Professional Documents
Culture Documents
NO. The POEA MEMO Circular no. 2, series of 1983 was void. Where the administrative
circular in question is one of those issuances which should be published for its effectivity, since its
purpose is to enforce and implement an existing law pursuant to a valid delegation. Considering
that POEA Administrative Circular No. 2, Series of 1983 has not as yet been published or filed with
the National Administrative Register, the same is ineffective and ma not be enforced (Philsa
International Placement and Services Corp. vs. Secretary of DOLE, G.R. No. 103144, April 4,
2001).
A covered employee who works beyond eight (8) hours is entitled to overtime
compensation.
8. Krishna earns P7.00 for every manicure she does in the barbershop of a friend which has
nineteen (19) employees. At times, she takes home P175.00 a day and at other times she earns
nothing. She now claims holiday pay. Is Krishna entitled to this benefit?
NO. Nemia is not entitled to holiday pay. Art. 82 of the Labor Code provide that workers
who are paid by results are, among others, not entitled to holiday pay. Nemia is a worker who is
paid by results. She earns P7.00 for every manicure she does.
9. As a tireman in a gasoline station, which is open twenty four (24) hours a day with only five
(5) employees, Joewa worked from 10:00 p.m. until 7:00 A.M. of the following day. He claims
to be entitled to night shift differential. Is he correct?
NO. In the Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor Code (Book III, Rule II, dealing with night
shift differential) it is provided that its provisions on night shift differential shall NOT apply to
employees of retail and service establishments regularly employing not more that five (5)
LABOR LAW
2005 CENTRALIZED BAR OPERATIONS
workers. Because of this provision, Joewa is not entitled to night shift differential because the
gasoline station where he works (being a service establishment) has only five employees.
10. A manufacturing firm with 500 employees schedules Sunday as the latters rest day. Fifty
workers who were seventh-day adventists and 200 workers who belong to the Iglesia ni Kristo
object and propose that their rest days be scheduled on Saturdays and Thursdays, respectively.
The company claims that the proposed schedule will seriously prejudice or obstruct its
manufacturing operations and refuses to re-schedule the rest day as requested.
a. Do the seventh day adventists and members of the Iglesia ni Kristo have any right to choose
their own rest days?
YES. The employer, under the law, is required to respect the preference of the employee if
the same is based on religious grounds. The employee shall make known his preference to the
employer in writing at least (7) days before the desired effectivity of the initial rest day preffered
(Sec.4, Rule III, Book I, Implementing Rules and Regulations).
b. Assuming that the claim of the employer is well-founded, can it legally refuse to re-schedule
the rest day of the employees involved?
YES. If the employer cannot resort to other remedial measures, it may schedule the rest
days of the employees involved on the days of their choice for at least 2 days in a month (Sec.4,
Rule III, Book III, Implementing Rule and Regulations).
11. This year, National Heroes Day (August 25) falls on a Sunday. Sunday is the rest day of
Bonifacio whose daily rate is P500.00.
a. If Bonifacio is required by his employer to work on that day for eight (8) hours, how much
should he be paid for his work? Explain.
For working on his scheduled rest day, according to Art. 93(a), Bonifacio should be paid
P500.00 (his daily rate) plus P150.00 (30% of his daily rate = P650.00. This amount P650.00 should
be multiplied by 2 = P1,300.00. this is the amount that Bonifacio as employee working on his
scheduled rest day which is also a regular holiday should receive. Art. 94(c) of the Labor Code
provides that an employee shall be paid a compensation equivalent to twice his regular rate for
working on any regular holiday. The regular rate of Bonifacio on May 1,2002 with an additional
thirty percent because the day is also his scheduled rest day.
Formula:
(a) To get rest day pay
Step 1: Get hourly wage rate
Daily Basic Wage
Number of hours worked
Step 2: Compute wage between 8:00pm 5:00 pm using rest day wage rate
Number of hours worked
e.g.
8hrs
P81.25
= P650
P650
Regular holiday
x
200%
= P1300
8hrs x P200.00
2hrs x P260.00
P1300
845
-----------P2,145
12. Sia, the employer, admits that Damascos work starts at 8:30 in the morning and ends up at
6:30 in the evening daily, except holidays and Sundays. However, Sia claims that Damascos
basic salary of P140.00 a day is more than enough to cover the one hour excess work which
is the compensation they allegedly agreed upon. What other evidences are required to warrant
the award of overtime pay?
Judicial admissions made by parties in the pleadings, or in the course of the trial or other
proceedings in the same case are conclusive, no further evidence being required to prove the same,
and cannot be contradicted unless previously shown to have been made through palpable mistake
or that no such admission was made. In view of Sias formal admission that Damasco worked beyond
eight hours daily, the latter is entitled to overtime compensation. No further proof is required. Sia
already admitted she worked an extra hour daily. Thus, public respondent gravely erred in deleting
the award of overtime pay to Damasco on the pretext that the claim has no factual basis.
Still, even assuming that Damasco received a wage which is higher than the minimum
provided by law, it does not follow that any additional compensation due her can be offset by her
pay in excess of the minimum, in the absence of an express agreement to that effect. Moreover,
such arrangement, if there be any, must appear in the manner required by law on how overtime
compensation must be determined. For it is necessary to have a clear and definite delineation
between an employees regular and overtime compensation to thwart violation of the labor
standards provision of the Labor Code (Damasco vs. NLRC, G.R. No. 115755, December 4, 2000).
13. May a Company adopt working hours beyond 8 hours a day? If the workers do not question
such an arrangement, would that scheme be considered valid?
YES. In Interphil Laboratories Employees Union FFW v. Interphil (G.R. No. 142824,
December 19, 2001) it was held by the Court that:
LABOR LAW
2005 CENTRALIZED BAR OPERATIONS
Section 1. Regular Working Hours A normal workday shall consist of not more than
eight (8) hours. The regular working hours for the Company shall be from 7:30 A.M. to 4:30
P.M. The schedule of shift work shall be maintained; however the company may change the
prevailing work time at its discretion, should such change be necessary in the operations of
the Company. All employees shall observe such rules as have been laid down by the
company for the purpose of effecting control over working hours.
It is evident from the foregoing provision that the working hours may be changed, at the
discretion of the company, should such change be necessary for its operations, and that the
employees shall observe such rules as have been laid down by the company. In the case before us,
Labor Arbiter Caday found that respondent company had to adopt a continuous 24-hour work daily
schedule by reason of the nature of its business and the demands of its clients. It was established
that the employees adhered to the said work schedule since 1988. The employees are deemed to
have waived the eight-hour schedule since they followed, without any question or complaint, the
two-shift schedule while their CBA was still in force and even prior thereto. The two-shift schedule
effectively changed the working hours stipulated in the CBA. As the employees assented by practice
to this arrangement, they cannot now be heard to claim that the overtime boycott is justified
because they were not obliged to work beyond eight hours.
14. Explain the principle of A FAIRS DAY WAGE FOR A FAIRS DAYS LABOR
The age-old rule governing the relation between labor and capital, or management and
employee of a "fair day's wage for a fair day's labor" remains as the basic factor in determining
employees' wages. If there is no work performed by the employee there can be no wage or pay
unless, of course, the laborer was able, willing and ready to work but was illegally locked out,
suspended or dismissed, or otherwise illegally prevented from working (Caltex Refinery Employees
Association (CREA) vs. Brillantes, 279 SCRA 218), a situation which we find is not present in the
instant case. It would neither be fair nor just to allow private respondents to recover something
they have not earned and could not have earned because they did not render services at the Kalibo
office during the stated period (Aklan Electric Cooperative Incorporated v. NLRC, G.R. No.
121439, January 25, 2000).
15. A Co., a tobacco manufacturing firm, is owned by Mr. X who also owned B Security Agency
(BSA). When the employees of B formed a union, As management preterminated the security
contract between A and B firms. When the guards filed a case of illegal dismissal and ULP
against both A and B, the counsel of A filed a Motion to Dismiss, alleging that that there was no
employer-employee relationship between A and the guards.
a. Should the MOTION be granted? Explain.
NO. The Motion should not be granted. The facts indicate a concerted effort on the part of
respondents to remove petitioners from the company and thus abate the growth of the union and
block its actions to enforce their demands in accordance with the Labor Standards laws. The Court
held in Insular Life Assurance Co., Ltd., Employees Association-NATU vs. Insular Life Assurance
Co., Ltd.,37 SCRA 244 (1971), that the test of whether an employer has interfered with and
coerced employees within the meaning of section (a) (1) is whether the employer has engaged in
conduct which it may reasonably be said tends to interfere with the free exercise of employees'
rights under section 3 of the Act, and it is not necessary that there be direct evidence that any
employee was in fact intimidated or coerced by statements of threats of the employer if there is a
reasonable inference that anti-union conduct of the employer does have an adverse effect on selforganization and collective bargaining.
