Pointers in Labor and Social Legislation

Bar Exams 2014

By Professor Victoria V. Loanzon

Please find below the possible areas to be covered by the essay questions in the Labor and
Social Legislation:
Book I
1. Illegal Recruitment
-types:
1. Simple (by licensee): against two or more persons
2. Non-licensee: committed by a person who has neither license nor authority.
3. Syndicated: by a group of three or more persons in conspiracy or conferating
with one another
- As an independent criminal action
Illegal Recruitment as economic sabotage
1. by a syndicate: carried out by a group of 3 or more persons by conspiring and/or
confederating with one another
In large scale: committed against three or more persons, individually or as group
2. Read the essential provisions of R.A. 8042 and 10022 on migrant workers
3. Read on role of OWWA/POEA
International Management Services v. Legate(2012). Peralta, J: The provisions of the
Labor Code still apply to Filipino OFWs who have been deployed abroad and are
retrenched by the foreign principal. (Article 283, Labor Code)
Bright Maritime Corp v. Fantonial (2012): A contract approved by the POEA is deemed
perfected at the moment (1) the parties come to agree upon its terms; and (2) concur in the
essential elements thereof (Consent, object and consideration).
The Court awarded moral damages and attorneys fees to the complainant OFW since
after the perfection of the contract, he was not deployed. The Court said that the action of
International Management Services was tainted with bad faith.
Book II
1. Apprenticeship (Art. 58(a), Labor Code)
2. Learners
3. Hiring of Minors, Article 139 (c)/ see also protection of handicapped workers (Art. 78,
Labor Code)
Atlanta Industries v. Sabolino (2011). Apprenticeship Agreement is not valid where
complainants were hired as employees first before the execution of apprenticeship
agreement.
Disabled workers are entitled to 75% of applicable minimum wage.
Incentives for employment of handicapped workers (Sec. 2, R.A. 7277)

PLEASE READ ON THE PROVISIONS OF KASAMBAHAY LAW
COVERAGE
ENTITLEMENT
PROCEDURE FOR REGISTRATION
LIABILITY FOR NON COMPLIANCE
Book III-
1. Classification of Employees
- Nature of seasonal employees
- Regularization of employees
Universal Robina Sugar Milling Corporation and Rene Cabati, G.R. No. 186439. January 15,
2014 (Lexoterica Feb.2014)
Labor law; kinds of employment; casual employment; requisites. Casual employment, the third
kind of employment arrangement, refers to any other employment arrangement that does not fall
under any of the first two categories, i.e., regular or project/seasonal...

Labor law; kinds of employment; fixed term employment; requisites. The Labor Code does not
mention another employment arrangement contractual or fixed term employment (or
employment for a term) which, if not for the fixed term, should fall under the category of
regular employment in view of the nature of the employees engagement, which is to perform
an activity usually necessary or desirable in the employers business.
In Brent School, Inc. v. Zamora (G.R. No. L-48494, February 5, 1990), the Court, for the first
time, recognized and resolved the anomaly created by a narrow and literal interpretation of
Article 280 of the Labor Code that appears to restrict the employees right to freely stipulate with
his employer on the duration of his engagement. In this case, the Court upheld the validity of the
fixed-term employment agreed upon by the employer, Brent School, Inc., and the employee,
Dorotio Alegre, declaring that the restrictive clause in Article 280 should be construed to
refer to the substantive evil that the Code itself x x x singled out: agreements entered into
precisely to circumvent security of tenure. It should have no application to instances where [the]
fixed period of employment was agreed upon knowingly and voluntarily by the parties x x x
absent any x x x circumstances vitiating [the employees] consent, or where [the facts
satisfactorily show] that the employer and [the] employee dealt with each other on more or less
equal terms[.] The indispensability or desirability of the activity performed by the employee
will not preclude the parties from entering into an otherwise valid fixed term employment
agreement; a definite period of employment does not essentially contradict the nature of the
employees duties as necessary and desirable to the usual business or trade of the employer.
Nevertheless, where the circumstances evidently show that the employer imposed the
period precisely to preclude the employee from acquiring tenurial security, the law and this
Court will not hesitate to strike down or disregard the period as contrary to public policy, morals,
etc. In such a case, the general restrictive rule under Article 280 of the Labor Code will apply
and the employee shall be deemed regular

