) , R.A. 9262 ]
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes . The presumption that the surviving spouse whose marriage to SSS members were
contracted after the latter's retirement entered into the marriage for the purpose of securing
survivor's benefits is not necessarily or universally true . [ Dycalco . Social Security System , G.R.
No. 161357 , November 30 , 2005 ]
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
This test is premised on the exercise or the reservation of the right to control the manner
and method to do a job . The important factor to consider is how the work itself is done , not just
the end result thereof . [ Reyes v . Glaucoma , June 17 , 2015 , G.R. No. 189255 ]
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No , the Medical Director's reliance on the contracts signed by A , B C to refute the
existence of an employer - employee relationship is not correct . A , B & C are employees of MM
Medical Center , Inc. Under the control test the employment relationship existed between the
Physicians and the hospital because the hospital controlled the means and the details of the
process by which the resident doctors accomplished their task.
In this case , the hospital maintained the specific work schedules of A , B , & C. Moreover
, the hospital monitored their specific instructions on how they should perform their respective
tasks , including diagnosis , treatment and management of their patients . The element of control
having been established , A , B , & Care employees of MM Medical Center , Inc. [ Calamba Medical
Center , Inc. p . NLRC , et al . , G.R. No. 176484 , 25 November 2008 ]
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
No , it is not correct . A , B & C are employees of MM Medical Center , Inc.
In the case with similar facts , the Supreme Court said , " ... the existence of LSGI's power
of control over the means and method pursued by the petitioners in the performance of their
job gives them the status of a regular employment ... " [ Samonte v . La Salle Greenhills ( February
10 , 2016 , G.R. No. 199683 ]
This control is manifested by the fact that a supervisor gives them specific instructions on
how they perform their respective tasks .
Therefore , the Medical Director's reliance on the contract signed by A , B , and C to refute
the existence of employer - employee relationship is not correct .
Based on Article 295 of the Labor Code , the law determines the nature of the
employment , regardless of any agreement expressing otherwise .
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No , the contention of X is not tenable . Mrs. B being a Kasambahay is entitled to service
incentive leave under R.A. 10361 as clarified by Labor Advisory No. 010-18 . As such , she has the
prerogative to use it , monetize it after 12 months of service , or commute until separation from
service . If she elects the second , she has three ( 3 ) years to demand for payment to avail of the
benefit . Hence , not being a prescribed claim , it's withholding is unlawful . [ Lourdes Rodriguez
. Park N Ride , G.R. No. 222980 , March 20 , 2017 ]
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
This is not correct because Article 95 provides that unused SIL is commutable to its money
equivalent at the end of the year . Furthermore , if the employee does not use or commute the
same , he is entitled upon his resignation or separation from work to the commutation of his
accrued service incentive leave . [ Auto Bus Transport v . Bautista , G.R. No. 156367 , May 16 ,
2005 ]
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes , the money claim will prosper . A clerk is not one of those exempt employees in Article
82 the Labor Code which refers to government employees , managerial employees , field
personnel members of the family who are dependent on him for support , domestic helpers ,
persons in the personal service of another and persons who are paid by results .
ALTERNATTVE ANSWER
Yes, the money claim will prosper. The Right to Service Incentive Leave under Article 95
of the Labor code shall not apply to those employed in establishments regularly employing less
than ten employees. Since X's company which has at least 30 regular employees does not fall
under the exception (retail or service establishments with less ten employees), Mrs. Bis entitled
to the S-day service incentive leave and to its commutable money equivalent if unused. ]
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No. As provided by Article 94 of the Labor Code of the Philippines (PD No. 142), every
employee is entitled to the payment of his regular daily basic wage (100%) during holiday except
employees working in retail and service establishments regularly employing less than ten (10)
workers.
In the case at bar, Ms. F is working as a sales assistant in ABC Convenience Store which is
engaged in retail business with only eight (6) workers. As such, ABC Convenience Store falls under
the exception and hence, is not obliged to pay Mrs. F her holiday pay.
SUGGESTBD ANSWER:
No, the argument of D is not tenable. The principle of non- diminution of benefits, which
has been incorporated In Article 100 of the Labor Code, forbids an employer from unilaterally
reducing diminishing discontinuing or eliminating compensation or privilege which are given as a
company practice. In Netlink v. Delmo (GR No 6OS27, June 18, 2014), the Supreme Court sald
that the length of time has not been laid out on what constitutes a company practice. However,
here are Supreme Court decisions that say a period of two years, more or less, is deemed a
company practice, (Sevilla Trading Conmpany G.R. Na. 152456, April 28, 2009).