The concept of independent contractor is interminably linked with the economic reality
test when we consider the fact that such person is one who carries on a distinct and independent
business and undertakes to perform the job to do a piece of work on his own account and under his
own responsibility, according to his own manner and methods and free from the control and
direction of his principal, except as to the result of the work. Among the factors to be considered
are whether the contractor is carrying on an independent business; whether the work is part of the
employer's general business; the nature and extent of the work; the skill required; the term and
duration of the relationship; the right to assign the performance of the work to another; the power
to terminate the relationship; the existence of a contract for the performance of a specified piece
of work; the control and supervision of the work; the employer's powers and duties with respect to
the hiring, firing, and payment of the contractor's servants-, the control of the premises; the duty
to supply the premises, tools, appliances, material and labor; and the mode, manner, and terms of
payment. (MAFINCO Corporation v. Ople, 70 SCRA 139)
17. Pandoy was an electrician who worked within the premises of Ushio's car accessory shop, in
Banawe Street, Quezon City. He filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, non-payment of overtime
pay, holiday pay, and other benefits against Ushio, which moved to dismiss the complaint
claiming that Pandoy was not an employee but a free lance operator who waited on the shop's
customers should the latter require his services. Ushio argues that in fine, the shop owner and
the free lance operator, as an independent contractor, were partners in trade, "both benefiting
from the proceeds of their joint efforts. It further claimed that it was a recognized and
accepted trade practice peculiar to the auto spare parts shop industry operating along the
stretch of Banawe Street that shop owners would collect the service fees from its customers
and disburse the same to the independent contractor at the end of a week. Moreover, Pandoy
was free to position himself near other car accessory shops to offer his services to customers of
said shops. On the other hand, Pandoy insists that he is entitled to the benefits because he was
loyal to Ushio, as he did not perform work for anyone else. Is he correct?
NO. In stark contrast to the Companys regular employees, there are independent,
freelance operators who are permitted by the Company to position themselves proximate to the
company premises. These independent operators are allowed by the Company to wait on Company
customers who would be requiring their services. In exchange for the privileges of favorable
LABOR LAW
2005 CENTRALIZED BAR OPERATIONS
recommendation by the Company and immediate access to the customers in need of their services,
these independent operators allow the Company to collect their service fee from the customer and
this fee is given back to the independent operator at the end of the week. In effect, they do not
earn fixed wages from the Company as they earn their variable fees from the customers of the
Company. The Company has no control over and does not restrict the methodology or the means
and manner by which these operators perform their work. These operators are not supervised by
any employee of the Company since the results of their work is controlled by the customers who
hire them. Likewise, the Company has no control as an employer over these operators. They are not
subject to regular hours and days of work and may come and go as they wish. They are not subject
to any disciplinary measures from the Company, save merely for the inherent rules of general
behavior and good conduct [Ushio Marketing v. NLRC, 294 SCRA 673 (1998)].
18. In the employment of workers, is there a difference between an ordinary employeremployee relationship and independent job contracting/ subcontracting?
YES. In an ordinary employer-employee relationship, there are only two parties involved the employer and the employee. This relationship is established through a four-fold test, under
which the employer:
a. Directly exercises control and supervision over the employee not only as to the results of
the work but also as to the means employed to attain this result;
b. Has the power to select and hire the employee;
c. Has the obligation to pay the employees his or her wages and other benefits.
d. Has the power to transfer and dismiss or discharge employees.
The power of control is the most important factor in determining the existence of an
employer-employee relationship. The employer need not actually exercise this power. It is enough
that the employer retains the right to exercise this power, as it may deem necessary or
appropriate.
In job contracting / subcontracting, there are three parties involved:
a. The principal who decides to farm out a job or service to a subcontractor;
b. The job contractor or subcontractor which has the capacity to independently undertake
the performance of the job or service; and
c. The employees engaged by the job contractor or subcontractor to accomplish the job or
service.
In job contracting or subcontracting, the four-fold test of employer-employee relationship
should be satisfied by the contractor or subcontractor in relation to the employee it engages to
accomplish the contracted or subcontracted job or service. In such cases, the contractor or
subcontractor is also referred to as an independent contractor.
19. Is there a difference between a job contractor or subcontractor and a private recruitment
and placement agency (PRPA)?
YES. A job contractor or subcontractor directly undertakes a specific job or service for a
principal, and for this purpose employs its own workers. A PRPA cannot be a subcontractor. It
simply recruits workers for the purpose of placing them with another employer so that the workers
recruited will not become the PRPA's employees.
A job contractor or subcontractor is governed primarily by Articles 106-109 of the Labor
Code. A private recruitment and placement agency is governed by Articles 25 to 39 of the Labor
Code and the rules implementing these articles.
If the four-fold test is satisfied not by the job contractor or subcontractor but by the
principal, the principal then becomes the employer of the employees engaged to accomplish the
job or service. What exists is not job contracting or subcontracting but a direct employer-employee
relationship between the principal and the employees and the job contractor becomes merely the
agent of the principal or the subcontractor, the agent of his contractor, as the case may be.
NO, provided the requirements for legitimate job contracting or subcontracting are
satisfied and the prohibition against labor-only contracting or subcontracting is observed. In two
recent cases decided by the Supreme Court, Vinoy v. NLRC, G.R. No. 126586, February 02,2000,
and Lim v. NLRC, G.R. No. 124630, February 19, 1999, the definition of legitimate
subcontracting is as follows:
Contracting or subcontracting shall be legitimate if the following conditions concur:
a. The contractor or subcontractor carries on a distinct and independent business and
undertakes to perform the job, work or service on its own account and under its own responsibility,
according to its own manner and method, and free from the control and direction of the principal
in all matters connected with the performance of the work except as to the results thereof;
b. The contractor or subcontractor has substantial capital or investment;
c. The agreement between the principal and the contractor or subcontractor assures the
contractual employees entitlement to all occupational safety and health standards, free exercise of
the right to self organization, security of tenure, and social and welfare benefits.
LABOR LAW
2005 CENTRALIZED BAR OPERATIONS
23. What is substantial capital? Is substantial capital sufficient to establish legitimate
subcontracting?
Substantial capital refers to such investment, whether it is in the form of money, facilities,
tools, equipment, machineries, work premises, or subscribed capital stock that would indicate the
subcontractor's capacity to undertake the contracted or subcontracted work or service
independently. For example, a contractor or subcontractor with a capital stock of P1 Million which
is fully subscribed and paid for has been deemed by the Supreme Court to be a highly capitalized
venture which satisfies the requirement of substantial capital.
Where a job contractor or subcontractor is highly capitalized, the Supreme Court has held
that it need not show evidence that it has investment in the form of tools, equipment, machineries,
work premises, among others, to be considered legitimate. However, it is still necessary for it to
show that it has the capacity to be an independent contractor. That is, it can undertake the
performance of the contract according to its own manner and method, free from the supervision of
the principal in all matters except as to the results of the work.
24. What is the basis of the State in prohibiting labor-only contracting? What is the objective
and the prohibition?
The basis of the State in prohibiting labor-only contracting are:
a. The Constitution, which provides that the State shall protect labor and promote its welfare,
and shall guarantee basic labor rights including just and humane terms and conditions of
employment and the right to self-organization.
b. Article 106 of the Labor Code, which allows the Secretary of Labor to distinguish between
labor-only contracting and job contracting to prevent any violation or circumvention of the Labor
Code.
The objective of the State in prohibiting labor-only contracting is to ensure that labor laws
are followed and to prevent the exploitation of workers. A labor-only contractor is one who
presents itself as an employer even if it does not have capital to run a business or capacity to
ensure that its workers are paid their wages and other benefits as prescribed by law. As such, it
cannot independently undertake to perform a contracted or subcontracted job or service. To allow
a labor-only contractor to operate is to give it an opportunity to circumvent the law and to exploit
workers.
25. If you are the counsel of an agency which is being charged of LABOR-ONLY CONTRACTING,
what evidence will you present to refute the charge? Explain.
I would present the same documents shown in the case of Escario vs. NLRC, G.R. No.
