2024 PRE-BAR EXAMS: QUESTIONS AND

ANSWERS
IN LABOR AND SOCIAL LEGISLATIONS
BY: ATTY. JOSE SONNY G. MATULA, BA (MSU), LLB (MLQU), MAJOR
(PA), AFP RESERVE COMMAND
President, Federation of Free Workers (FFW)
Chairman, Nagkaisa Labor Coalition (NAGKAISA)
Law Lecturer, Constitutional Law/Labor Law/Agrarian Reform & Social
Legislations/Public International Law, MLQU-School of Law, University of
Manila-College of Law, University of Perpetual Help-College of Law, Cagayan
State University-College of Law
MCLE Lecturer for Lawyers, UE Law Center and Philippine Law School
Workers’ Representative, National Tripartite Industrial Peace Council
(2010-present)
Former Executive Director (Assistant Secretary), Presidential Anti-Graft
Commission (PAGC), Malacanan (2001 to 2002)
Former Commissioner of the Social Security Commission, SSS (2016 to 2010
Delegate/Adviser, 98th to 112th International Labor Conferences (2009 to 2024),
Geneva, Switzerland

MANUEL L. QUEZON UNIVERSITY

SCHOOL OF LAW
2024 Edition

I.

What are the sources of labor law in the Philippines?

SUGGESTED ANSWER

The primary sources of labor law in our jurisdiction include:

(1) The Constitution: The 1987 Philippine Constitution contains provisions

that protect workers' rights, such as the right to self-organization,
collective bargaining, security of tenure, and just and humane conditions
of work.

(2) Labor Code of the Philippines (Presidential Decree No. 442): The Labor
Code is the main piece of legislation governing labor and employment
relations in the country. It covers various aspects such as labor standards,
labor relations, and employment conditions.

(3) Legislative enactments: Republic Acts and Other Laws: Various

Republic Acts and other statutes supplement the Labor Code and address
specific labor issues. Examples include:

a. Republic Act No. 6727 (Wage Rationalization Act): Governs

wage-setting mechanisms.Republic Act No. 8187 (Paternity Leave
Act of 1996):

1
 b. Provides for paternity leave benefits.Republic Act No. 9710
(Magna Carta of Women): Provides comprehensive women's
rights, including those related to labor.
c. Republic Act No. 10361 (Domestic Workers Act or Batas
Kasambahay): Provides for the rights and benefits of domestic
workers.
d. Republic Act No. 7877 (Anti-Sexual Harassment Act of 1995):
Addresses sexual harassment in the workplace.
e. Republic Act No. 9262 (Anti-Violence Against Women and Their
Children Act of 2004): Protects women and children from
violence, including economic abuse in the workplace.
f. Republic Act No. 11058 (Occupational Safety and Health
Standards Act): Ensures safe and healthful working conditions.

(4) Presidential Decrees, Executive Orders, and Administrative Orders:

These are issued by the President and government agencies to address
specific labor-related concerns and implement labor policies.

(5) Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) Issuances: The DOLE

issues various orders, circulars, and guidelines to implement labor laws
and policies. This includes Labor Advisories, Department Orders, and
Memoranda.

(6) Supreme Court Decisions: Jurisprudence or case law, particularly

decisions of the Supreme Court, interpret and apply labor laws and set
legal precedents that guide the application of labor law principles in
specific cases.

(7) International Conventions and Treaties: The Philippines is a signatory to

various International Labour Organization (ILO) conventions and
treaties, which influence domestic labor laws and policies. These
international agreements, once ratified, become part of the national law
and provide standards for labor rights and practices.

These sources collectively provide the legal framework for labor relations,
workers' rights, and employment standards in the Philippines.

II

(a) What is “decent work” in the ILO parlance?

(b) What is the International Labor Organization (ILO)? What are its
objectives
(c) How shall our courts or quasi-judicial bodies treat International Labor
Conventions (i.e. ILO Convention Nos. 87 [on Freedom of
Association] and 98 [on Collective Bargaining])?

SUGGESTED ANSWERS:

2
 (a) “Decent work” is defined by the ILO as opportunities for work that are
productive and deliver a fair income, security in the workplace and social
protection for families, better prospects for personal development and social
integration, freedom for people to express their concerns, organize and
participate in the decisions that affect their lives and equality of
opportunity and treatment for all women and men. (1)
(b) U.N. agency which aims to set labor standards, develop policies and devise
programs promoting decent work for all women and men.

The main objectives of the ILO are to promote rights at work, encourage
decent employment opportunities, enhance social protection and strengthen
dialogue on work-related issues.

1 The concept of "decent work" as stipulated by the International Labour Organization (ILO) is grounded in several
key documents and conventions. Here are some of the primary authorities:

1. ILO Constitution: The preamble to the ILO Constitution (1919) establishes the organization's commitment
to improving working conditions and promoting social justice. It states that "universal and lasting peace can
be established only if it is based upon social justice."

2. Declaration of Philadelphia (1944): This declaration reaffirms the fundamental principles on which the
ILO is based, including the importance of social justice and the rights of all human beings to pursue their
material well-being and spiritual development in conditions of freedom and dignity, economic security, and
equal opportunity.

3. ILO Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work (1998): This declaration commits ILO
member states to respect and promote principles and rights in four categories, whether or not they have
ratified the relevant conventions. These categories are:

o Freedom of association and the effective recognition of the right to collective bargaining.

o The elimination of all forms of forced or compulsory labor.

o The effective abolition of child labor.

o The elimination of discrimination in respect of employment and occupation.

4. Decent Work Agenda (1999): Launched by the ILO, the Decent Work Agenda aims to promote
opportunities for all women and men to obtain decent and productive work in conditions of freedom,
equity, security, and human dignity. It focuses on four strategic objectives:

o Creating jobs.

o Guaranteeing rights at work.

o Extending social protection.

o Promoting social dialogue.

5. ILO Conventions and Recommendations: Various ILO conventions and recommendations provide
detailed standards for decent work. Some key conventions include:

o Convention No. 87 (Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise

Convention, 1948).

o Convention No. 98 (Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949).

o Convention No. 29 (Forced Labour Convention, 1930).

o Convention No. 105 (Abolition of Forced Labour Convention, 1957).

o Convention No. 138 (Minimum Age Convention, 1973).

o Convention No. 182 (Worst Forms of Child Labour Convention, 1999).

3
 The ILO brings together governments, employers and workers
representatives of 187 member States , It was established by the League of
Nations in 1919 or 100 years ago.

(c) They shall be treated with a force and effect of a domestic law. In the case of
The Heritage Hotel Manila vs. National Union of Hotel, Restaurant and
Allied Industries (G.R.178296, January 12,2011), the court treats ILO
Convention No 87 with high respect as a binding law.

Fr. Joaquin Bernas SJ said that the Philippines recognizes that

international law has the force and effect of the domestic law under
the “incorporation clause” of the 1987 Constitution (Sec 2 of Article
II).

Thus, International Conventions of the International Labor

Organization such as ILO Convention No. 87 and Convention No. 98
can be used by the parties like the Labor Code, Civil Code, Penal
Code and other acts of Congress in the settlement of disputes in quasi-
judicial bodies and regular courts.