Labor law; kinds of employment; nature of the employment depends on the nature of the
activities to be performed by the employee. The nature of the employment does not depend
solely on the will or word of the employer or on the procedure for hiring and the manner of
designating the employee. Rather, the nature of the employment depends on the nature of the
activities to be performed by the employee, taking into account the nature of the employers
business, the duration and scope of work to be done, and, in some cases, even the length of time
of the performance and its continued existence. .
Labor law; kinds of employment; project employment; requisites; length of time not controlling.
A project employment, on the other hand, contemplates on arrangement whereby the
employment has been fixed for a specific project or undertaking whose completion or
termination has been determined at the time of the engagement of the employee[.] Two
requirements, therefore, clearly need to be satisfied to remove the engagement from the
presumption of regularity of employment, namely: (1) designation of a specific project or
undertaking for which the employee is hired; and (2) clear determination of the completion or
termination of the project at the time of the employees engagement. The services of the project
employees are legally and automatically terminated upon the end or completion of the project as
the employees services are coterminous with the project. Unlike in a regular employment under
Article 280 of the Labor Code, however, the length of time of the asserted project employees
engagement is not controlling as the employment may, in fact, last for more than a year,
depending on the needs or circumstances of the project. Nevertheless, this length of time (or the
continuous rehiring of the employee even after the cessation of the project) may serve as a badge
of regular employment when the activities performed by the purported project employee are
necessary and indispensable to the usual business or trade of the employer. In this latter case, the
law will regard the arrangement as regular employment...
Labor law; kinds of employment; regular employment; requisites. Article 280 of the Labor Code
provides for three kinds of employment arrangements, namely: regular, project/seasonal and
casual. Regular employment refers to that arrangement whereby the employee has been
engaged to perform activities which are usually necessary or desirable in the usual business or
trade of the employer [.] Under this definition, the primary standard that determines regular
employment is the reasonable connection between the particular activity performed by the
employee and the usual business or trade of the employer; the emphasis is on the necessity
or desirability of the employees activity. Thus, when the employee performs activities
considered necessary and desirable to the overall business scheme of the employer, the law
regards the employee as regular.
By way of an exception, paragraph 2, Article 280 of the Labor Code also considers as regular, a
casual employment arrangement when the casual employees engagement is made to last for at
least one year, whether the service is continuous or broken. The controlling test in this
arrangement is the length of time during which the employee is engaged...
Labor law; kinds of employment; seasonal employment; requisites. Seasonal employment
operates much in the same way as project employment, albeit it involves work or service
that is seasonal in nature or lasting for the duration of the season. As with project
employment, although the seasonal employment arrangement involves work that is seasonal
or periodic in nature, the employment itself is not automatically considered seasonal so as to
prevent the employee from attaining regular status. To exclude the asserted seasonal employee
from those classified as regular employees, the employer must show that: (1) the employee must
be performing work or services that are seasonal in nature; and (2) he had been employed for the
duration of the season. Hence, when the seasonal workers are continuously and repeatedly
hired to perform the same tasks or activities for several seasons or even after the cessation of the
season, this length of time may likewise serve as badge of regular employment. In fact, even
though denominated as seasonal workers, if these workers are called to work from time to time
and are only temporarily laid off during the off-season, the law does not consider them separated
from the service during the off-season period. The law simply considers these seasonal workers
on leave until re-employed.
2. Labor Contracting
- Requisites
- What is an independent contractor agreement
- Service contractor
-labor/job contractor
- Rights under labor contracting
3. Wage Formulation
- Powers of Wage Boards
- Coverage/Effectivity of Schedule of Adjustments
- Wage Distortion
4. Benefits for Women Workers
- Maternity Leave contrast this with Paternity Leave
- Gynecological Leave
-Sexual Harassment
5. Diminution of Benefits
- Prohibition
- When justified
Book IV
1. Death Benefits of Seafarers
Crew and Management International Inc and Selena Inc. V. Jina T. Soria (2012): Failure
of an injured seafarer to comply with medical check up within three days from repatriation
is not entitled to receive death benefits. The Court ruled that it could not find a direct link
that pneumonia being the cause of death based on the Death Certificate was triggered by
the tetanus caused by the injury sustained by the seafarer.
2. Disability Benefits of Seafarers
Shipmanagement, Inc. Captain Sigfredo E. Monterroyo and/or Interorient Navigation Limited v.
Alexander L. Moradas, G.R. No., January 15, 2014 (Lexoterica, Feb., 2014)
Overseas employment; that the entitlement of seamen on overseas work to disability benefits is a
matter governed, not only by medical findings, but by law and by contract. With respect to the
applicable rules, it is doctrinal that the entitlement of seamen on overseas work to disability
benefits is a matter governed, not only by medical findings, but by law and by contract. The
material statutory provisions are Articles 191 to 193 under Chapter VI (Disability Benefits) of
the Labor Code, in relation [to] Rule X of the Rules and Regulations Implementing Book IV of
the Labor Code. By contract, the POEA-SEC, as provided under Department Order No. 4, series
of 2000 of the Department of Labor and Employment, and the parties Collective Bargaining
Agreement bind the seaman and his employer to each other.
In the foregoing light, the Court observes that respondent executed his contract of employment
on July 17, 2000, incorporating therein the terms and conditions of the 2000 POEA-SEC which
took effect on June 25, 2000. However, since the implementation of the provisions of the
foregoing 2000 POEA-SEC was temporarily suspended by the Court on September 11, 2000,
particularly Section 20, paragraphs (A), (B), and (D) thereof, and was lifted only on June 5,
2002, through POEA Memorandum Circular No. 2, series of 2002, the determination of
respondents entitlement to the disability benefits should be resolved under the provisions of the
1996 POEA-SEC as it was, effectively, the governing circular at the time respondents
employment contract was executed.