124055, June 8, 2000, to wit:
D.L. Admark is a legitimate independent contractor. Among the circumstances which tend
to establish the status of D.L. Admark as a legitimate job contractor are:
a. The SEC registration certificate of D.L. Admark states that it is a firm engaged in
promotional, advertising, marketing and merchandising activities.
b. The service contract between CMC and D.L. Admark clearly provides that the agreement is
for the supply of sales promoting merchandising services rather than one of manpower placement.
c. D.L. Admark was actually engaged in several activities such as advertising, publication,
promotions, marketing and merchandising. It had several merchandising contracts with companies
like Purefoods, Corona supply, Nabisco Biscuits and Licron. It was likewise engaged in the
publication business, as evidenced by its magazine, the Phenomenon.
d. It had its own capital assets to carry out its promotion business. It then had current assets
amounting to P6 million and is therefore a highly capitalized venture. It had an authorized capital
stocks of P500,000. It owned several motor vehicles and other tools, materials and equipment to
service its clients. It paid rentals of P30,020 for the office space it occupied.
There existed a contractual agreement between PTSI and EAGLE, wherein the former
availed of the security services provided by the latter. In return, the security agency collects from
its client payment for its security services. This payment covers the wages for the security guards
and also expenses for their supervision and training, the guards bonds, firearms with ammunitions,
uniforms and other equipments [sic], accessories, tools, materials and supplies necessary for the
maintenance of a security force.
10
Premises considered, the security guards immediate recourse for the payment of the
increases is with their direct employer, EAGLE. However, in order for the security agency to
comply with the new wage and allowance rates it has to pay the security guards, the Wage Orders
made specific provision to amend existing contracts for security services by allowing the
adjustment of the consideration paid by the principal to the security agency concerned. What the
Wage Orders require, therefore, is the amendment of the contract as to the consideration to cover
the service contractors payment of the increase mandated. In the end therefore, the ultimate
liability for the payment of the increases rests with the principal (Security and Credit
Investigation Inc. v. NLRC, G.R. No. 114316, January 26, 2001).
29. When is an insurance agent deemed an independent contractor of an insurance
company?
As held in Insular Life Insurance Company, Ltd. vs. NLRC, G.R. No. 84484, Nov. 15,
1989, There is no employer-employee relationship between a commission agent and an
investment company. The former is an independent contractor where said agent and others
similarly placed are:
LABOR LAW
2005 CENTRALIZED BAR OPERATIONS
a. paid compensation in the form of commissions based on percentages of their sales, any
balance of commissions earned being payable to their legal representatives in the event of death or
resignation;
b. required to put up performance bond;
c. subject to a set of rules and regulations governing the performance of their duties under
the agreement with the company and termination of the services for certain causes;
d. not required to report for work at any time, nor to devote their time exclusively to working
for the company nor to submit a record of their activities, and who finally shouldered their own
selling and transportation expenses.
Logically, the line should be drawn between rules that merely serve as guidelines toward
the achievement of the mutually desired result without dictating the means or methods to be
employed in attaining it, and those that control or fix the methodology and bind or restrict the
party hired to the use of such means. The first, which aims only to promote the result, create no
employer-employee relationship unlike the second, which addresses both the result and the means
used to achieve it. The distinction acquires particular relevance in the case of an enterprise
affected with public interest, as in the business of insurance, which on that account, is subject to
regulations by the State with respect, not only to the relations between insurer and insured, but
also to the internal affairs of the insurance company.
30. When are salesmen considered
employees of a business establishment?
independent
contractors
rather
than
regular
In, MAFINCO Trading Corporation v. Ople, GR No. L-37790, March 25, 1976, it was held
where, as in the case at bar, a peddler formally entered into a peddling contract with petitioner for
the purchase and sale of Cosmos softdrinks, indicating the manner of selling the goods, whereby
the petitioner provides the peddler with delivery truck and bears the cost of gasoline and
maintenance of' the truck; while on the other hand the peddler employs the driver and helpers and
take care of the latter's compensation and social security contributions, the peddlers are
independent contractors and not employees of petitioner.
31. Is the joint and several liability of the principal and the job contractor under Articles 107
and 109, in relation to Article 106 of the Labor Code, dependent upon the insolvency or
unwillingness to pay on the part of the contractor or direct employees?
NO. Nothing in Article 106 indicates that insolvency or unwillingness to pay by the
contractor or direct employer is a prerequisite for the joint and several liability of the principal or
indirect employer. This joint and several liability facilitates, if not guarantees, payment of the
workers performance of any work, task, job or project, thus giving the workers ample protection
as mandated by the 1987 Constitution (Development Bank of the Philippines vs. NLRC, June 17,
1994).
32. A taxicab company required its taxi drivers to make deposits to defray any deficiency which
the latter may incur in the remittance of their boundary and to cover car wash payments. Is
this requirement authorized under Article 114 of the Labor Code? Explain.
But the requirement for deposit for car wash payments is lawful. There is no dispute that as
a matter of practice in the taxi industry, after a tour of duty, it is incumbent upon the driver to
restore the unit he has driven to the same clean condition when he took it out. Furthermore, the
amounts doled out were paid directly to the persons who washed the units. Finally, it will be noted
that there was nothing to prevent the drivers from cleaning the taxi units themselves, if they
wanted their car wash payments (Five J Taxi vs. NLRC, August 22, 1994).
33. Do disparity in wages between employees holding similar positions but located in different
regions of the country constitute wage distortion as contemplated by law? Explain.
The requirement for deposit to defray any deficiency in the remittance of drivers
boundary is not lawful. Article 114, which provides the rule on deposits for loss or damage to
tools, materials or equipment supplied by the employer, does not apply to or permit such kind of
deposit.
11
12
37. How much maternity leave benefit will a pregnant woman receive? Who will pay the
maternity leave benefits?
The member shall receive a maternity benefit equivalent to 100% of her average daily
salary credit multiplied by 60 days for normal delivery; or by 78 days in cases of caesarian section
delivery.
The employer advances the maternity leave benefit to the qualified employee in full or in
two equal installments, the first to be made upon receipt of maternity leave application and the
second not later than 30-days after payment of the first installment. Upon receipt of satisfactory
proof of such payment, the SSS will reimburse the employer after the contingency for the amount
of maternity benefit legally advanced to the employee.
LABOR LAW
2005 CENTRALIZED BAR OPERATIONS
38. Can a maternity leave benefit be extended beyond the allowable PERIOD?
YES, a maternity leave may be extended beyond 60 days upon request of the woman
employee. Such request must be due to illness medically certified to arise out of her pregnancy,
delivery, complete abortion or miscarriage which renders her unfit to work. The extended leave
benefit shall be a hindrance to recover sickness benefit for the same period of 60 days for the same
childbirth, abortion or miscarriage.
39. What is the status of a woman permitted or suffered to work in any night club, bar, or
other similar establishment under the Labor Code?
Any woman who is permitted or suffered to work with or without compensation in any night
club, cocktail lounge, massage clinic, bar, or similar establishment shall be considered as an
employee of such establishment for purposes of labor and social legislation.
40. What other statutory benefits and services shall an employer provide the woman employee?
The employer shall provide the following:
a. Free family planning services to employees and their spouses, if the establishment regularly
employ more than 200 workers;
b. Holiday pay during the period that the woman employee is receiving maternity or disability
benefits, equivalent to the same percentage as the benefit granted by SSS;
c. Flexible work schedule to any solo parent as defined in Republic Act No. 8972;
d. Parental leave of not more than seven days every year to the solo parent who has rendered
at least one-year service.
e. facilities for women such as seats, separate toilet rooms and nursery in the work place.
f. to determine the appropriate minimum age and other standards for retirement in special
occupations for women.
41. Who are considered young workers and working children?
Young workers are in different categories, namely:
a. The working youth who are between 15 and 30 years of age (Republic Act No. 8044);
b. Employed minors who are from 15 to below 18 years of age (Labor Code);
c. Working children who are below 15 years of age, subject to the exceptions specified by
Republic Act No. 7658;
d. Those engaged in Child Labor, which is prohibited by law.
42. What is the minimum employable age for young workers?
The minimum employable age for young workers is 18 years old. However, any person
between 15 and 18 years of age may be employed in undertakings not hazardous or deleterious in
nature.
It refers to any kind of work or activity, in which the employee is not exposed to any risk
that constitutes an imminent danger to his or her life and limb, safety and health.