In the question, the monthly gas and transportation allowance was given to D for three
months only. Such a short period appears not t0 fall under the category of company practice
using the above decisions as a basis.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
No, D's argument is not tenable. The Principle of Non-Diminution of Benefits Labor Code,
Article 100] strictly pertains to the pre promulgation benefits and not to post-promulgation
benefits such as Subject allowance Insnlar Hotel Employees Union-NFL v. Waterfront Insular
Hotel Dava0, G.R. No,. 174040, September 22, 2010). If what is diminished is a post-promulgation
beneflt; the rule violated is the Principle of Grants. At any rate, the subject allowance has not yet
ripened lo 'a demandable right since its enjoyment was for a few months only and the company
did not intend to grant it permanently.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes, Q Manpower Co. is a labor-only contractor. Article 106 of the Labor Code provides
that there is "labor-only contracting where the person supplying workers to an employer does
not have substantial capital or investment in the form of tools, equipment, machineries work
premises, among others and the workers recruited ana placed by such contractor are performing
activities which are directly related to the business. In the question posed, the equipment
belonged to w Gas Corp. In the course of the proceedings, no evidence was presented to prove
Q Manpower Co's substantial capitalization.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
Yes, Q Manpower Co. is a labor-only contractor. In trilateral Working arrangements, the
law presumes the same to be a "labor-only contracting arrangement, and the burden of proof is
placed upon the prrincipal employer W Gas Corp, to show that the service provider Q Manpower
Co. is a legitimate labor contractor. [Allied Banking Corp. CEc. v. Reynold Calumpang, G.R. No.
219435, January 17, 2018: cf. Ricky dela Cruz v. Coca-Cola Botlers] IRA Conment: Google says it's
Cocn-Cola Bottlers U. Ricky dcla Cniz?
In this case, W Gas Corp. presented no evidence to prove Q Manpower Co.s capitalization.
Hence, it cannot be said that Q Manpower Co. has substantial capital or investment. The fact that
they even used the equipment of W Gas Corp. does not speak well of their financial capability.
Moreover, being subjected to constant checking by W Gas Corp. would show that Q Manpower
Co. is not free from the control and direction of the principal in the performance of the work.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes, Mr. R's complaint for illegal dismissal against W Gas Corp will prosper as it is solitarily
liable with Q Manpower Corp. under Article 106 of the Labor Code. Having proved that Q
Manpower is only a labor-only contractor, it is considered merely as an agent of W Gas Corp.
Consequently, there exists an employer-employee relationship between Mr. R and W Gas Corp.
It cannot terminate Mr. R on the pretext that the service contract it had entered with Q
Manpower Co. has already lapsed, but must prove just or authorized cause after due process.
SUGGESTED ANSWER
Resignation is at the instance of the employee, whereas Constructive dismissal is at the
instance of the employer. Resignation is voluntary, whereas in constructive dismissal there is
vitiated consent. Resignation means no separation pay, whereas constructive dismissal means
payment of separation pay and damages. Resignation must be at least with 30 days' notice on
the part of the employee, whereas in constructive dismissal the employee can leave anytime.
SUGGESTEDANSWER:
No. The Supreme Court ruled that ". the employer did not violate any law when it gave
the employee the option to resign because there is nothing illegal with the practice of allowing
an employee to resign instead of being separated for cause, so as not to smear her employment..
This case applies to Ms. T as she was caught stealing and her resignation gives her a chance not
to smear her records. (Sicaugco v. NLRC, G.R. No. 110261, August 4, 1994]
ALTERNATTVE ANSWER:
No. Ms. T was not placed in a situation that lcft her with no option except to selFterminate. Instead, she was just given a graceful exit. A graceful exit is within the prerogative of
an employer to give instead of binding an employee to his fault, or filing an action for redress
against him. [Central Azucurera de Bais, nc, et al. u. Siason, G.R. No. 215555, July 29, 2015]
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
Yes. In cases of constructive dismissal, there is cessation of work because."continued
employment is rendered impossible, unreasonable or unlikely, as an offer involving a demotion
In rank or a diminution in pay' and other benefits. “Divine World College of Laoag V& Mina, G.R.
Na. 193155, April 13, 2016
In this caxe, the words of the employer are in the form of a veiled threat tantamount lo
coercion. Thus, there is constructive dismissal.