3. Claims under Employees Compensation Act

Book V
1. Unions and Registration
- Process of registration
- Grounds for denial of registration
Heritage Hotel v. NUWHRAIN-HHMSC (2011). The registered union is not required to
submit financial statements and/or keep membership representing 20% of the appropriate
bargaining unit throughout its lifetime. The Court said that the constitutionally guaranteed
freedom of association and right of workers to self-organization far outweigh respondents
compliance to maintain its status as a legitimate labor organizations
2. Affiliation and Disaffiliation
Cirtek Employees Labor Union- FFW v. Cirtek Electronis (2011): In the present case,
whether the FFW went against the will of its principle (member-employees) by pursuing
the case despite signing of the MOA, is not for the Court, nor for the respondent employer
to determine, but for the Union and FFW to resolve on their own pursuant to their
principal agent relationship. Moreover, the issue of disaffiliation is an intra-union dispute
which must be resolved in a different forum.
3. Certification Elections and CBA
- procedural aspects
- coverage of CBA
- conduct of CBA

4. Unfair Labor Practice (ULP) and Strikes
- relate to kinds of employees, (Art. 82, Book V)
- prescription of action on ULP
- liability for just/authorized cause, see Art. 282
- constructive dismissal
- reinstatement, grounds
- payroll reinstatement
- entitlement to back wages (applicable rules/ maximum amount)
- Notice to Strike (period, grounds)
- Rule on participation of union officers and union members in illegal strike
Visayas Community Medical Center (VCMC) formerly known as Metro Cebu Community
Hospital (MCCH) v. Erma Yballe, et al.,G.R. No. 196156, January 15, 2014 (Lexoretica, Feb,
2014)
Backwages; when awarded. As a general rule, backwages are granted to indemnify a dismissed
employee for his loss of earnings during the whole period that he is out of his job. Considering
that an illegally dismissed employee is not deemed to have left his employment, he is entitled to
all the rights and privileges that accrue to him from the employment. The grant of backwages to
him is in furtherance and effectuation of the public objectives of the Labor Code, and is in the
nature of a command to the employer to make public reparation for dismissing the employee in
violation of the Labor Code.
The Court held that the respondents are not entitled to the payment of backwages. The Court,
citing G&S Transport Corporation v. Infante (G. R. No. 160303, September 13, 2007) stated
that the principle of a fair days wage for a fair days labor remains as the basic factor in
determining the award thereof. An exception to the rule would be if the laborer was able, willing
and ready to work but was illegally locked out, suspended or dismissed or otherwise illegally
prevented from working. It is, however, required, for this exception to apply, that the strike be
legal, a situation which does not obtain in the case at bar.
)
Illegal strike and illegal acts during the strike; distinction between union members and union
officers in determining when they lose their employment status. The Supreme Court stressed that
the law makes a distinction between union members and union officers. A union member who
merely participates in an illegal strike may not be terminated from employment. It is only when
he commits illegal acts during a strike that he may be declared to have lost employment status. In
contrast, a union officer may be terminated from employment for knowingly participating in an
illegal strike or participates in the commission of illegal acts during a strike. The law grants the
employer the option of declaring a union officer who participated in an illegal strike as having
lost his employment. It possesses the right and prerogative to terminate the union officers from
service.
NAMA-MCCH-NFL is not a legitimate labor organization, thus, the strike staged by its leaders
and members was declared illegal. The union leaders who conducted the illegal strike despite
knowledge that NAMA-MCCH-NFL is not a duly registered labor union were declared to have
been validly terminated by petitioner. However, as to the respondents who were mere union
members, it was not shown that they committed any illegal act during the strike. The Labor
Arbiter and the NLRC were one in finding that respondents actively supported the concerted
protest activities, signed the collective reply of union members manifesting that they launched
the mass actions to protest managements refusal to negotiate a new CBA, refused to appear in
the investigations scheduled by petitioner because it was the unions stand that they would only
attend these investigations as a group, and failed to heed petitioners final directive for them to
desist from further taking part in the illegal strike. The CA, on the other hand, found that
respondents participation in the strike was limited to the wearing of armbands. Since an
ordinary striking worker cannot be dismissed for such mere participation in the illegal strike, the
CA correctly ruled that respondents were illegally dismissed. However, the CA erred in