44. What are the hazardous work and activities to persons below 18 years of age?
Hazardous work and activities to persons below 18 years age include:
a. Work which exposes children to physical; psychological or sexual abuse;
b. Work under ground, under water, at dangerous heights or at unguarded heights of two
meters and above, or in confined spaces;
c. Work with hazardous machinery, equipment and tools, or which involves manual handling or
transport of heavy loads;
13
48. Can a young worker be a member of the Social Security System (SSS) and avail of the social
security (SS) and Employees Compensation (EC) benefits?
YES. The Social Security Law provides that coverage in the SSS is compulsory upon all
employees not over 60 years of age. This law defines an employee as any person who performs
services for an employer and who receives compensation for such services, where there is an
employer-employee relationship. Self-employed young persons can also be SSS members.
14
However, not all children who work are engaged in child labor. Work performed by any
person below 15 years of age is not considered child labor if it falls under allowable situations
LABOR LAW
2005 CENTRALIZED BAR OPERATIONS
under Republic Act No. 7658. Light work that is occasional, legal and respects the childs right to
health and education is not child labor.
50. You were asked by a paint manufacturing company about the possible employment as a
mixer of a person, aged seventeen (17), who shall be directly under the care of the section
supervisor. What advice would you give? Explain briefly.
I will advise the paint manufacturing company that it cannot hire a person aged seventeen
(17). Art. 139 (c) of the Labor Code provides that a person below eighteen (18) years of age shall
not be allowed to work in an undertaking which is hazardous or deleterious in nature as determined
by the Secretary of Labor. The Secretary of Labor has classified paint manufacturing as hazardous
work.
51. What are the benefits provided by law to young and deserving students who want to work?
Republic Act No. 7323 provides for employment assistance to students who are at least 15
but not more than 25 years of age enrolled or intending to be enrolled in any secondary, tertiary,
vocational or technological institutions. The qualified and deserving youth can be employed during
the summer and /or Christmas vacation as aid to the pursuit of their education.
As incentives for employers, they shall pay the students only 60% of the basic wage and the
remaining 40% in the form of educational vouchers payable by the government. An employer, under
this law, can be a national or local government office or a private establishment or undertaking.
52. Are SSS benefits considered property earned by the member during his lifetime? Do they
form part of his estate? Explain.
The benefits receivable under the SSS law are in the nature of a special privilege or an
arrangement secured by the law pursuant to the policy of the State to provide social security to the
workingman. Such benefits cannot be considered as property earned by the member during his
lifetime. His contributions to the fund, it may be noted, constitute only an insignificant portion
thereof. Thus, the benefits are specifically declared not transferable and exempt from tax legal
processes and liens. Furthermore, in the settlement of claims, the procedure to be observed is
governed not by the general provisions of law, but by rules and regulations promulgated by the
Social Security Commission. And it is not the probate or regular court but the Commission that
determines the persons to whom the benefits are payable (Social Security System vs. Davac,
G.R. No. L-21642, July 30, 1966).
53. Does the delay on the part of the victim of sexual harassment to complain said act impair
his cause of action against his/her employer?
54. The owners of FALCON Factory, a company engaged in the assembling of automotive
components, decided to have their building renovated. Fifty (50) persons, composed of
engineers, architects and other construction workers, were hired by the company for this
purpose. The work is estimated to be completed in three (3) years. The employees contended
that since the work would be completed after more than one (1) year, they should be subject
to compulsory coverage under the Social Security Law. Is their contention correct?
NO. Under Section 8 (j) of RA 1161, as amended, employment of purely casual employees,
not for the purpose of the occupation or business of the employer are excepted from compulsory
coverage.
NO. The gravamen of the offense in sexual harassment is not the violation of the
employees sexuality but the abuse of power by the employer. Any employee, male or female, may
rightfully cry foul provided the claim is well substantiated. Strictly speaking there is not time
period within which he or she is expected to complain through the proper channels. The time to do
so may vary depending upon the needs, circumstances, and more importantly, the emotional
threshold of the employee (Philippine Aeolus Automotive United Corp. vs. NLRC, G.R. No.
124617, April 28, 2000).
15
LABOR RELATIONS
55. PICOP's main thesis is that the positions Section Heads and Supervisors, who have been
designated as Section Managers and Unit Managers, as the case may be, were converted to
managerial employees under the decentralization and reorganization program it implemented
in 1989. Being managerial employees, with alleged authority to hire and fire employees, they
are ineligible for union membership under Article 245 of the Labor Code. Furthermore, PICOP
contends that no malice should be imputed against it for implementing its decentralization
program only after the petition for certification election was filed inasmuch as the same is a
valid exercise of its management prerogative, and that said program has long been in the
drawing boards of the company, which was realized only in 1989 and fully implemented in
1991. PICOP emphatically stresses that it could not have conceptualized the decentralization
program only for the purpose of "thwarting the right of the concerned employees to selforganization." Is PICOPs contention tenable?
NO. The petition not being meritorious, must fail and the same should be as it is hereby
dismissed. In United Pepsi-Cola Supervisory Union (UPSU) v. Laguesma, we had occasion to
elucidate on the term "managerial employees." Managerial employees are ranked as Top Managers,
Middle Managers and First Line Managers. Top and Middle Managers have the authority to devise,
implement and control strategic and operational policies while the task of First-Line Managers is
simply to ensure that such policies are carried out by the rank-and- file employees of an
organization. Under this distinction, "managerial employees" therefore fall in two (2) categories,
namely, the "managers" per se composed of Top and Middle Managers, and the "supervisors"
composed of First-Line Managers. Thus, the mere fact that an employee is designated manager"
does not ipso facto make him one. Designation should be reconciled with the actual job description
of the employee, for it is the job description that determines the nature of employment (PICOP vs.
Laguesma, G.R. No. 101738, April 12, 2000).
56. Do labor arbiters have jurisdiction over illegal dismissal cases that may be filed against
priests and ministers?
16
YES. The fact that a case involves the church and its religious minister does not ipso facto
give the case a religious significance. Simply stated, what is involved in an illegal dismissal case is
the relationship of the church as an employer and the minister as an employeea purely secular
matter not related to the practice of faith, worship, or doctrines of the church (Austria vs. NLRC,
G.R. No. 124382, August 16, 1999).
57. Do Labor Arbiters or the NLRC have jurisdiction over criminal cases involving violations of
the penal provisions of labor laws? Explain.
Labor Arbiters or the NLRC are not invested with the judicial power; they merely exercise
quasi-judicial functions. In the hearing and disposition of cases brought before them, they do not
adhere strictly to the technical rules of evidence. This is required in criminal cases where the guilt
of the accused must be established beyond reasonable doubt. The regular courts have jurisdiction
over criminal cases involving violations of the labor laws.
58. Explain the doctrine of forum non-conveniens. May this doctrine be invoked against the
exercise of jurisdiction by the labor arbiter?
LABOR LAW
2005 CENTRALIZED BAR OPERATIONS
Under the rule of forum non conveniens, a Philippine court or agency MAY assume
jurisdiction over the case if it chooses to do so, PROVIDED:
a. that the Philippine court is one to which the parties may conveniently resort to;
b. that the Philippine court is in a position to make an intelligent decision as to the law and
the facts; and
c. that the Philippine court has or is likely to have power to enforce its decision.
This doctrine may be invoked against the exercise of jurisdiction of the labor arbiters as
held in the case of Manila Hotel Corporation and Manila Hotel International limited vs. NLRC
and Marcelo Santos which ruled that the NLRC was a seriously inconvenient forum on the following
grounds:
a. The NLRC is an inconvenient forum given that all the incidents of the case- from the time of
recruitment, to employment, and to dismissal occurred outside the Philippines. The inconvenience
is compounded by the fact that the proper defendants the Palace Hotel and MHICL are not
nationals of the Philippines. Neither are they doing business in the Philippines. Likewise, the main
witnesses are non-residents of the Philippines.
b. Neither can an intelligent decision be made as to the law governing the employment
contract as such was perfected in foreign soil. This calls for the application of the principle of lex
loci contractus (the law of the place where the contract was made).
c. Even assuming that the proper decision could be reached by the NLRC, such would not have
any binding effect against the employer, the Palace Hotel. The Palace hotel is a corporation
incorporated under the laws of China and was not even served with summons, hence jurisdictions
over its person was not acquired.
59. Does the principle of Jurisdiction by Estoppel apply in labor cases?
YES, the principle of Jurisdiction by Estoppel applies to labor cases as was held by the
Supreme Court in the case of Prudential Bank and Trust Company vs. Reyes, G.Rr No. 141093,
Feb. 20, 2001.