III

(a) What are the Constitutional rights of the workers? Explain at least two (2) of
them?
(b) Distinguish labor standards from labor relations (2%)

SUGGESTED ANSWERS:

(a)The Constitution enumerates a number of constitutional rights under Article

XIII, section 3, among others:

i. The right to self organization – this right is also a part of the

bill of rights under section 8 of Article III which states: “the
right of the people, including those in the public and private

o Convention No. 100 (Equal Remuneration Convention, 1951).

o Convention No. 111 (Discrimination (Employment and Occupation) Convention, 1958).

o Convention No. 102 (Social Security (Minimum Standards) Convention, 1952).

6. Global Jobs Pact (2009): This pact, adopted by the ILO, aims to guide national and international policies
to stimulate economic recovery, generate jobs, and provide protection to working people and their families.
It emphasizes the importance of decent work as a foundation for sustainable development and social
cohesion.

These documents and conventions collectively form the basis for the ILO's efforts to promote decent work
worldwide. They establish the standards and principles that member states are encouraged to adopt and implement in
their national policies and labor practices.

4
 sectors, to organize unions, associations or society for purposes
not contrary to law shall not be abridge”.
ii. The right to collective bargaining negotiation – this collective
right can be exercised by the workers if they will organize
themselves into a union and their union is certified as a
bargaining agent. The union can negotiate wages, other benefits
and other terms and condition of work to improve the working
conditions of its members and non-members covered by the
bargaining unit.

(b)They two terms can be distinguished as follows: Labor relations are

those provisions of labor law which define the status, rights and duties as well
as provide the mechanism that regulate the collective and individual relations
between employers and workers as well as their organizations; while Labor
standards are those provisions that prescribe the minimum terms and
conditions as well as benefits that employees are entitled to as a matter of right
and which the employer is required to grant to its employees

IV

(a) What is the policy of “tripartism” in Philippine labor relations?

(2%)
(b) What are its legal and practical bases? (2%)
(c) How is “tripartism” practiced at the national and industry
levels?
(d) What are the tripartite bodies that have the authority to decide over
cases under their jurisdiction? Cite at least three (3) bodies (3%)

SUGGESTED ANSWERS:

(a) “Tripartism” is understood as a principle of “co-determination” of

workers and employers with government in decision-making. It is also
the policy that encourages the participation of workers and employers
sectors in the decision-making and policy-making bodies of the
government.

(b) The Labor Code declares that tripartism in labor relations as a State
policy. The Government adopted tripartism as a state policy under the
provisions on “shared responsibility” and “participation in decision–
making (“co-determination”) of the fundamental law (Section 3, Article
XIII [Social Justice and Human Rights] Constitution)

5
 Tripartism is in consonance with Article 290 (former Art 275)
(Tripartism and Tripartite Conferences) of the Labor Code, as
amended), ILO Convention No. 144 (Tripartite Consultations to
Promote the Implementation of International Labor Standards), and
Republic Act No, 10395 or “An Act Strengthening Tripartism”.

Through tripartism social dialogue is enhanced. In this social dialogue

mechanism, the three (3) actors in industrial relations: workers and
employers on their respective sides, representing their respective
interests, and the government on the other side, representing the
interest of the public, cooperate and hammer decision to shape labor,
social and economic policies and programs of the government.

(c) Tripartism is in place and being practiced in the National Tripartite

Industrial Peace Council (NTIPC) and in a number of Industry Tripartite
Bodies created under Republic Act 10395.

The NTIPC serves as the highest main tripartite consultative and advisory
mechanism of the government. It functions primarily as a forum for
tripartite advisement and consultation among organized labor, employer
and government in the formulation and implementation of labor and
employment policies.

Also, the NTIPC is responsible for processing major issuances

affecting labor, employment and other related concerns, as well as a
clearinghouse for the recommendation and ratification or denunciation
of International Labour Organization (ILO) Conventions.

The existing industrial sectoral tripartite councils are, among others:

1. Automotive Assembly Industry Tripartite Council (AAITC)

2. Banking Industry Tripartite Council (BITC)
3. Construction Industry Tripartite Council (CITC)

(d) Likewise, there are tripartite bodies that are not only consultative but
with authority to hear and decide cases and promulgate resolutions, rules
and policies with force and effect like that of a law or court’s decisions or
orders. The following government bodies are tripartite in composition,
namely, among others:
1. The eight tripartite Divisions of the National Labor Relations
Commission (NLRC) exercising appellate jurisdiction on

6
 adjudication of labor disputes including claim arising from
employee-employer relationship
2. Social Security Commission on governance of the Social
Security System and adjudication of disputes involving the
coverage and claims on Social Security
3. Employees Compensation Commission (ECC) on work-related
claims and benefits
4. National Wages and Productivity Commission (NWPC) and
Regional Tripartite Wages and Productivity Board (RTWB) on
wages and productivity
5. The Board of Trustee of the Overseas Workers’ Welfare
Administration (OWWA)

V.

The Overseas Workers Welfare Administration (OWWA) engaged the

services of Sparkling Clean Manpower, Inc. (SCMI) to provide janitorial services
to its head office in Manila. Its service contract was renewed every three months
since 2016. However, in the bidding held in June 2018, SCMI was disqualified and
excluded. In 2017, three (3) janitors of SCM formerly assigned at OWWA filed a
complaint for underpayment of wages. Both SCMI and OWWA were impleaded as
respondents. Should OWWA, a government agency subject to budgetary
appropriations from Congress, be held liable solidarily with SCMI for the payment
of salary differentials due to the complainant? Cite the legal basis of your answer.
(5%)

Suggested answer:

Yes, OWWA may be held solidarily liable with Sparkling Clean Manpower
Services, Inc. Under Article 109 of the Labor Code, “every employer or indirect
employer shall be held responsible with his contractor or subcontractor for any
violation of any provision of this Code.”

When OWWA entered into a contract with SCMI, said government agency
lowered its immunity from suit. If OWWA can be sued and directed to pay salary
differentials to workers. Without budgetary appropriation, OWWA can get the
funds from the bond posted under Article 108 of the Labor Code.

This statutory scheme of the Labor Code is designed to give the workers
ample protection, consonant with labor and social justice provisions of the 1987
Constitution (GSIS vs NLRC et al, Nov 17, 2010).

VI.

7
 In an action for habeas corpus filed by Bert O. Lome in behalf of his cousin
Liza F. Lores who was employed as domestic worker by an employment agency,
owned by Sally A. Zar. A cash deployment payment of P5,000.00 considered as
loan had been advanced to Lita by the agency. However, she wanted to transfer to
another employer which the agency disallowed because of her unpaid loan.

You are the Judge decide whether the agency has the right to restrain her
movement since said maid was not yet able to pay or return the cash advance the
employer earlier gave to her? Explain briefly. (4%)

PROPOSED ANSWER:

As a judge I will grant the petition for habeas corpus. I will rule that
an employment agency, regardless of the amount it may advance to a prospective
employee or maid, has absolutely no power to curtail her freedom of movement.