awarding respondents full back wages and ordering their reinstatement despite the prevailing
circumstances.


Book VI
1. Just Cause
Jonas Michael R. Garza v. Coca-Cola Bottlers Phils., Inc., et al.,G.R. No. 180972. January 20,
2014.(Lexoterica, Feb. 2014)
Dismissal; burden of proof on employer. The burden is on the employer to prove that the
termination was for valid cause. Unsubstantiated accusations or baseless conclusions of the
employer are insufficient legal justifications to dismiss an employee. The unflinching rule in
illegal dismissal cases is that the employer bears the burden of proof.
One of CCBPIs policies requires that, on a daily basis, CCBPI Salesmen/Account Specialists
must account for their sales/collections and obtain clearance from the company Cashier before
they are allowed to leave company premises at the end of their shift and report for work the next
day. If there is a shortage/failure to account, the concerned Salesmen/Account Specialist is not
allowed to leave the company premises until he settles the same. In addition, shortages are
deducted from the employees salaries. If CCBPI expects to proceed with its case against
petitioner, it should have negated this policy, for its existence and application are inextricably
tied to CCBPIs accusations against petitioner. In the first place, as petitioners employer, upon it
lay the burden of proving by convincing evidence that he was dismissed for cause. If petitioner
continued to work until June 2004, this meant that he committed no infraction, going by this
company policy; it could also mean that any infraction or shortage/non-remittance incurred by
petitioner has been duly settled. Respondents decision to ignore this issue generates the belief
that petitioner is telling the truth, and that the alleged infractions are fabricated, or have been
forgiven. Coupled with Macatangays statement which remains equally unrefuted that the
charges against petitioner are a scheme by local CCBPI management to cover up problems in the
Naga City Plant, the conclusion is indeed telling that petitioner is being wrongfully made to
account.
Embezzlement; failure to remit collections. The irregularity attributed to petitioner with regard
to the Asanza account should fail as well. To be sure, Asanza herself confirmed that she did not
make any payment in cash or check of P8,160.00 covering the October 15, 2003 delivery for
which petitioner is being held to account. This being the case, petitioner could not be charged
with embezzlement for failure to remit funds which he has not collected. There was nothing to
embezzle or remit because the customer made no payment yet. It may appear from Official
Receipt No. 303203 issued to Asanza that the October 15 delivery of products to her has been
paid; but as admitted by her, she has not paid for the said delivered products. The reason for
petitioners issuance of said official receipt to Asanza is the latters concurrent promise that she
would immediately issue the check covering the said amount, which she failed to do.
2. Authorized Cause
3. Observation of Due Notice
- Two-notice rule: appraisal and notice of termination
- Grievance procedure
Jonas Michael R. Garza v. Coca-Cola Bottlers Phils., Inc., et al.,G.R. No. 180972. January 20,
2014.(Lexoterica, Feb. 2014)
Dismissal; burden of proof on employer. The burden is on the employer to prove that the
termination was for valid cause. Unsubstantiated accusations or baseless conclusions of the
employer are insufficient legal justifications to dismiss an employee. The unflinching rule in
illegal dismissal cases is that the employer bears the burden of proof.
One of CCBPIs policies requires that, on a daily basis, CCBPI Salesmen/Account Specialists
must account for their sales/collections and obtain clearance from the company Cashier before
they are allowed to leave company premises at the end of their shift and report for work the next
day. If there is a shortage/failure to account, the concerned Salesmen/Account Specialist is not
allowed to leave the company premises until he settles the same. In addition, shortages are
deducted from the employees salaries. If CCBPI expects to proceed with its case against
petitioner, it should have negated this policy, for its existence and application are inextricably
tied to CCBPIs accusations against petitioner. In the first place, as petitioners employer, upon it
lay the burden of proving by convincing evidence that he was dismissed for cause. If petitioner
continued to work until June 2004, this meant that he committed no infraction, going by this
company policy; it could also mean that any infraction or shortage/non-remittance incurred by
petitioner has been duly settled. Respondents decision to ignore this issue generates the belief
that petitioner is telling the truth, and that the alleged infractions are fabricated, or have been
forgiven. Coupled with Macatangays statement which remains equally unrefuted that the
charges against petitioner are a scheme by local CCBPI management to cover up problems in the
Naga City Plant, the conclusion is indeed telling that petitioner is being wrongfully made to
account.