Under this principle, a party to a labor case is estopped from raising the issue of
jurisdiction of the labor arbiter when he has participated in the proceedings from start to finish. In
this case the petitioner bank actively participated in the proceedings before the Labor Arbiter,
NLRC and Court of Appeals. It was only when the Court of Appeals made an adverse decision did it
raise the issue of jurisdiction. The Supreme Court held that it was already too late to raise the issue
of jurisdiction as the petitioner was already in estoppel. While it is true that jurisdiction over the
subject matter of a case may be raised at any time of the proceedings, this rule presupposes that
laches or estoppel has not supervened.
60. Does the Labor Arbiter have jurisdiction over disputes involving the wages and terms and
conditions of employment of COOPERATIVE employees? Explain.
YES. In the case of Perpetual Help Credit Coop Inc. vs. Faburada, G.R. No. 121498,
October 8, 2001 it was clarified that:
17
64. What is the remedy in case the Regional Office or BLR verbally denies or refuses to act on
an application for registration for a considerable amount of time?
18
Secure a notice of denial in order to avail of the remedy of appeal. After all, the decision
of the Regional Office or the Bureau denying the application for registration shall be in writing,
stating in clear terms the reasons for such a denial. A copy of the notice of denial should be
furnished to the applicant union.
65. What is the effect of the filing/pendency of inter/intra union and other related labor
disputes to the relationship of the party litigants?
The rights, relationships and obligations of the parties-litigants against each other and
other parties-in-interest prior to the institution of the petition shall continue to remain during the
pendency of the petition and until the date of finality of the decision rendered therein.
Thereafter, the rights, relationships and obligations of the parties-litigants against each other and
other parties-in-interest shall be governed by the decision so ordered.
The filing or pendency of any inter/intra-union dispute and other related labor relations
dispute is not a prejudicial question to any petition for certification election and shall not be a
LABOR LAW
2005 CENTRALIZED BAR OPERATIONS
ground for the dismissal of petition for certification election or suspension of proceedings for
certification election (Sections 3 and 4, RULE XI Book V, IRR 2003).
66. Can there be several unions in one enterprise?
YES. There can be several bargaining units in one employer unit, and at least one
legitimate labor organization per bargaining unit. Also, there can be several unions within one
bargaining unit, since there is no law precluding such a situation. But there can only be one
bargaining agent [to the exclusion of others] which shall be designated either by certification or
consent election, or by voluntary recognition as the case may be.
67. Can all rank and file employees join, assist, or form a labor union?
NO. Confidential employees who are ALSO rank and file employees cannot form, join, or
assist unions if they assist in a confidential capacity or have access to the confidential matters of
persons who exercise managerial functions in the field of labor relations
By the very nature of their functions, they assist and act in a confidential capacity to, or
have access to confidential matters of, persons who exercise managerial functions in the field of
labor relations. As such, the rationale for the ineligibility of managerial employees to form, assist
or join a labor union equally applies to them.
In Bulletin Publishing Co., Inc. vs. Hon. Augusta Sanchez,144 SCRA 628 [1986] the Court
elaborated on the rationale for such inhibition in that, if the managerial employees would belong
to, or be affiliated with a Union, the latter might not be assured of their loyalty to the Union in
view of evident conflict of interests. The Union can also become company-dominated with the
presence of managerial employees in Union membership."
This also holds true for confidential employees such as accounting personnel, radio and
telegraph operators, who having access to confidential information, may become the source of
undue advantage. Said employee(s) may act as a spy (ies) of either party to a collective bargaining
agreement. This is especially true in the present case where the petitioning Union is already the
bargaining agent of the rank-and-file employees in the establishment. To allow confidential
employees to join the existing Union of the rank-and file would be in violation of the terms of the
Collective Bargaining Agreement wherein this kind of employees by the nature of their
functions/positions are expressly excluded. (Philips vs. NLRC, G.R. No. 88957, June 25, 1992).
68. In what forms is company domination of a labor union made manifest?
a. Initiation of the company union idea, which may occur in three styles:
(1) Outright formation by the employer or his representative\
(2) Employee formation or outright demand or influence of the employer
(3) Managerially motivated formation by employees.
19
If the local unions move to disaffiliate is supported by almost all [majority] the members
of said union, and such fact is not disputed by the federation [mother union], the companys act of
entering into a CBA with the local union does not constitute ULP.
20
As held in the case of Philippine Skylanders vs. NLRC, G.R. No. 127374, January 31,
2002, as PSEA has validly severed itself from PAFLU, there would be no restrictions which could
validly hinder it from subsequently affiliating with NCW and entering into a CBA in behalf of its
members.
Applying the principle of agency, the local union being the agent of the real principal the
union members; and the federation being merely the agent of the agent the local union, the
former which has chosen to disaffiliate from the latter as willed by majority of its members may
validly enter into a CBA with the employer without holding the employer liable for ULP.
72. What is a sweetheart contract?
Article 249 considers it an unfair labor practice for a labor organization to ask for or accept
negotiation of attorneys fees from the employer in settling a bargaining issue or a dispute. When it
LABOR LAW
2005 CENTRALIZED BAR OPERATIONS
happens, the resulting Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) will most likely be a sweetheart
contract, a CBA that does not substantially improve the employees wages and benefits. Under
Article 239 (f), one of the grounds for cancellation of union registration is entering into collective
bargaining agreements which provide terms and conditions of employment below minimum
standards established by law.
73. May an electric cooperative be held liable to pay damages for the ULP it has committed
against its employees? How much?
YES, but the amount should be tempered. For this reason, we find it proper in this case to
impose moral and exemplary damages on private respondent. However, the damages awarded by
the labor arbiter, to our mind, are excessive. In determining the amount of damages recoverable,
the business, social and financial position of the offended parties and the business and financial
position of the offender are taken into account. It is our view that herein private respondents had
not fully acted in good faith. However, we are cognizant that a cooperative promotes the welfare
of its own members. The economic benefits filter to the cooperative members. Either equally or
proportionally, they are distributed among members in correlation with the resources of the
association utilized. Cooperatives help promote economic democracy and support community
development.
Under these circumstances, we deem it proper to reduce moral damages to only P10,000.00
payable by private respondent NEECO I to each individual petitioner. We also deem it sufficient for
private respondent NEECO I to pay each individual petitioner P5,000.00 to answer for exemplary
damages, based on the provisions of Articles 2229 and 2232 of the Civil Code (NEECO I v. NLRC,
G.R. No. 116066, January 24, 2000).
74. What is [an] in-house agency?
An in-house agency is where a contractor or subcontractor is engaged in the supply of labor
which is owned, managed, or controlled by the principal and operates solely for the principal
owning, managing, and controlling it. It is prohibited by law.
75. What is the so-called HOLDOVER PRINCIPLE in a CBA?
In the case of New Pacific Timber vs. NLRC, the court had the occasion to rule that Article
253 and 253-A mandate the parties to keep the status quo and to continue in full force and effect
the terms and conditions of the existing agreement during the 60-day period prior to the expiration
of the old CBHA and/or until a new agreement is reached by the parties. Consequently, the
automatic renewal clause provided by the law, which is deemed incorporated in all CBAs provides
the reason why the new CBA can only be given a prospective effect. Thus, employees hired after
the stipulated term of a CBA are entitled to the benefits provided thereunder. To exclude them
would constitute undue discrimination and deprive them of monetary benefits they would otherwise
be entitled to under a new collective bargaining contract to which they would have been parties.
As we ruled in the case of Caltex Refinery Employees Association (CREA) vs. Jose S.
Brillantes, (279 SCRA 218, 1997) [w]e believe that the standard proof of a company's financial
standing is its financial statements duly audited by independent and credible external auditors."
Financial statements audited by independent external auditors constitute the normal method of
proof of profit and loss performance of a company. The financial capability of a company cannot be
based on its proposed budget because a proposed budget does not reflect the true financial
condition of a company, unlike audited financial statements, and more importantly, the use of a
proposed budget as proof of a company's financial condition would be susceptible to abuse by
scheming employers who might be merely feigning dire financial condition in their business
ventures in order to avoid granting salary increases and fringe benefits to their employees.
76. Which is the better barometer of the true financial standing of a company for purposes of
resolving an economic deadlock in collective bargaining, a proposed budget or an audited
financial statement. Explain.