In Caunca vs Salazar (82 Phils 851), the Supreme Court said that the scale of
values, there is no acceptable equivalence between matters involving human
dignity and those belonging to the domain of business. The latter are characterized
by transience and precariousness, while the former are the nearest things to what
are everlasting, if ever there are any, in humanity. Human dignity and human
freedoms are essentially spiritual, notwithstanding their material manifestations in
the external world, and the universal concept of the spirit is inseparable from the
idea of the eternal, of the unlimited by space or time.

Deployment expenses mentioned in transporting household helpers from

their respective provinces to home of employer can be considered as deployment
expenses under RA 10361 (the Domestic Workers Act or Batas Kasambahay). The
law defines deployment expenses as:

“…expenses that are directly used for the transfer of the Kasambahay from
place of origin to the place of work covering the cost of transportation, meals,
communication expense and other incidental expenses. xxx” (Rule 1, Section 3c,
Implementing Rules and Regulations of RA 10361, Emphasis supplied).

Considering this, the expenses incurred for the hiring of the kasambahay
that include expenses for their transportation, food and other related expenses fall
under the above-mentioned definition of deployment expenses.

With regard to the charging of the deployment expenses of a kasambahay,

the law has an express provision regarding this concern, to wit:

“Section 3. Deployment Expenses. – The employer, whether the kasambahay

is hired directly or through [an employment agency], shall pay the expenses
directly used for his/her transfer from place of origin to the place of work.”

VII

The Regional Director of DOLE-CARAGA as representative of the

Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) found that BalanghaI Commercial
Center (BiCC) in Agao, Butuan City, violated a number of occupational health and

8
safety rules which in his evaluation if not given immediate remedial measures is
dangerous to the life and limb of the workers.

(1) Can he suspend the operation of BiCC? (2%)

(2) Are the workers entitled to compensation during the period of
suspension? (2%)
(3) What is the liability of the employer. If any. Explain briefly (2%).

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

(a) Yes, Article 128 © (PD 442, as amended by RA 110581)

gives him authority to suspend the operations of BiCC
found to have violated occupational health and safety
rules.

Said provision provides, among others that the Secretary of Labor sand
Employment may likewise order stoppage of work or suspension of operations of
any
unit or department of an establishment when non-compliance with the law or
implementing rules and regulations poses grave and imminent danger to the health
and safety of workers in the workplace.

However, within twenty-four hours, a hearing shall be conducted to

determine whether an order for the stoppage of work or suspension of operations
shall be lifted or not.

(b) Yes, the workers are entitled to compensation in case the

violation is attributable to the fault of the employer. DCC
shall pay the employees concerned their salaries or wages
during the period of such stoppage of work or suspension
of operation.
(c) The employer, contractor and sub-contractor shall be
held liable fro administrative fine of not less than
P100,000.00 per day until violation is corrected, counted
from the time of notification, for willful failure or refusal
to comply with the required OSH standards or with
compliance order. (Sec 29, RA 110581).

VIII.

Ms. Maria Ganda filed a complaint for constructive dismissal and sexual
harassment before the Labor Arbiter (LA).

She claims that as early as her first year of employment her Manager, Mr.
Jose Ngit-Pa, already manifested a special liking for her. On many occasions, he
would make some advances - touching her hands, putting his arms around her
shoulders, running his fingers on her arms and telling her she looked like Angel
Locsin.

The special treatment and sexual advances continued during her employment
for four (4) years but she never reciprocated his flirtations.
9
 One day, she noticed that his attitude towards her changed. While entering at
the office, she just found out that her table which was equipped with telephone and
intercom units and containing her personal belongings was transferred without her
knowledge to a place near the comfort room with neither telephone nor intercom.

She confronted Mr. Ngit-Pa on the transfer of her table without consultation.
He shouted to her that it was a management discretion to transfer her table. She
threw a stapler on the wall and argument ensued resulting in her being charged
with gross disrespect which led her not to report to office the following day and
days thereafter.

The Labor Arbiter (LA) dismissed the complaint adopting Mr. Ngit-Pa’s
defense that there was no constructive dismissal and no sexual harassment was
done against her. The LA anchored his decision “on no act of termination” on the
part of her employer. Also, he doubted the credibility of the complainant-- why it
took Ms. Ganda to bear more than four (4) years to expose his alleged sexual
harassment, if indeed such is true. The LA pointed out that his office would have
been more prepared to support her position if her act of throwing the stapler and
uttering invectives on Mr. Ngit-Pa were her immediate reaction to his amorous
overtures. In that case, according to the LA, she would have been justified for such
outburst because she would have been merely protecting her womanhood, her
person and her rights but not in this case. Upon receipt of the LA’s decision, she
engaged you as her lawyer. What will be your arguments to reverse the decision on
appeal? (6%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

I will argue that the LA committed palpable error and grossly mis-appreciated the
facts and if not corrected will cause irreparable damage to my client:

1. The LA committed palpable error in not finding constructive dismissal. It is

admitted that there is no categorical act of dismissal but there were acts
amounting to dismissal. The acts of sexual advances and, after she rebuffed
all the said advances, he ordered the transfer of her table removing all her
communication equipment without reason except the camouflage that it was
done in the exercise of management prerogative. These acts are inimical to
her employment security. The Supreme Court has explained the
manifestations of constructive dismissal in the case of Morales vs Harbour
Center Port Terminal, Inc. (G.R. No. 174208, January 25, 2012`), thus:

“Constructive dismissal exists where 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. Aptly called a dismissal in disguise or an act amounting to
dismissal but made to appear as if it were not.”

There is constructive dismissal in this case as there exist clear

discrimination, insensibility, or disdain by an employer and the sexual
advances became so unbearable on the part of Ms. Ganda that in her
judgment foreclosed any choice by her except to forego his continued
employment.

10
 In cases of a transfer of an employee, the rule is settled that the employer is
charged with the burden of proving that its conduct and action are for valid
and legitimate grounds such as genuine business necessity and that the
transfer is not unreasonable, inconvenient or prejudicial to the employee. In
this case, the employer had no reason to invoke except management
prerogative without further explanation. The employer was not able
overcome this burden of proof – thus, her transfer shall be tantamount to
unlawful constructive dismissal

2. The LA grossly mis-appreciated the finding of no sexual harassment. It is

admittedly that Ms. Maria allowed four (4) years to pass before finally
coming out with her employer's sexual impositions. But, it must be
understood that not many women, especially in this country, are made of the
stuff that can endure the agony and trauma of a public, even corporate,
scandal. If not for the last straw of the unreasonable transfer, she would
probably keep her silence.

Moreover, unemployment after resigning from a job is an insurmountable

challenge. Only few persons are privileged indeed to transfer from one
employer to another.

In a case the Supreme Court said, “(t)he dearth of quality employment has
become a daily ‘monster’ roaming the streets that one may not be expected
to give up one's employment easily but to hang on to it, so to speak, by all
tolerable means. Perhaps, to private respondent's mind, for as long as she
could outwit her employer's ploys she would continue on herb and consider
them as mere occupational hazards.” (Philippine Aeolus Automotive United
Corporation vs NLRC and Cortez, G.R. No. 124617. April 28, 2000)

cräläwvirtualibräry

IX.