Note In the consideration of this alternative answer, it is respectfully suggested that as
long as the examinee defines what constructive dismissal is, he should nevertheless be given full
credit whatever the explanation is.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes, it is correct but only insofar as it contends to order reinstatement. Firstly, a motion
for reconsideration before the Labor Arbiter isa prohibited pleading under the 2011 NLRC Rules
of Procedure as amended. However, assuming that it is not, ABCs contention to delete the
separation pay and instead order reinstatement is correct. The general rule is that in case a
dismissal is declared, actual reinstatement should be the norm and thus must be granted as a
matter of course. IEniiritus v. Dalig, G.R. No. 204761, April 2 2014J Separation pay is awardable
only if there are strained relations between the employer and the employee ".. if strained
relations are neither alleged nor proven, there is no basis to order the award of separation pay.
[Pasos v. PNCC, G.R. No. 192394, July 3, 2013 Since the facts do not disclose that there were
strained relations between Mr. K and ABC Inc., and the LA's decision fails to state that there is a
bar to reinstatement, the general norm of reinstatement must be followed.
As to the award of back wages, ABC Ine.'s claim to delete is incorrect. Under Article 294,
an employee who is illegally dismissed is entitled to payment of full backwages, inclusive of
allowances and other benefits or their monetary equivalent, computed from the time his
compensation was withheld up to the time of his actual reinstatement OR up to the finality of
the decision in case no actual reinstatement is ordered.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
A motion for reconsideration must first be filed in the NLRC, which must. be filed within
ten (10) calendar days from receipt of decision, resolution or order, with proof of service that a
copy of the same has been furnished, within the reglementary period, the adverse party. ISection
15, Rule VIl, 2011 NLRC Rules of Procedurc] [RA Commert: I integraterd the experts discussion in
the answer. The legal basis wasfound witha quick scarch, so it needs to be checked.]
If the LA ruling is still. upheld, from the NLRC, the case may go to the Court of Appeals in
a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of Court within a reglementary period
af 60 days from the time of receipt of the Resolution denying the Motion for Reconsideration.
[St. Martin Funeral Home v. NLRC, G.R. No. 130866, September 16, 1998] The petition is
grounded on grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack. Or excess of jurisdiction on the part of
the NLRC. Itis an initiatory pleading, therefore must be accompanied by a verification and
certification of non-forum shopping. Factual issues may be raised and.all pertinent pleadings,
decision and resolution must be a certified true copy.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
All money claims arising from employer-employee relations accruing during the effectivity
of this Code shall be filed within three years from the time the cause of action accrued; otherwise
they shall be forever barred. [Labor Code, Article 306 (291)D
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER
Money claims arising from employer-employee relations prescribe in three (3) years from
the time the money claim arise. D for Service Incentive Leave, the three (3)-year prescriptive
period commences, not at the end of the year when the employee becomes entitled to the
commutation of his service incentive leave, but frum the me when the employer refuses to pay
its monetary equivalent after demand or commutation or upon termination of the employees
services. IAutobus Transport Systems, Inc. t. Bautista, G.R. No. 156367. May 2005
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The prescriptive period for filing an illegal dismissal complaint is four years from the time
the cause of action accrued. Iteeka Shipping Philippines, Inc., vs. Ramier Concha, G.R. No. 185463,
February 22, 2012; Cioil Code, Article 1146)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
All unfair labor practices 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. [Labor Code, Article 305 (290)
SUGCESTED ANSWER:
Offenses penalized under this Code and the rules and regulations issued pursuant thereto
shall prescribe in three (3) years. [Labor Code, Article 305 (290)]
SUGGESTED ANSWER
Illegal recruitment cases under this Act shall prescribe in five (5) years: Provided, however,
that illegal recruitment cases imvolving economie sabotage as defined herein shall prescribe in
twenty (20) years. [Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995, Republic Note that RA
802 only applies to Migrant Warkers. llegal recruitment for local employment is subject to the
provisions of the Labor Code, in particular, Article 305 (290), first paragraph, to wit offenses
penalized under this Code ox shall prescribe in three years
SUGGESTED ANSWER
1. Power to inspect employer's records and premises at any time of the day or night whenever
work is being undertaken therein, and the right to copy therefrom, to question any employee
and investigate any fact, condition or mater which may necessary to determine violations or
which may aid in the enforcement of the Labor Code and of any labor law, wage order or rules
and regulations issued pursuant thereto. [Labor Code, Article 128(a)) a
2. Power to issue compliance orders to give effect to the labor standards provisions of this Code
and other labor legislation based on the findings of labor employment and enforcement officers
or industrial safety engineers made in the course of inspection. [Labor Code, Article 128 (b)I
3. Power to issue writs of execution to the appropriate authority for the enforcement of their
orders, except in cases where the employer contests the findings of the labor employment and
enforcement officer and raises issues supported by documentary proofs which were not
considered in the course of inspection. ILabor Code, Article 128 (b))
4. Power to order stoppage of work or suspension of operations of any unit or department of an
establishment when non- compliance with the Jaw or implementing rules and regulations poses
grave and imminent danger to the health and safety of workers in the workplace.{Labor Corle,
Article 128 (c))
5. Assumption of Jurisdiction and/or Certification to the NLRC for Compulsory Arbitration in labor
disputes causing or likely to cause a strike or lockout in an industry indispensable to the national
interest. [Labor Code, Article 278 (>)]
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The BLR has the following administrative functions: (1) registration of labor unions; (2)
keeping of registry of labor unions; and (3) maintenance and custody of CBAs.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The VA has original and exclusive jurisdiction to hear and decide al unresolved grievances
arising from the interpretation or enforcement of the CBA and company, personnel policies.