Book VII
1. Jurisdiction
- Labor Arbiter
Price v. Innodata (2008): Where contract of employment, being a contract of adhesion, is
ambiguous, any ambiguity therein should be construed strictly against the party who
prepared it.
Sofio v. Valenzuela (2012): When the labor arbiters decision has become final, party who
prevailed already attained a vested right to said judgment. They had to rely on the
immutability of judgment.
INC Shipmanagement, Inc. Captain Sigfredo E. Monterroyo and/or Interorient Navigation
Limited v. Alexander L. Moradas, G.R. No., January 15, 2014 (Lexoterica, Feb., 2014)
Crave abuse of dlscreLlon, concepL of. Pavlng esLabllshed Lhrough subsLanLlal evldence LhaL
respondenL's ln[ury was self-lnfllcLed and, hence, noL compensable pursuanL Lo SecLlon 20 (u) of Lhe
1996 CLA-SLC, no grave abuse of dlscreLlon can be lmpuLed agalnsL Lhe nL8C ln upholdlng LA's
declslon Lo dlsmlss respondenL's complalnL for dlsablllLy beneflLs. lL ls well-seLLled LhaL an acL of a courL
or Lrlbunal can only be consldered Lo be LalnLed wlLh grave abuse of dlscreLlon when such acL ls done ln
a caprlclous or whlmslcal exerclse of [udgmenL as ls equlvalenL Lo lack of [urlsdlcLlon
- NLRC
INC Shipmanagement, Inc. Captain Sigfredo E. Monterroyo and/or Interorient Navigation
Limited v. Alexander L. Moradas, G.R. No., January 15, 2014 (Lexoterica, Feb., 2014)
Substantial evidence; concept of. In labor cases, as in other administrative proceedings, only
substantial evidence or such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as sufficient to
support a conclusion is required. To note, considering that substantial evidence is an evidentiary
threshold, the Court, on exceptional cases, may assess the factual determinations made by the
NLRC in a particular case.
The Court ruled that NLRC had cogent legal bases to conclude that petitioners have successfully
discharged the burden of proving by substantial evidence that respondents injury was directly
attributable to him. Records bear out circumstances which all lead to the reasonable conclusion
that respondent was responsible for the flooding and burning incidents. While respondent
contended that the affidavits and statements of the vessels officers and his fellow crew
members should not be given probative value as they were biased, self-serving, and mere
hearsay, he nonetheless failed to present any evidence to substantiate his own theory.
Besides, as correctly pointed out by the NLRC, the corroborating affidavits and
statements of the vessels officers and crew members must be taken as a whole and cannot
just be perfunctorily dismissed as self-serving absent any showing that they were lying when
they made the statements therein.
.
Goodrich v. Ativo (2010): Courts look with disfavour on quitclaims. Exceptions to the
general rule on quitclaims:
1. Employee executes quitclaim voluntarily
2. There is fraud or deceit on the part of the employer
3. Consideration for quitclaim is credible and reasonable
4. contract is not contrary to law, public order, public policy, morals or good customs or
prejudicial to a third person with a right recognized by law
United Placement v. NLRC (1993): Review powers of NLRC are limited only on issues
raised on appeal. Hence, it is grave abuse of discretion for the NLRC to resolve issues not
raised on appeal.
- Bureau of Labor Relations
- National Conciliation and Mediation Board