A group of workers led by Ka Dennis, who are all employed in a Korean

Plastic company located in an export processing zone in Rosario, Cavite,
approached you for an advice on how they can organize a trade union. They were
told by an ecozone officer that organizing a union inside a export processing zone
is prohibited. They as well sought your opinion on the steps they have to take to
become a legitimate labor organization. What will you tell them? Give your
advice (4%).

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

I will tell them that workers in an economic processing zone are not
precluded from forming their own unions. Under Section 8, Article II of the
Constitution, the right of the people to organize unions, associations or societies
not contrary to law shall not be abridged.

I will tell them the requirements in organizing a union. Pursuant to Article

234 of the Labor Code, any applicant labor organization, association or group of
unions or workers shall acquire legal personality and shall be entitled to the rights

11
and privileges granted by law to legitimate labor organizations upon issuance of
the certificate of registration based on the following requirements:

a) Fifty pesos (P50.00) registration fee:

b) The names of its officers, their addresses, the principal address

of the labor organization, the minutes of the organizational meetings
and the list of the workers who participated in such meetings;

c) The names of all its members comprising at least twenty

percent (20%) of all the employees in the bargaining unit where it
seeks to operate;

d) If the applicant union has been in existence for one or more

years, copies of its annual financial reports; and

e) Four (4) copies of the constitution and by-laws of the applicant

union, minutes of its adoption or ratification and the list of the
members who participated in it.

X.

Juan Obrero and Mary Wage-Earner organized a group of workers to form a

union. They later assisted the union to conclude a collective bargaining agreement
with the company. In the course of the implementation of the parties’ collective
bargaining agreement, the company refused to implement the salary increase as
stipulated therein. Thereafter, union sued the company for Unfair Labor Practice,
gross violation of the economic provisions of the collective bargaining agreement
before the Labor Arbiter of the National Labor Relations Commission which was
opposed by the company claiming that the NLRC does not have jurisdiction on
implementation of CBA. Decide. (2%)

On the same case, granting that Juan and Mary are a non-lawyer, can they
demand a share of the attorney’s fees? (2)

If the case will eventually be handled by a lawyer, can they share the
attorney’s fees with the handling lawyer? Decide. (2%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

Firstly, the Labor Arbiter has jurisdiction. The refusal to implement the
salary increase stipulated in the collective bargaining agreement is tantamount to a
gross violation of the CBA which is considered an unfair labor practice act as
under Article 248 of the Labor Code. On this, the Labor Arbiter of the National
Labor Relations Commission has the original and exclusive jurisdiction to hear and
decide the case.

On the second issue, Juan and Mary are not entitled to attorney’s fees as they
are not lawyers.

12
 On the third issue, Rule 9.02 of the Code of Professional Responsibility
states that a lawyer shall not divide or stipulate to divide a fee for legal services
with persons not licensed to practice law, except:

a) Where there is a pre-existing agreement with a partner or associate

that, upon the latter’s death, money shall be paid over a reasonable period of time
to his estate or to the persons specified in the agreement; or

b) Where a lawyer undertakes to complete unfinished legal business of a

deceased lawyer; or

c) Where a lawyer or law firm includes non-lawyer employees in a

retirement plan, even if the plan is based in whole or in part, on a profit-sharing
arrangement.

The case in this instance does not fall within the above exemption. Thus,
Juan and Mary are not entitled to any share.

XI

You are a Regional Trial Court (RTC Judge) and Ms. Cute Taw-Anan
sought a restraining order from your sala arguing that the DOLE does not have
jurisdiction over her case.

In 2018, Ms. Taw-Anan, single proprietor, engaged the services of Kugihan

Manpower, Inc., a bona fide independent contractor, to provide “100 factory
workerS” in her chocolate factory with 200 workers. Subsequently, “50 workers”
organized and joined the union of rank-and-file employees and demanded
regularization in their jobs as they are performing functions necessary and
desirable to operate the company’s business. Ms. Taw-anan rejected the demand.
The union then filed a notice of strike with the Department of Labor and
Employment (DOLE). As a defense, Ms. Taw-anan is now before your court
praying for a restraining order arguing that the DOLE does not have jurisdiction
over the case since she does not have an employer-employee relationship with the
employees of Kugihan Manpower, Inc.. Would you give due course to her petition
and issue a restraining order against the union? (5%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

No. As RTC judge, I have no jurisdiction over a labor dispute. This case
clearly involved labor disputes. The determination of the existence of employee-
employer relationship and the demand for regularization as well as the question on
strike are outside the domain of the regular courts.

It has long been settled that regular courts have no jurisdiction to hear and
decide questions which arise from labor disputes.

Article 212 defines a "Labor dispute" to include “any controversy or matter

concerning terms and conditions of employment or the association or
representation of persons in negotiating, fixing, maintaining, changing or arranging

13
the terms and conditions of employment, regardless of whether the disputants stand
in the proximate relation of employer and employee.”

The contention that Ms. Taw-anan has no employer-employee relationship

with the employees of an independent contractor is of no moment in this instant
case as a “labor dispute” covers “any controversy” xxx, “regardless of whether the
disputants stand in the proximate relation of employer and employee.”
Also, highlighting the RTC’s lack of jurisdiction over cases cognizable by the
Labor Arbiter of the NLRC is Article 254 of the Labor Code, to wit:

“ART. 254. INJUNCTION PROHIBITED. – No temporary or permanent

injunction or restraining order in any case involving or growing out of labor
disputes shall be issued by any court or other entity, except as otherwise provided
in Articles 218 and 264 of this Code.”

XII

Aling Maring, a florist of Hala Ka! flower shop served the company for
twenty five years and six months. Aling Maring is about to turn sixty the
following month. She was approached by their HR and was told that she could
now avail her retirement at a rate of one half-month for every year of service
computed at 13 days per year since she is a daily-paid employee.

Aling Maring felt aggrieved because she felt that their HR gave her a wrong
information. She believed that she is entitled to one month for every year of
service that she rendered with the company. How much is Aling Maring entitled
to?

Aling Maring knows that you have a degree in Law, she asked for your
advice. What will you tell her? (5%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

The computation of the HR is wrong.

Article 287 of the Labor Code states that in the absence of a retirement plan
or agreement providing for retirement benefits of employees in the establishment,
an employee upon reaching the age of sixty (60) years or more, but not beyond
sixty-five (65) years which is hereby declared compulsory retirement age, who has
served at least five (5) years in the said establishment, may retire and shall be
entitled to retirement pay equivalent to at least one half (1/2) month salary for
every year of service, a fraction of at least six (6) months being considered as one
whole year.

And unless the parties provide for broader inclusions, which does not exists
in this instance ase, the term “one-half(1/2) month salary” shall mean fifteen (15)
days plus one twelfth (1/12) of the 13th-month pay and the case equivalent of not
more than five (5) days of service incentive leaves. (May be computed to 22.5
days for every year of service)

14
 Aling Maring has a valid cause of action and if she so decides, she could file
a complaint before the NLRC which has jurisdiction over her concern, re: “all
claims arising from employer-employee relationship except claims for Employees
Compensations, Social Security, and Medicare and maternity benefits” (Art.217(6)
of the Labor Code).