[Labor Code, Art. 274]
The VA shall also hear and decide all other disputes including ULP and bargaining
deadlocks upon agreement of the parties [Labor Sode, Article 275)
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
Where the application of any prescribed wage increase by virtue Gf a law or wage order
issued by any Regional Board results in distortions of the wage structure within an establishment,
the employer and the union shall negotiate to correct the distortions. Any dispute arising from
wage distortions shall be resolved through the grievance procedure under their collective
bargaining agreement and, it remains unresolved, through voluntary arbitration. Unless
otherwise agreed by the parties in writing. such dispute shall be decided by the voluntary
arbitrators within ten (10) calendar days from Ehe time said dispute was referred to voluntary
arbitration. [Labor Code, Article 124]
SUGGESTEDANSWER:
No, the LA did not er. There is a two-liered test to determine whether a dispute is with
the LA or the RTC, to wit a) the status or the relationship of the parties, and b) the nature of the
question that is the t tne conroversy. Viray v. CA, G.R. No. 92453, Vovenber 1990] Distinction
should be made between a labor controversy ana an intra-corporate dispute. Not all conflicts
between a corporation and a stockholder involve corporate matters. (Cosare v. Broadcon, G.R.
No. 01298, February 5, 2014)
In the case at bar, since Mr. X seeks to recover his position as a ice-President of External
Affairs and not as a member of the board o BC Co, then the LA has jurisdiction to try his case and
therefore the motion to dismiss was correctly denied by the LA. S
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER
Yes, the LA erred in refusing to dismiss the case on the ground of Hack of jurisdiction. The
position of Vice-President for External Affairs being explicitly stated as one of corporate officers
provided by the company's by-laws, then this is an intra-corporate controversy which Talls under
the jurisdiction of the RTC acting as a commercial court. [Matling v. Coros; Cosare v. Broadcom
in the reverse]
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, it may not. A reinstatement order by the LA is immediately executory and no
reimbursement is due even if it is reversed on appeal Garcia v. PAL, G.R No. 164856, January 20,
2009
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, the reduction of Mr. A's salary is invalid. All the Terms and conditions in the POEA
contract remain in force until such changes are approved by the POEA. To substitute or alter to
the prejudice of the worker, employment contracts approved and verified by the department of
Labor and Employment from the time of actual signing hereof by the parties up to and including
the period of the expiration of the same without the approval of the Department of labor and
Employment constitutes a prohibited practice. ISec. 6, RA O12]
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER
No, the reduction of Mr. A's salary is invalid. The Labor Code provisions on retrenchment
and other authorized causes of termination are to apply to Mr. A, änd hence, he should be
entitled to retrenchment pay of 1 month guaranteed pay or ½ month for every year of service,
whichever is higher. The principle of incorporation and lex loci celebrationis applies to Filipino
workers, regardless of their deployment abroad. If at all, he ought to have received his
retrenchment pay, and then signed up for a new contract of employment under reduced salaries.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
Yes, the reduction of Mr. A's salary is valid. Assuming that the company is truthfully
suffering from severe financial losses, the reduction of Mr. A'S salary is valid as it is a result of his
agreement together with other employees, with the objective of preventing the company from
shutting down. The law (Article 100) prohibits diminution or elimination of benefits by a
unilateral action of the employer. The law is not violated if the action resulted from a joint or
negotiated decision freely made by the employer and the employee. In Insular Hotel Employees
Onion-NFL V. Waterfront Insular Hotel Davao [G.R. Nos. 174040-41, September 22, 2010], the
Supreme Court upheld the reduction of pay agreed by the union so as to prevent the closure of
the enterprise.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes, Mr. A. may hold YZ Recruitment Co. liable for the payment of his wages under the
rule that a recruiter is solidarily liable for breaches of the terms and conditions of the POEAapproved employment contract. fSection 1, Rule I1, Book 11, POFA Rules and Regulations;
Datumun v. First Cosmopolitan Manpouver and Pramotion Seroices, Inc., G.R. 156029, Novenber
14, 2003J
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Wage distortion shall mean a situation where an increase in prescribed wage rates results