21
79. Is there a conflict between a CBA that grants a 10-year moratorium on CBA bargaining on
one hand, and Art. 253-A of the Labor Code, on the other? Explain.
22
The assailed PAL-PALEA agreement was the result of voluntary collective bargaining
negotiations undertaken in the light of the severe financial situation faced by the employer, with
the peculiar and unique intention of not merely promoting industrial peace at PAL, but preventing
the latters closure. We find no conflict between said agreement and Article 253-A of the Labor
Code. Article 253-A has a two-fold purpose. One is to promote industrial stability and
predictability. Inasmuch as the agreement sought to promote industrial peace at PAL during its
rehabilitation, said agreement satisfies the first purpose of Article 253-A. The other is to assign
specific timetables wherein negotiations become a matter of right and requirement. Nothing in
Article 253-A prohibits the parties from waiving or suspending the mandatory timetables and
agreeing on the remedies to enforce the same.
In the instant case, it was PALEA, as the exclusive bargaining agent of PALs ground
employees that voluntarily entered into the CBA with PAL. It was also PALEA that voluntarily opted
for the 10-year suspension of the CBA. Either case was the unions exercise of its right to collective
bargaining. The right to free collective bargaining, after all, includes the right to suspend it
(Rivera v. Espiritu, G.R. No. 135547, January 23, 2002).
80. Distinguish and/or explain the following terms: (1) Direct Certification; (2) Certification
Election; and (3) Consent Election.
LABOR LAW
2005 CENTRALIZED BAR OPERATIONS
Direct Certification
Certification
Election
Consent Election
81. Can the Bureau of Labor Relations certify a union as the exclusive bargaining
representative after showing proof of majority representation through union membership cards
without conducting an election?
NO. The Bureau of Labor Relations cannot certify a union as the exclusive collective
bargaining representative after a showing of proof of majority representation through union
membership cards without conducting a certification election. The Labor Code (in Arts. 256 and
258) provides only for a certification election as the mode for determining exclusive collective
bargaining representative if there is a question on representation in an appropriate bargaining unit.
82. When is consent election a bar to a petition for certification election? When is it not a bar?
Where a petition for certification election had been filed and upon the intercession of the
med-arbiter, the parties agree to hold a consent election, the result thereof shall constitute a bar
to the holding of a certification election for one year from the holding of such consent election.
However, where the total number of valid votes cast in a consent election is less than the majority
of all the eligible employees in the bargaining unit, there shall be a failure of election. Such failure
will not bar the filing of a petition for the immediate holding of a certification election. Where no
petition for certification election had been filed but the parties themselves have agreed to hold a
consent election, the result thereof shall not constitute a bar to another certification election,
unless the winning union had been extended voluntary recognition.
83. Union X, a legitimate labor organization filed a petition for certification election during the
freedom period. Union Y, another union in the same company, moved to dismiss the same
alleging among others that Union X is composed of not only rank and file employees, but also of
supervisory employees, who under the law, may not join a labor organization composed of rank
and file employees. What is the effect of such allegation upon the petition for certification
election?
23
86. What is the statutory policy on certification elections? How does the law treat
managements attempts to thwart initiatives to hold certification election?
24
The fact that PICOP voiced out its objection to the holding of certification election, despite
numerous opportunities to ventilate the same, only after respondent Undersecretary of Labor
affirmed the holding thereof, simply bolstered the public respondents' conclusion that PICOP raised
the issue merely to prevent and thwart the concerned section heads and supervisory employees
from exercising a right granted them by law. Needless to stress, no obstacle must be placed to the
holding of certification elections, for it is a statutory policy that should not be circumvented
(PICOP vs. Laguesma, G.R. No. 101738, April 12, 2000).
87. What is the Doctrine of Union Monopoly?
It means that once a union is chosen as the collective bargaining agent of an appropriate
bargaining unit through Certification election, it alone, can collectively bargain with management
to the exclusion of other competing unions.
88. Is there a violation of the CBAs no strike no lockout provision when workers join a
demonstration against police abuses?
LABOR LAW
2005 CENTRALIZED BAR OPERATIONS
NO. The demonstration held by workers would be purely and completely an exercise of
their freedom of expression in general and of their right of assembly and of petition for redress of
grievances in particular before the appropriate government agency. To regard the demonstration
against police officers, not against the employer as evidence of bad faith in collective bargaining
stretches unduly the compass of the collective bargaining agreement (Phil. Blooming Mills
Employees Org. vs. Phil. Blooming Mills Co., Inc. June 5, 1973).
89. What is a union recognition strike?
A union recognition strike is calculated to compel the employer to recognize ones union
and not the other contending group, as the employees bargaining representative despite the
striking unions doubtful majority status to merit voluntary recognition and lack of formal
certification as the exclusive representative in the bargaining unit.
90. Is the pari delicto rule applicable in strikes and lockouts?
YES. When the parties are in pari delicto the employees having staged an illegal strike
and the employer having declared an illegal lockout such situation warrants the restoration of the
status quo ante and bringing back the parties to their respective positions before the illegal strike
and illegal lockout through the reinstatement, without backwages, of the dismissed employees.
(Philippine Inter-Fashion, Inc. vs. NLRC, G.R. No. 59847, October 18, 1982).
91. Would the Unions failure to submit the STRIKE VOTE RESULTS to the NCMB cause the
illegality of the strike? Explain.
YES. The Supreme Court said so in the case of Samahan ng Manggagawa sa Moldex v.
NLRC, G.R. No. 119467, February 1, 2000. It has been shown that the results of the strike-vote
were never forwarded to the NCMB, as admitted by petitioners themselves and as attested to by a
Certification of Non-Submission of Strike Vote issued by the NCMB. There is thus no need for
additional evidence on the matter, as it would not change the fact that the results of the strikevote were not submitted to the NCMB. Without the submission of the results of the strike-vote, the
strike was illegal, pursuant to Article 264 of the Labor Code
92. What is the legal implication of defying the RETURN TO WORK ORDER in a strike case which
is under assumption of jurisdiction?
In the case of Telefunken Semiconductors Employees Union FFW v. CA, G.R. No.
143013-14, December 18, 2000, the Supreme Court held that the strike of the Union cannot be
viewed as anything but illegal for having been staged in open and knowing defiance of the
assumption and return-to-work orders. The necessary consequence thereof are also detailed by the
Supreme Court in its various rulings. In Marcopper Mining Corp. v. Brillantes (254 SCRA 595), the
High Tribunal stated in no uncertain terms that by staging a strike after the assumption of jurisdiction or certification for
arbitration, workers forfeited their right to; be readmitted to work, having abandoned
their employment, and so could be validly replaced.
Viewed in the light of the foregoing, we have no alternative but to confirm the loss of
employment status of all those who participated in the strike in defiance of the assumption order
dated 8 September 1995 and did not report back to work as directed in the Order of 16 September
1995.
25
96. Is the one-month notice for separation for authorized causes always required?
26
LABOR LAW
2005 CENTRALIZED BAR OPERATIONS
Respondent company's lack of candor and good faith in informing BARQUIN that he was
being terminated due to a valid retrenchment and not because it sought to avoid compliance with
the mandated wage increases amounted to a deception which led BARQUIN to the mistaken belief
that that there was legal ground for retrenchment and prompted him to acquiesce to his
termination and sign the quitclaim. Petitioners correctly point out that such an act has been
declared by this Court in the case of Trendline Employees Association-Southern Philippines
Federation of Labor vs. NLRC, as tainted with bad faith and should not be countenanced as being
prejudicial and oppressive to labor.] Verily, had the respondent company not misled BARQUIN into
believing that there was a ground to retrench, it is not difficult to believe that he would have
thought twice before signing the quitclaim inasmuch there was no reason for the termination of his
employment.
Contrary to the assumption of both the Court of Appeals and the voluntary arbitrator, the
mere fact that BARQUIN was not physically coerced or intimidated does not necessarily imply that
he freely or voluntarily consented to the terms of the quitclaim. Under Article 1330 of the Civil
Code, consent may be vitiated not only through intimidation or violence but also by mistake, undue
influence or fraud (Barquin v. Philippine Carpet Mnufacturing Corp., G.R. No. 140269,
September 14, 2000).
99.
Backwages is the relief given to an employee to compensate him for lost earnings during
the period of his dismissal.
Unpaid Wages are wages earned prior to the illegal dismissal but are not yet paid to the
employee.
Separation Pay is monetary amount intended to provide the employee money during the
period in which he will be looking for another employment.
b.What economic components constitute backwages for a rank and file employee? Are
these components equally applicable to a managerial employee?