XIII

Prof. Pogi was a faculty member of Sta Gandang Colleges.

On 21 July 2007, while their clerk was numbering the lockers in accordance
with the policy implemented by their department head, Dr. Gwapa, Prof. Pogi
asked the clerk as to what she was doing. The latter then replied that she is re-
assigning the lockers of the faculty members through drawing of lots. Another
professor then commented that “para naman tayong bata nyan” to which Prof. Pogi
chimed in a loud voice: “oo nga naman para tayong mga grade one nyan, anong
kabobohan ng grade one yan.” Dr. Gwapa confronted Prof. Pogi on his remark
that resulted into a heated conversation. The latter walked out while Dr. Gwapa
was still talking to him.

An administrative investigation ensued and the committee found Prof Pogi

guilty of serious misconduct for having uttered derogatory remark to his superior.

Instead of dismissing Prof. Pogi, the committee take into consideration that
it’s his first offense and stressed on the reformative and redemptive facets of the
case. Prof Pogi was only meted with penalty of suspension without pay for a period
of two (2) months and directed him to submit a written public apology to Dr.
Gwapa.

In a letter dated 29 July 2007, the latter sought reconsideration of his

suspension. He also explained that a written public apology was inappropriate at
that time in view of the pendency of a criminal complaint for grave oral
defamation filed against him by Dr. Gwapa. Prof. Pogi’s request was denied
which prompted him to file a complaint for illegal suspension and unfair labor
practice.

During the pendency of the case before the NLRC, the Committee again
demanded from Dr. Pogi his written public apology which the latter refused to
issue, hence he was dismissed from employment for insubordination.

Rule on Prof. Pogi’s dismissal from employment. (6%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

Prof. Pogi’s dismissal from employment is unlawful and illegal. The burden
of proof is on the shoulders of the employer (Article 277[b] of the Labor Code).

In the case of Joel Montallana vs. La Consolacion College (G.R. No.

208890, 8 December 2014), the Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Court
of Appeals and reinstated the decision rendered by the National Labor Relations
Commission. It stresses that the employer bears the burden of proving, through
substantial evidence that the just cause – or any other authorized cause for that

15
matter – forms the basis of the employee’s dismissal from work. Failing in which,
the dismissal should be adjudged as illegal.

In the above case, the respondents failed to prove, by substantial evidence,

that Montallana’s non-compliance with respondents’ directive to apologize was
“willful or intentional.”

The Supreme Court agreed with the NLRC that the disobedience attributed
to Montallana could not be justly characterized as “willful” within the
contemplation of Article 296 of the Labor Code. It added that in the honest belief
of issuing a letter of apology, the same would incriminate him in the criminal case
for grave oral defamation – and upon the advice of his own lawyer – Montallana
exhibited good faith in dealing with the respondents, his employer.

This, therefore, negates the theory that his failure to abide by respondents’
directive to apologize was attended by a “wrong and perverse mental attitude
rendering the employee’s act inconsistent with proper subordination,” which would
warrant his termination from employment.

The Supreme Court further added that even on the assumption that there was
willful disobedience, still, the Court finds the penalty of dismissal too harsh.

It bears to stress that not every case of insubordination or willful

disobedience by an employee reasonably deserves the penalty of dismissal. The
penalty to be imposed on an erring employee must be commensurate with the
gravity of his offense. To the Court’s mind, the case of an employee who is
compelled to apologize for a previous infraction but fails to do so is not one which
would properly warrant his termination, absent any proof that the refusal was made
in brazen disrespect of his employer.

While there is no question that teachers are held to a peculiar standard of

behavior in view of their significant role in the rearing of our youth, educational
institutions are, in the meantime, held against a legal standard imposed against all
employers, among which, is the reservation of the ultimate penalty of dismissal for
serious infractions enumerated as just causes under Article 296 of the Labor Code.
Unfortunately, respondents herein failed to prove the seriousness of Montallana’s
omission by the evidentiary benchmark of substantial evidence.

And to add, on a related note, while La Consolacion’s Administrative

Affairs Manual discloses that acts of insubordination (particularly, that of refusing
or neglecting to obey the school’s lawful directive) are dismissible violations, they
are only so if imposed as a third sanction. In the same vein, records are bereft of
any showing that Montallana's failure to apologize was being punished as such.

XIV

You are appointed as labor attaché in Hongkong. The Secretary of Labor did
not give you instruction before you left Manila. What are you going to do there as
a foreign service representative of the Department of Labor and Employment?
Explain briefly. (4%)

16
SUGGESTED ANSWER:

I will do the following, even without prior instruction or advice from the
home office, under Article 21 of the Labor Code, namely:

(a) To provide all Filipino workers within my jurisdiction assistance on all

matters arising out of employment;

(b) To ensure that Filipino workers are not exploited or discriminated against;

(c) To verify and certify as requisite to authentication that the terms and
conditions of employment in contracts involving Filipino workers are in
accordance with the Labor Code and rules and regulations of the Overseas
Employment Development Board and the National Seamen Board;

(d) To make continuing studies or research and recommendations on the various

aspects of the employment market within their jurisdiction:

(e) To gather and analyze information on the employment situation and its
probable trends, and to make such information available to the Department of
Labor and Employment and the Department of Foreign Affairs; and

(f) To perform such other duties as may be required of them from time to time.

XV

Willy Cecilio filed a complaint before the National Labor Relations

Commission (NLRC) for unjust dismissal from employment. The Labor Arbiter
found merit in his complaint and granted his prayer for back wages, other benefits,
and separation pay, computed from the time he was unjustly dismissed up to the
date the Labor Arbiter rendered the decision.

The respondent company appealed the Labor Arbiter's decision to the

NLRC, which reversed the Labor Arbiter's decision. The complainant's subsequent
motion for reconsideration was denied.

When the case was submitted to the Court of Appeals, the latter set aside the
decision of the NLRC and reinstated the Labor Arbiter's decision. This prompted
the respondent company to bring the case to the Supreme Court. The Supreme
Court, however, affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals. When the case
became final, Willy moved for the issuance of a writ of execution. The Labor
Arbiter issued the writ and computed the award of back wages, monetary benefits,
and separation pay from the time Willy was dismissed up to the date of the
issuance of the decision by the Labor Arbiter. Willy felt aggrieved; however,
instead of filing a notice of appeal and because he could no longer afford to pay the
docket fees, he filed a Motion for Clarification directly to the Supreme Court.

(a) Was Willy correct in filing the motion for clarification to the Supreme
Court? Defend your answer (2.5%)

17
 (b) Should the computation only be from the time of his illegal dismissal up
to the date of the decision of the Labor Arbiter? Defend your answer (2.5%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

(a) Willy’s Motion for Clarification to the Supreme Court is justified. The
motion sought to clarify the period for the award of back wages and other benefits,
not the merits of the case, which has already been rendered final and executory.