Insular Hotel Employees Union- NFL v. Waterfront Insular Hotel (2010): Procedurally, the
first step to submit a case for mediation is to file a notice of preventive mediation with the
NCMB.
- DOLE Regional Directors
- Grievance Machinery and Voluntary Arbitration
BPI v. BPI Employees Union (2012): In ruling in favour of the union in a voluntary
arbitration, the Court held that the CBA is the contract between the parties. All provisions
and conditions for availment of benefits should be made clear. Any ambiguity must be
resolved in favour of the employees.
Continental Steel v. Accredited Voluntary Arbitrator Montano: Being for the benefit of the
employee, CBA provisions on bereavement leave and other death benefits should be
interpreted liberally to give life to the intentions thereof.
- DOLE Secretary
2. Prescription of Actions
- Illegal dismissal without any legal bar: 4 years
- Money claims without legal bar: 3 years
- Termination of employment: 4 years (Art. 1146, Civil Code)
3. Modes of Appeal
In a decision rendered by Justice Peralta, S.C. ruled that the absence of employer-employee
relationship not be raised for the first time on appeal.
INC Shipmanagement, Inc. Captain Sigfredo E. Monterroyo and/or Interorient Navigation
Limited v. Alexander L. Moradas, G.R. No., January 15, 2014 (Lexoterica, Feb. 2014)
Rule 45; the Courts jurisdiction in a Rule 45 petition is limited to the review of pure questions
of law; exceptions. The Courts jurisdiction in cases brought before it from the CA via Rule 45
of the Rules of Court is generally limited to reviewing errors of law. The Court is not the proper
venue to consider a factual issue as it is not a trier of facts. This rule, however, is not ironclad
and a departure therefrom may be warranted where the findings of fact of the CA are contrary to
the findings and conclusions of the NLRC and LA, as in this case. In this regard, there is
therefore a need to review the records to determine which of them should be preferred as more
conformable to evidentiary facts. INC Shipmanagement, Inc. Captain Sigfredo E. Monterroyo
and/or Interorient Navigation Limited v. Alexander L. Moradas, G.R. No., January 15, 2014.
Section 20 (B) of the 1996 POEA-SEC; an employer shall be liable for the injury or illness
suffered by a seafarer during the term of his contract; exception. The prevailing rule under
Section 20 (B) of the 1996 POEA-SEC on compensation and benefits for injury or illness was
that an employer shall be liable for the injury or illness suffered by a seafarer during the term of
his contract. To be compensable, the injury or illness must be proven to have been contracted
during the term of the contract. However, the employer may be exempt from liability if he can
successfully prove that the cause of the seamans injury was directly attributable to his deliberate
or willful act as provided under Section 20 (D) thereof, to wit:
D. No compensation shall be payable in respect of any injury, incapacity, disability or death of
the seafarer resulting from his willful or criminal act, provided however, that the employer can
prove that such injury, incapacity, disability or death is directly attributable to seafarer.
Hence, the onus probandi falls on the petitioners herein to establish or substantiate their claim
that the respondents injury was caused by his willful act with the requisite quantum of
evidence.


4. Award of Attorneys Fees
- Nature of award
- Grounds for award
-maximum amount