in the elimination or severe contraction of intentional quantitative differences in wage or salary
rates between and among employee groups in an establishment as to effectively obliterate the
distinctions embodied in such wage structure based on skills, length of service, or other logical
bases of differentiation. ILabor Code, Arl. 124, par. 71
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No. In Prubankers Associatiou v. Prudential Bank and Trust Company, the Court laid down the
four elements of wage distortion, to wit An existing hierarchy of positions with corresponding
salary rates; (2) A significant change in the salary rate of a lower pay class without a concomitant
increase in the salary rae of a higher one; (3) The elimination of the distinction bebween the two
levels; and he existence of the distortion in the same region of the country [G.R. No. 131247,
Jauary 25, 1999]. The first, third and fourth requisites do not obtain in this case.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER
No. There is no wage order mentioned In the attendant facts. Thus, the issue on wage
distortion shall not arise.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
Yes, in this instance, where the increases in wages amounted to the elimination or
abrogation of the differences in salary rates between employees with similar positions and
qualifications, then K Corporation is obliged to rectify the wages of its old employees.
ALTERNATVE ANSWER
No, not all increases in salary which obliterate differences of certain employees should
be. perceived. as wage distortion. [Phil Geothenal Ine Employees Unlon o..Chevron Geotherunal,
G.R. No. 07252 1amuary 24, 2018]
SUGGESTED SNSWER:
It can ask for the renegotiation of the terms of the CBA within sixty days prior to the
expiration of its economic period viz., fromn October 2, 2018 unti November 30, 2021. According
to Article 253-A of the Labor Code, all other provisions of the [CBA] shall be renegotiated not
later than three (3) ycars after its execution. Any agreement of such other provisions of the [CBA]
entered ínto within six (6) months from the date of expiry of the term of such other provisions as
fixed in such CBA], shall retroact to the day immediately following such date. If any such
agreement is entered into beyond six months, the parties shall agree on the duration of
retroactivity thereof. In case of a deadlock in the renegotiation of the [CBA]. the parties may
exercise their rights under this Code.
Hence, they may submit the demand for renegotiation at any time between October 2,
2021 to November 30, 2021. The carliest day would be October 2, 2021.
SUGCESTED ANSWER:
The sixty-day freedom period is from October 2, 2023 to NOvember 30, 2023. Hence, they
can file a petition for CE on October , 2023 at the earliest. According to Article 253-A of the Labor
Code, any collective bargaining Agreement that the parties may enter into shall, insofar as the
representation aspect is concerned, be for a term of five )years. No petition questioning the
majority status of the incumbent bargaining agent shall be entertained and no certification
eletion shal e conducted by the Department of Labor and Employment outside of e sixty-day
period immediately before the date of expiry of such five ear term of the [CBAJ.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
In the event of conflicting medical assessments, the parties are required to select a third
physician whose finding shall be final and binding on them. Uader Sec. 20(B) of the 2010 POEA-
SEC, the selection 15 consensual however, jurisprudence has made it mandatory. IPhilippine
Hamnonia Ship Agency, Ince u. Eulogia Dumadag, G.R. No. 194362, 26 Jume 2013]
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes, it will prosper. The Third. Physician Rule has no application hen the companydesignated physician exceeds the 120-day treatment period without making a final, categorical
and definitive assessment. Here, he allowed 209 days to clapse without issuing a i-to-work
assessment or a disability grade. [Alpines Phil, Inc, G.R. No. 2021334. November 9, 2016) Elburg
ShipmanagemCnt
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Non-compliance with the 3-day reporting requirement results in the forfeiture of G's
entitlement to disability compensation. [Sec. 20(B), POEA-SEc]
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
There being no specific indication as to the nature of the engagement or that her
performance was to be evaluated in accordance with standards for regularization made known
at the time of engagement, it is thus presumed that Ms. A was hired as a regular employee. She
cannot also be categorized as a term employee since it was not agreed upon by her and the
University that her employment would only be for a definite period of time.