(b) Pursuant to the consolidated case of Javellana vs. Belen, G.R. No.
181913/182158, 5 March 2010, the Court cited Article 279 of the Labor Code as
instructive. The law clearly intends the award of back wages and similar benefits to
accumulate beyond the date of the Labor Arbiter’s decision until the dismissed
employee is actually reinstated or, if reinstatement is no longer possible, until the
decision becomes final. The Court consistently ruled that back wages shall be
computed from the time of illegal dismissal until the date the decision becomes
final.

As to separation pay, the Supreme Court in the above case ruled that,
although technically, the separation pay ends on the day the employee was
dismissed or when they supposedly ceased to render service and their wages ended,
since the employee is entitled to collect back wages until the judgment for illegal
dismissal becomes final, the computation of separation pay should also end on that
date of finality (ibid, Javellana).

XVI

After undergoing a certification election, Nagkahiusang Kalihukan sa mga

Trabahante sa Binggohan (The Union, for brevity) became the exclusive
bargaining agent of the Binggohan company. The parties commenced negotiations
for their collective bargaining agreement, which resulted in a bargaining deadlock.
The union threatened to go on strike, but it was assumed by the Secretary of Labor
and Employment, who eventually ordered the parties to execute a CBA. However,
no CBA was forged between the union and the company, and the union lay
dormant.

Ten years later, the company received a letter from A, who identified
himself as the Union President, with an attached list of the union’s new set of
officers, a CBA proposal, and ground rules for the negotiation. The company was
reluctant to negotiate. The union filed a preventive mediation before the NCMB on
the grounds of violation of its duty to bargain. The union subsequently filed a
notice of strike, which was assumed by the Secretary of Labor and Employment.

During the pendency of the case, the company filed a termination report
before the DOLE, informing the latter that it would terminate its operations. 150
employees would be affected, 80 of whom were members of the union. The union

18
then filed another notice of strike, which was subsequently subsumed in the first
notice of strike.

Meanwhile, the company filed a petition for the cancellation of the union’s
registration on the following grounds: 1) failure to file the required reports from
1994-2004; 2) misrepresentation of its alleged officers; 3) membership of the
Union is composed of rank-and-file, supervisory, and managerial employees; and
4) a substantial number of union members are not the company’s employees. The
company also argued that the pendency of the petition for the cancellation of the
union’s certificate of registration is a prejudicial question that should first be
settled before the DOLE could order the parties to bargain collectively.

You are the counsel for the union, please advise the union if the company is
correct. Explain (5%).

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

No, the company is not correct. The pendency of a petition for the
cancellation of union registration does not preclude collective bargaining
negotiation, as decided in the case of Digital Telecommunications vs. Digitel
Employees Union et al. (G.R. Nos. 184903-04, October 10, 2012).

The pending cancellation proceeding against the union is not a bar to setting
in motion the mechanics of collective bargaining. If a certification election may
still be ordered despite the pendency of a petition to cancel the union’s registration
certificate (NUBE vs. Minister of Labor, 110 SCRA 274), more so should the
collective bargaining process continue despite its pendency.

It is also important to emphasize that the majority status of the union is not
affected by the pendency of the petition for cancellation pending against it. Unless
its certificate of registration and its status as the certified bargaining agent are
revoked, by express provision of the law, the employer is duty-bound to
collectively bargain with the union (see AIM Faculty Association vs AIM, G.R.
No. 197089 & 207971. August 31, 2022).

XVII

Other than the representation matter, union and the company renegotiated
the the provisions of the CBA for the last two years of the five year term, which
resulted in a bargaining deadlock. Thereafter, the union filed a notice of strike.
While the conciliation proceeding was ongoing, the respondents placed seven
union officers under preventive suspension for allegedly spearheading a boycott of
overtime work, and they were subsequently dismissed. The dismissal prompted the
union to file another notice of strike, which was later converted into preventive
mediation. ca

Meanwhile, when the conciliation and mediation on the deadlocked issues

came to nowhere or no settlement was reached, the union went on strike. This was
assumed by the Secretary of Labor.

19
 Before the Secretary could decide on the matter, the company created a
Labor Management Council and entered into a memorandum of agreement (MOA)
with the remaining union officers who were not terminated. The MOA was
submitted to the Secretary of Labor, alleging that the remaining officers signed the
same under the employe's assurance that should the Secretary order a higher award
of wage increase, the company would comply. The Labor Secretary rendered an
award higher than what was provided in the MOA.

The company questioned the decision of the Secretary, while the union
questioned the MOA, arguing that it was surreptitiously entered into in bad faith,
having been forged without the assistance of the Federation or their counsel. The
union added that the respondents could have waited for the Secretary’s resolution
of the pending CBA deadlock or that the MOA could have been concluded before
representatives of the Secretary of Labor as the case was pending before his office.

(a) Was the contention of the union correct? (2%)

(b) Can the Secretary of Labor award higher than what was concluded in the
MOA? (2%)

(c) What do you call the award granted by the Secretary of Labor? (1%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

(a) Yes, the union's contention is correct. The negotiation with some of the
union officers at the management-created LMC and the exclusion of the union
counsel while the case is still pending for resolution are highly questionable. This
does not place the union representatives and management on equal footing (Cirtek
Employees Labor Union – FFW vs. Cirtek Electronics Inc., G.R. No. 190515,
November 15, 2010).

(b) Yes, the Secretary of Labor can award higher than what was concluded
in the MOA. In Cirtek Employees Labor Union – FFW vs. Cirtek Electronics Inc.,
G.R. No. 190515, the Court ruled that the Secretary, in resolving the CBA
deadlock, is not limited to considering the MOA as the basis for computing wage
increases. He could, as he did, consider the financial documents submitted by the
respondent as well as the parties' bargaining history and the respondent’s financial
outlook and improvements as stated on its website. It bears noting that since the
filing and submission of the MOA did not have the effect of divesting the
Secretary of his jurisdiction, or of automatically disposing of the controversy, then
neither should the provisions of the MOA restrict the Secretary’s leeway in
deciding the matters before him.

(c) Arbitral Award. To quote a portion of the above decision: “While an

arbitral award cannot per se be categorized as an agreement voluntarily entered
into by the parties because it requires the intervention and imposing power of the
State through the Secretary of Labor when he assumes jurisdiction, the arbitral
award can be considered an approximation of a collective bargaining agreement
which would otherwise have been entered into by the parties, hence, it has the
force and effect of a valid contract obligation.” (Cirtek, ibid).

20
 XVIII

You went home to the province on the Island of Bohol. A neighbor asked
you for some legal assistance. She has two dependent children studying in a
Catholic school in the town center, and her husband, Mario Ma. Landi, is a seaman
on board the ocean-going M/V Universal Emotion. Before Mario boarded his
vessel, he instructed his manning agency, D Virgin Manning Corp, to stop his
remittance to his wife because of her alleged infidelity. For the past three months,
she has not received her regular P60,000 monthly allotment from her husband's
foreign earnings, which she and her children have relied on for the past 10 years.

What are you going to advise her to address her legal concern in order to get
support from her husband? (5%)

PROPOSED ANSWER:

I will advise her to send a demand letter to D’ Virgin Manning Agency and
her husband, requesting the remittance of the allotment for her and her children’s
support. Under Article 22 of the Labor Code, it is mandatory for all Filipino
workers abroad to remit a portion of their foreign exchange earnings to their
families, dependents, and/or beneficiaries in the country in accordance with rules
and regulations prescribed by the Secretary of Labor and Employment.