The Labor Code (Art. 279) provides that an employee who is unjustly dismissed from work
is entitled to reinstatement and also to his full backwages, inclusive of allowances, and to his other
benefits or their monetary equivalent computed from the time his compensation was withheld from
him up to his actual reinstatement.
An employee is entitled to all the above benefit regardless if he is a rank and file employee
or a managerial employee. However, backwages may also include the 13th month pay which is paid
to rank and file employees, as well as benefits arising from the CBA given only to the employees in
the bargaining unit. Managerial employees cannot be given the same since they are ineligible to
join the labor organization.
Yes. The said law intends to give the minimum retirement benefits to employees not
entitled thereto under collective bargaining and other agreements. Its coverage applies to
establishments with existing collective bargaining, or other agreements or voluntary retirement
plans whose benefits are less than those prescribed under the proviso in question.
The said law is a curative social legislation, which, by their nature, may be given
retroactive effect, unless it will impair vested rights. It has a retroactive effect to include in its
coverage the employees services to an employer rendered prior to its effectivity. It applies to
employees in the employee of employers at the time the law took effect and who are eligible to
benefits under that statute (MLQU vs. NLRC, G.R. No. 141673, October 17, 2001).
100. Does Republic Act No. 7641, the Retirement Law, apply to employees covered with a valid
retirement plan? Can it be given a retroactive effect?
27
The salient features of the protection to labor provisions of the Constitution (Article XIII,
Section 3) are as follows:
28
LABOR LAW
2005 CENTRALIZED BAR OPERATIONS
The State shall guarantee the right of all workers to self-organization, collective bargaining
and negotiations, and peaceful concerted activities, including the right to strike, in accordance by
law.
Workers shall also participate in policy and decision-making processes affecting their rights
and benefits as may be provided by law.
The State shall promote the principle of shared responsibility between workers and
employers and the preferential use of voluntary modes in setting labor disputes, including
conciliation, and shall enforce mutual compliance therewith to foster industrial peace.
The State shall regulate the relations between workers and employers recognizing the right
to its just share in the fruits of production and the right of enterprises to reasonable returns on
investments, and to expansion and growth.
1. LABOR STANDARDS
TOPIC: EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE RELATIONSHIP
SUMMARY OF THE RULE: What determines employer-employee relationship is the power of the
employer to control the employee regarding the manner of how the work should be done.
Zapato Custom-made make shoes to customer specifications and repaired them. As a service to
customers, a shoe shine stand was operated on its premises. There were 10 shoe shine boys at
the stand. They owned their shoe shine boxes with cleaning agent polish, brushes, and rags.
Walk-in customers willing to wait were led by the shoe shine boys to a seat at the stand where
he waited while the boy asked the customer to pay to the receptionist. Customers not willing
to wait left the shoes with the stands receptionist who gave a receipt with the price for the
service and pick-up date and time indicated. The boys were free to get shoes to be shined for
the receptionist when there were no waiting walk-ins. For each pair shined, the boys got
markers corresponding to the price for their service. ZaCSIs staff did not interfere with, nor
supervise, how the boys went about their tasks. At days end, the markers held by each boy
were tallied and paid for. The boys signed a receipt to acknowledge full payment for work
done.
A labor federation organized ZaCSI and filed a petition for a consent election. The boys,
sympathizing with the workers, joined the union. At the pre-election conference, the lawyer
for ZaCSI moved to exclude the boys as voters.
As Med-Arbiter handling the case, rule on the objection. Would you ruling be different if in this
case, ZaCSI provided the boys with the shoe shine boxes and their contents? Explain.
As Med-arbiter, I will rule that the shoe shine boys should be excluded as voters in the
consent election. The shoe shine boys are not employees of ZaCSI and thus could not be considered
as employees belonging to bargaining unit who will designate or select a bargaining representative.
They are not employees of ZaCSI because according to the given facts, they are not under the
control of ZaCSI which is an essential element for the existence of employer-employee relationship.
In the statement of facts, it is said that ZaCSIs staff did not interfere with, nor supervise how the
boys went about their task.
My ruling will not be different even if ZaCSI provided the boys with the shoe shine boxes
and their contents. ZaCSI, by this act, is not yet exercising control that is determinative of the
existence or non-existence of control over them. It is the existence of employer-employee
relationship.
29
The action of the Harbor View Hotel is legal and valid. Contracting out services or functions
being performed by union members is not illegal per se. In fact, it is the prerogative of
management to adopt cost-saving measures to ensure economy and efficiency. Contracting out
services or functions being performed by union members becomes illegal only when it interferes
with, restrains or coerces employees in the exercise of their right to self-organizations.
The action of Harbor View Hotel would, at first glance, appear to be an unfair labor
practice under Article 248 (c) e.g. to contract out services or functions being performed by union
members if such will interfere with, restrain or coerce employees in the exercises of their right to
self-organization.
Considering, however, that in the case at bar, there is no showing that the hotels action is
a valid exercises of its management prerogatives and the right to make business judgments in
accordance with law.
30
LABOR LAW
2005 CENTRALIZED BAR OPERATIONS
A person who engages the services of a bona_fide independent contractor for the
performance of any work, task, job or project is the indirect employer of the employees who have
been hired by the independent contractor to perform said work, task, job or project.
In the event that the independent contractor fails to pay the wages of his employees, an
indirect employer, in the same manner and extent that he is liable to employees directly employed
by him, is jointly and severally liable with the independent contractor to the employees of the
latter to the extent of the work performed under the contract.
As for the person who engages the services of a labor only contractor, the latter is
considered merely as an agent of the former who shall be responsible to the workers hired by the
labor only contractor in the same manner and extent as if the directly employed such workers.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
An employer who engages the services of a bona fide independent contractor is solidarily
liable with his contractor or sub-contractor only for non-payment or under-payment of wages and
other labor standards provisions of the Labor Code, whereas an employer that it normally grants to
its regular or direct employees.
An employer who deals with a bona-fide independent contractor shall only be subsidiary
liable, if the contractor or sub-contractor fails to pay the wages to the workers in accordance with
the Labor Code.
Upon the other hand, an employer who deals with a labor-only contractor shall be
primarily responsible to the workers in the same manner and extent as if the latter were directly
employed by him. (Art 106-107, Labor Code)
(c) Distinguish between an award for back wages and an award for unpaid wages.
An award for backwages is to compensate an employee who has been illegally dismissed,
for the wages, allowances and other benefits or their monetary equivalent, which said employee
did not receive from the time he was illegally dismissed up to the time of his actual reinstatement.
On the other hand, an award for unpaid wages is for an employee who has actually worked
but has not been paid the wages he is entitled to receive for such work done. (Arts. 279 and 97 (F),
Labor Code).
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
An award of backwages is given to an employee who is unjustly dismissed. On the other
hand, an award of unpaid wages is given to an employee who has not been paid his salaries or
wages for services actually rendered. The cause of action here is non-payment of wages or salaries.
(General Baptist Bible College vs. NLRC 219 SCRA 549).
TOPIC: OVERTIME PAY
SUMMARY OF THE RULE: Undertime work on any particular day shall not be offset by overtime
work on any other day.
Are the above provisions of the contract of employment in conformity with, or violative of, the
law?
Except for the provision that Danilo shall have time off with pay when the companys
executives using the cars do not need Danilos service for more than eight hours a day, in lieu of
overtime, the provisions of the contract of employment of Danilo are not violative of any labor law
because the instead improve upon the present provisions of pertinent labor laws. Thus, the monthly
rate equivalent to 35 times the daily wage may be sufficient to include overtime pay.
There is no labor law requiring the payment of sick and vacation leaves except for a fiveday service incentive leave in the Labor Code.
Danilo Flores applied for the position of driver in the motorpool of Gold Company, a
multinational corporation. Danilo was informed that he would frequently be working overtime
as he would have to drive for the companys executives even beyond the ordinary eight-hour
work day. He was provided with a contract of employment wherein he would be paid a monthly
rate equivalent to 35 times his daily wage, regular sick and vacation leaves, 5 day-leave with
pay every month and time off with pay when the companys executives using the cars do not
need Danilos service for more than eight hours a day, in lieu of overtime.
31
A family driver who drives the family van to fetch merchandise from suppliers and delivers
the same to boutique in a mall owned by the family for whom he works should be paid the
minimum daily wage of a drive in a commercial establishment.