As a matter of fact, there being no mention of a contract in the racis, Ms. A can only be
considered as a regular employee.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER
Ms. A is a probationary employee. A probationary employee is ne who is placed on rial by
an employer during which the latter determines whether or not the former is qualified for
permanent employment [Enchanted Kingdom v. Verzo, G.R No. 209559, December 9, 2015]. In
this ease, it was provided in the facts that she was hired to oversee the training and coaching of
the University's volleyball team. It vas likewise communicated to her by the Vice-President for
Sports that they expect Ms. A to bring the University at the championship at the end of the year.
Such predicament of the School Official is tantamount to the standards that Ms. A must reach in
order for her to attain a regular employment status. However, Ms. A failed to reach the standards
set forth before her employment. Thus, rendering her termination valid.
ALTERNATITVE ANSWER:
Ms. A is a fixed-term employee. ln a case similarly decided by the Supreme Court involving
an athletic director, the Court ruled that the decisive determinant in term employment should
not be the activities that the employee is called upon to perform, but the day certain agreed upon
by the parties for the commencement and termination of their employment relationship, a day
certain being understood to be "that which must necessarily come, although it may not be known
when Brent School v. Zamora G.R. No. L4S494 February 5, 1990]." In this case, that "day certain"
is presumed o be the end of the volleyball Season.
SUGCESTED ANSWER:
The University should pay nominal damages to Ms. A in the amount of P30,000.00.
Applying the Agabon Doctrine, if the dismissal ot the employee was for just cause but procedural
due process was not observed, the lack of statutory due process should not nullify the dismissal
or render it illegal or ineffechual [Agabon v. NLRC. G.R. No. 158693, November 17, 20041.
However, the employer should indemnifyy the employee for the violation of his right to
procedural due process.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The critical point of analysis is the violation of the rights of workers to self-organization,
characterized by interference, coercion, restraint by the employer to discourage unionism and
refusal to bargain a collective bargaining agreement
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
The critical point of analysis is whether or not the act can be considered as anti-union.
There Is the so-called totality oE conduct doctrine. The "totallty of conduct doctrine" mens those
expressions of opinion by an employer, though innocent in themselves, may be held to be
constitutive of unfair labor practice because of the circumstances under which they were uttered,
the history of the particular employers labor relations or anti-union bias or because of their
connection with an established collateral plan of coercion or interference. An expression which
might be permissibly uttered by one employer, might, in the mouth of a more hostile employer,
be deemed improper and consequently actionable as an unfair labor practice.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, there is no sufficient compliance with the legal requirements for retrenchment. Under
Article 298 of the Labor Code, individual written notices of the termination due to retrenchment
must be given each affected employee, in addition to the notice to be submitted to the OLE within
30 days from the intended date of termination. Mere announcement is not compliance It is
assumed that there is substantial evidence establishing that there are serious business losses
justifying e retrenchment and other previous cost-cutting measures nave proven to be
ineffective. ž
SUGCESTED ANSWER
No, under Article 300 of the Labor Code it is not legally permissible because the employer
is allowed under the law to suspend operations only up to 6 months. If the suspension persists
beyond 6 months it amounts to termination. The employer must then show compliance with
procedural and substantive due process else the termination would be considered as illegal.
SUGCESTED ANSWER:
A voluntary/optional retirement is a termination of employment based on a bilateral
agreement to terminate employment at an agreed age regardless of years in service, or after a
certain number of years in service regardless of age. It is a matter of contract. In contrast, a
compulsory retirement is a termination of employment by operation of law. It is a matter of
statute.
Under Art. 302 of the Labor Code, retiring employees shall be paid retirement benefits
computed as follows: (22.5 days x Daily Rate) x Length of Servicc. The 22.5 days consist of 15 days
representing half. month salary, 5 days as service incentive leave, and 2.5 days representing 1/12
of 131h month pay. The full 225 days shall be used if the retiree is entitled to both service
incentive leave and 13th month pay. Meantime, the 15 days must always be used.