Failure to remit foreign exchange earnings on the part of the agency is a

prohibited act and a ground for the cancellation of its license or authority (Article
34 of the Labor Code).

The husband and/or the officers of the agency may also be liable for
violation of RA 9262 (Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act).
The non-remittance can be considered economic violence against the wife and
children

XIX

Boni, 60 years of age, retired from a government owned corporation

incorporated under the Corporation Code. After retirement, Boni married his long-
time live-in partner, Eve. Five (5) months thereafter, he died. They have five
children who are all adults and live separately from them. Eve, after receiving the
SSS funeral benefit of P20,000, filed a claim for survivorship pension, a monthly
pension as the widow of Boni. The SSS denied the survivorship claim.

In denying Eve’s claim, the SSS invoked Section 12-B(d) of Republic Act
11199, which states that “(d) Upon the death of the retired member, his primary
beneficiary as of the date of his retirement shall be entitled to receive the monthly
pension xxx.” Eve was not yet married to Boni at the date of his retirement. Thus,

21
the SSS argued, Eve is not a qualified primary beneficiary as she married Boni
only after the date of the contingency of retirement.

Eve went to your office for legal assistance. What shall be your advice for
her to be entitled to her survivorship pension? Write an advisory letter to her (5%).

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

Dear Eve,

This is in connection with your request for legal assistance regarding the
denial of your survivorship claim by SSS under Section 12-B(d) of Republic Act
8282, which states that “(d) Upon the death of the retired member, his primary
beneficiary as of the date of his retirement shall be entitled to receive the monthly
pension xxx.”

Since you were not yet married to Boni at the date of his retirement, the SSS
argued that you are not a qualified primary beneficiary as you married Boni only
after the date of his retirement.

Please be informed that the Supreme Court has declared the above-quoted
provision of the SSS Law as unconstitutional in the case of Dycaico vs. SSS (Nov.
30, 2007) as it violated the “due process” and “equal protection” clauses of the
fundamental law.

You are deprived of your vested right to succeed to the social insurance of
your husband by virtue of having married him after his retirement. Such a
provision is also discriminatory as it distinguishes between marriages before and
after retirement when there is no valid basis for such a distinction. Marriages
“before” and “after” retirement should be treated equally without discrimination.

Considering that the SSS has already denied your claim, the remedy is to file
a complaint or petition against the SSS with the Social Security Commission,
which will adjudicate your claim.

Thank you and warm regards.

22
 Very truly yours,

Atty. ABC

XX

Louie is an organizer of the Center of Agrarian Reform, a non-profit non-

government organization involved in organizing farmers, with an office in Quezon
City. The NGO's existence depends on contributions and donations from
benefactors and well-wishers. He renders work in the field in far Agusan del Sur
for eleven (11) hours a day. He claimed overtime pay, but his manager refused,
arguing that Louie is a field personnel.

You are the labor arbiter. Decide on the following:

(a) Is Louie a field personnel not entitled to overtime pay? Decide on the
matter (2%).

(b) Will your ruling be the same if Louie is a clerk assigned to the office of
the NGO in Quezon City? (2%).

(c) What is the prescriptive period for his monetary claim? Decide with an
explanation (1%).

PROPOSED ANSWERS:

(a) Yes, Louie is not entitled to overtime pay as he is a field personnel

exempted from the payment of such benefits under the law. A "field personnel"
refers to non-agricultural employees who regularly perform their duties away from
the principal place of business or branch office of the employer and whose actual
hours of work in the field cannot be determined with reasonable certainty (Article
83 of the Labor Code). In this case, Louie is assigned to Agusan del Sur, a faraway
place from Quezon City, and his actual hours of work in the field cannot be
reasonably ascertained by his employer. Thus, due to the lack of reasonable
certainty regarding his work hours beyond eight hours, his manager is correct in
denying the payment of overtime pay and its premium.

(b) In the second case, Louie is entitled to overtime pay if he works in

excess of eight (8) hours as he is considered an office worker. Overtime pay shall
apply to employees in all establishments and undertakings, whether for profit or
not.

(c) Monetary claims shall prescribe in 3 years (Tamayo vs. Baterbonia, 165
SCRA 94).

XXI
23
 The Commissioners of the Social Security System (SSS) were given huge
bonuses amounting to millions each last year and for the past four years. They
advised the president to veto the P2000 pension hike bill approved by Congress.

As a sign of protest, Pinoy Militant Enterprises, an employer, refused to

remit the SS premiums of its employees and instead gave the employer’s share of
the contributions to its 500 employees to augment their income. The SSS later
discovered the huge amount of un-remitted premiums.

Pinoy Militant Enterprises was assessed by the SSS for the un-remitted
contributions plus interest and penalties. The employer invoked the defense that it
had already given the funds directly to the SSS members for their immediate
benefit.

Is the employer no longer liable to remit the monthly contributions to the

SSS? Is the SSS correct in directing the employer to pay the unremitted amount
plus interest and penalties? Explain briefly

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

The employer is still obliged to remit the monthly contribution as it is

mandatorily required by law (RA 11199). The protest does not exempt the
employer from SSS compulsory coverage.

The particular provision of RA 11199 that requires employers to compulsorily

remit SSS contributions is Section 18. This section specifies the responsibilities of
employers regarding the collection and remittance of SSS contributions. Under
Section 18, the speaks:

“Section 18. Employer’s Contribution.

“(a) The employer shall deduct and withhold from the salaries, wages,
compensation, or earnings of their employees such employee’s
contributions as provided under this Act, and shall remit such contributions
to the SSS, together with their own contributions, within the first ten (10)
days of each calendar month following the month for which they are
applicable or within such time as the Commission may prescribe.”

This section mandates that employers must deduct the required employee
contributions from their salaries and remit these, along with the employer's share,
to the SSS. Failure to comply with this requirement makes the employer liable for
penalties and interest as stipulated in the law.

Therefore, the SSS can compel Pinoy Militant Enterprises to remit the
required contributions, including penalties and interest.

XXII

24
 You are the counsel for a multinational pharmaceutical company. Its sales
manager, Diana, died in a car accident without receiving her last month's salary of
5.0 million pesos. Her husband Carlo and daughter Irene are Diana's only heirs.

Carlo wrote a letter to the company claiming Diana's last salary. As counsel for the
company, the HR manager asked for your advice on whether there is a need for
intestate proceedings before the company can release the salary to Carlo. What will
be your advice? Explain briefly. (5%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

No, there is no need for intestate proceedings. I will advise the HR manager
to follow Article 105(b) which states, inter alia:

“(b) Where the worker has died, in which case the employer may pay the wages of
the deceased worker to the heirs of the latter without the necessity of intestate
proceedings.”

I will require the claimants, if they are all of age, to execute an affidavit
attesting to their relationship to the deceased and the fact that they are her heirs, to
the exclusion of all other persons.

If any of the heirs is a minor, the affidavit shall be executed on their behalf
by their natural guardian or next of kin.

The affidavit shall be presented to the employer, who shall make payment
through the Secretary of Labor and Employment or their representative.

The representative of the Secretary of Labor and Employment shall act as

referee in dividing the amount paid among the heirs. The payment of wages
following the foregoing Article shall absolve the employer of any further liability
with respect to the amount paid. (Article 105[b]).

XXIII

Elite bus company refused to give 13th-month pay to its bus drivers and
conductors as the company considered them field employees. The company argued
that these workers are in the field away from the office. It anchored its contention
under the Labor Code which defined a "field personnel". The term refers to “non-
agricultural employees who regularly perform their duties away from the principal
place of business or branch office of the employer and whose actual hours of work
in the field cannot be determined with reasonable certainty” (Article 83 of the
Labor Code). Is the contention of the company correct?

SUGGESTED ANSWERS:

No, contrary to the contention of the company, bus drivers and conductors
are not field workers but regular employees. The determination of whether bus
drivers and/or conductors are considered field personnel or regular workers was
already threshed out in the case of Auto Bus Transport Systems, Inc. v. Bautista.

To monitor their drivers and/or conductors, as well as the passengers and the
bus itself, the bus companies put checkers, who are assigned at tactical places

25
along the travel routes that are plied by their buses. The drivers and/or conductors
are required to be at the specific bus terminals at a specified time. In addition, there
are always dispatchers in every bus terminal, who supervise and ensure prompt
departure at specified times and arrival at the estimated proper time. These drivers
and/or conductors cannot be considered field personnel because they are under the
control and constant supervision of the bus companies while in the performance of
their work.

XXIV

On January 21, 2020, the Union and the University agreed in a CBA:

Section 3. Salary Increases. The following shall be the increases under this
Agreement.

SY 2020-2021 - P2,000.00 per month, across the board.

SY 2021-2022 – P2,500.00 per month or 80% of the TIP, whichever is

higher, across the board.

SY 2022-2023 – P3,500.00 per month or 80% of the TIP, whichever is

higher, across the board.

It appears that for the School Year 2021-2022, the parties disagreed on the
computation of the salary increases.

The union refused to accept the school’s proposed across-the-board salary

increase of P2,500 per month and its subtraction from the computation of the TIP
of the scholarships and tuition fee discounts it grants to deserving students and its
employees and their dependents.

The Union likewise rejected University’s interpretation of the term "salary

increases" as referring not only to the increase in salary but also to corresponding
increases in other benefits.

The Union argued that the provision in question referred to "salary

increases" alone, hence, the phrase "P2,500.00 or 80% of the TIP, whichever is
higher," should apply only to salary increases and should not include the other
increases in benefits received by employees.

Resort to the existing grievance machinery having failed, the parties agreed
to submit the case to you as voluntary arbitration. Decision on their dispute.

SUGGESTED ANSWER

As the Voluntary Arbitrator (VA), I will decide that the salary increases
shall be paid out of 80% of the TIP should the same be higher than P2,500. The
existing CBA is the law between the parties, and as it is not contrary to law, morals

26
and public policy and it having been shown that the parties entered into it
voluntarily, it should be respected.

As to the University’s deduction of scholarship grants and tuition fee

discounts from the TIP, I will follow the ruling in the case of University of San
Agustin vs University of San Agustin Employees Union-FFW (G.R. No. 177594,
July 23, 2009), I will rule that the deduction is invalid, the University having
waived the collection thereof when it granted the same to them - a waiver which its
employees had nothing to do with - and the employees should not be made to bear
or suffer from the burden.

Justice Carpio-Morales authoritively opined: “It is axiomatic that labor laws

setting employee benefits only mandate the minimum that an employer must
comply with, but the latter is not proscribed from granting higher or additional
benefits if it so desires, whether as an act of generosity or by virtue of company
policy or a CBA, as it would appear in this case. While, in following to the letter
the subject CBA provision petitioner will, in effect, be giving more than 80% of the
TIP as its personnel's share in the tuition fee increase, petitioner's remedy lies not
in the Court's invalidating the provision, but in the parties' clarifying the same in
their subsequent CBA negotiations.” (ibid, University of San Agustin).

XXV

Mr. Bram Stoker is married to a Filipina, named Alice Go of Tarlac. He is a

resident of Manila but came from the Carpathian Mountains of Transylvania,
Romania. He has been employed by Sinesindak Philippines, Inc. since the year
2000.

Bram was working as a production technician at the company’s Tondo Plant

in Tondo, Manila.

On May 4, 2024, Bram received a letter dated May 3, 2024, asking him to
explain why his absences consisting of 35 days should not be classified as
"unauthorized absences." There was a gossip circling among his friends and co-
workers that in those days, he was writing a novel on Count Dracula. The letter
alleged that there is a provision for unauthorized absences. As a company rule, it is
a ground for termination of employment. He was given 24 hours to explain his
side.

Bram presented his explanation in two (2) separate letters, both dated May 5,
2024. He said in his letters that he had a surgical operation under Dra. Cola. he
could not get a medical certificate because his doctor is sleeping in the daytime and
his other absences were due to the follow-ups of the reimbursement of his travel
expenses (in Mindanao) at the company's main office in Makati. He said he needed
three (3) more days to get a medical certificate from Dra. Cola.

However, on May 6, 2024, he received another letter, this time informing

him that his explanation was wanting of substance, he was just making a story
about Count Dracula and there was no Dra. Cola known in the community. He has
no medical certificate attached to his letters and his employment in the company

27
was to be terminated effective May 8, 2024, on the ground of "unauthorized
absences."

(a) Was Bram Stoker afforded due process? (5%)

(b) Was he validly terminated? (5%)

Explain briefly.

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

(a) No, he was no given ample opportunity to defend himself. Mr. Stoker
was given 24 hours only to prepare his defense. "Ample opportunity” to
defend oneself under this jurisdiction refers to the employer's obligation
to provide an employee five (5) days with sufficient chance to explain
and defend against any charges or accusations that may lead to
disciplinary action, including dismissal.

The Supreme Court of the Philippines has repeatedly emphasized the

importance of due process in employment termination cases. In the case
of King of Kings Transport, Inc. v. Mamac (G.R. No. 166208, June 29,
2007), the Court outlined the two-notice rule, which is part of procedural
due process: (1) a notice apprising the employee of the particular acts or
omissions for which dismissal is sought, and (2) a subsequent notice
informing the employee of the employer’s decision to dismiss them.

(b) The termination maybe illegal. When look at the case Proctor and
Gamble vs Bodesto, Bondesto, an employee of Procter and Gamble
(P&G), was terminated from his employment due to repeated absences.
He filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, arguing that the penalty of
dismissal was too harsh for the offense committed.

The Court found that in Bondesto's case (G.R. No. 139847, March 5,
2004), the penalty of dismissal for absenteeism was too severe given the
circumstances. The decision took into account Bondesto's length of
service, his previous employment record, and the specific reasons for his
absences. The Court highlighted that while absenteeism is a valid ground
for disciplinary action, it does not always warrant the extreme penalty of
dismissal, especially when there are mitigating factors.

-END-

28