The Labor Code (in Article 143) provides that no house helper shall be assigned to work in a
commercial, industrial or agricultural enterprise at a wage or salary rate lower than provided by
law for agricultural or non-agricultural workers.
32
LABOR LAW
2005 CENTRALIZED BAR OPERATIONS
hiring of Engineer B showed that there is a continuing need for his services. Is the claim of
Engineer A correct?
The claim of Engineer A that he is a regular employee and not a project employee is not
correct. The Labor Code provides:
Art. 280. Regular and casual employment. - An employment shall be deemed to be
regular where the employee has been engaged to perform activities which are usually
necessary or desirable in the usual business or trade of the employer, except where the
employment has been fixed for a specific project or undertaking the completion of which
has been determined at the time of the engagement of the employee.
In all the five (5) successive contracts of employment of Engineer A the name of the
project, its duration, and the temporary project nature of the engagement of his services are
clearly stated; hence, Engineer A falls within the exemption of Art. 280.
The fact that the petitioners worked for several projects of private respondent company is
no basis to consider them as regular employees. By the very nature of their employees business,
they will always remain project employees regardless of the number of projects in which they have
worked (Manansag v. NLRC, 218 SCRA 722, 1993)
Project employees are not considered regular employees, their services, being needed only
when there are projects to be undertaken. The rationale for this rule is that if a project has already
been completed, it would be unjust to require the employer to maintain them in the payroll while
they are doing absolutely nothing except waiting for another project (De Ocampo v. NLRC, 186
SCRA 361, 1990).
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
The claim of Engineer A is not correct. The fact that he has been working for
Construction Group for a total of ten (10) years does not make him a regular employee when it is
very clear from the Contracts of Employment that he signed that he has always been engaged as a
project employee.
The tenure of project employee is co-terminus with the project in connection with which
his services were engaged. Thus, after the end of the project, the employer-employee relationship
ceases to exist. Such project employee has no legal rights to insist that the Construction Group for
a subsequent project of said Group should employ him.
TOPIC: HOURS WORKED
SUMMARY OF RULE: An employee who is required to remain on call in the employers premises or
so close thereto that he cannot use the time effectively and gainfully for his own purpose shall be
considered as working while on call.
An employee who is not required to leave word at his home or with company officials where
he may be reached is not working while on call.
Would the hours that Lito and Bong are on call be considered compensable working hours?
The hours of Lito and Bong while on call can be considered compensable hours. The
applicable rule is: An employee who is required to remain on call in the employers premises or so
close thereto that he cannot use the time effectively and gainfully for his own purpose shall be
considered as working while on call. An employee who is not required to leave word at his home or
with company officials where he may be reached is not working while on call. Here Bong is
required to stay at the office after office hours so he could be called to drive the trucks of the
Company. As for Bong, he is required to keep his cellular phone so that he could be contacted
whenever his services as driver as needed. Thus, the waiting time of Lito and Bong should be
considered as compensable hours.
Lito Kulangkulang and Bong Urongsulong are employed as truck drivers of Line Movers, Inc.
Usually, Lito is required by the personnel manager to just stay at the head office after office
hours because he could be called to drive the trucks. While at the head office, Lito merely
waits in the managers reception room. On the other hand, Bong is allowed to go home after
office hours but is required to keep his cellular phone on so that he could be contacted
whenever his services as driver become necessary.
33
Sta. Monica Plywood Corp. is liable for the claims of the workers hired by Arnold. A finding
that Arnold is a labor only contractor is equivalent to declaring that there exist an employeremployee relationship between Sta. Monica Plywood Corp. and workers hired by Arnold. This is so
because Arnold is considered a mere agent of Sta. Monica plywood Corp (Lim v NLRC, 303 SCRA 432,
1999; Baguio et. al. v. NLRC, 202 SCRA 465 1991).
34
LABOR LAW
2005 CENTRALIZED BAR OPERATIONS
plan. Still it is integration and not exemption from SSS law. (Philippine Blooming Mills Co. Inc. v
SSS, 17 SCRA 107)
TOPIC: COMPREHENSIVE AGRARIAN REFORM LAW
1.a. What is the foundation of the agrarian reform program under the 1987 Constitution? Who
are the direct beneficiaries of the program?
1.b. Distinguish just compensation under the CARL of 1988 form just compensation under the
Bill of rights? How it is determined under the former?
In the Bill of Rights it is provided that private property shall not be taken for public use
without just compensation.
In the provisions of the 1987 constitution on agrarian reform, it is provided that in the just
distribution of all agricultural lands, the same shall be subject, among others, to the payment of
just compensation.
The 1987 Constitution enunciates in Article II as one of the state policies that the State
shall promote comprehensive rural development and agrarian reform.
In Article XII of the Constitution, in dealing with the national economy and patrimony, it is
also stated that the State shall promote industrialization and full employment based on sound
agricultural development and agrarian reform.
Then in Article XIII of the Constitution, in dealing with social justice and human rights,
there is this provision, among others: the state shall, by law, undertake an agrarian reform
program founded on the right of framers and regular farm workers, who are landless, to own
directly or workers, to receive a just share of the fruits thereof. To this end, the state shall
encourage and undertake the just distribution of all agricultural lands, subject to such priorities
and reasonable retention limits as the congress may prescribe, taking into account ecological,
developmental, or equity considerations, and subject to the payment of just compensation. In
determining the retention limits, the state shall respect the right of small landowners. The state
shall further provide incentives for voluntary landsharing.
Taken together, the above provisions could be considered as the foundation of the agrarian
reform program.
Under the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law, the lands covered by the CARP shall be
distributed as much as possible to landless residents of the same barangay, or in the absence
thereof, landless residents of the same municipality in the following order of priority:
1. agricultutral lessees and share tenants;
2. regular farmworkers;
3. seasonal farmworkers;
4. other farmworkers;
5. actual tillers or occupants of public lands;
6. collectives or cooperatives of the above beneficiaries; and
7. others directly working on the land.
The children of landowners, who are qualified to be awardees of not more than three
hectares, shall be given preference in the distribution of the land of their parents. Actual tenant
tillers in the landholding shall not be ejected or removed therefrom.
Beneficiaries under PD 27 who have culpably sold, disposed of or abandoned their land are
disqualified to became beneficiaries under the CARP.
A basic qualification of a beneficiary shall be his willingness aptitude and ability to
cultivate and make the land as productive as possible. The DAR shall adopt a system of monitoring
the record or performance of each beneficiary, so that any beneficiary guilty of negligence or
misuse of the land or any support extended to him shall forfeit his right to continue as such
beneficiary. The DAR shall submit periodic reports on the performance of the beneficiaries to the
CARP.
If, due to the landowners retention rights or to the number o tenants, lessees, or workers
on the land, there is not enough land to accommodate any or some of them, they may be granted
ownership of other lands available for distribution under the CARL, at the option of the
beneficiaries.
Farmers already in place and those not accommodated in the distribution of privately
owned lands will be given preferential rights in the distributions of lands from the public domain.
35
Bituin applied and was hired by the Club. She signed the employment contract, containing the
aforesaid provisions. 6 months later, she asked for a maternity leave with pay. Instead of
granting her maternity leave, the management of the club fired her. Bituin sued the Club for
illegal dismissal, backwages, OT pay, and holiday pay. Decide.
36
Bituin is an employee of the Club. Under Art.138, any woman who is permitted or
suffered to work, with or without compensation in any nightclub, cocktail lounge, massage clinic,
bar or other similar establishment, under the effective control and supervision of the employer
for a substantial period of time as determined by the Secretary of Labor shall be considered as an
employee of such establishment for purposes of labor and social legislation.
Bituin was illegally dismissed. Pregnancy is not a valid cause for dismissal because, as
provided under the Code, it shall be unlawful for an employer to discharge a woman employee on
account of her pregnancy.
She is entitled to backwages. The compensation given to Bituin was all tips. These cant
be considered compensation, at most, they could be considered as service charges which Bituin can
keep. She is thus entitled to be paid at least the minimum wage.
Since her working hours are from 6 pm to 3 am, She works 9 hours a day. She is also
entitled to OT pay, and also from 10 pm, to a night differential pay. She is also entitled to premium
pay since she works 7 days a week, and thus, works on her weekly rest day, and also on regular
holidays. For the latter, she should be paid at 200% of her basic rate.
LABOR LAW
2005 CENTRALIZED BAR OPERATIONS
2. LABOR RELATIONS
TOPIC: ASSUMPTION ORDER
In a labor dispute, the Secretary of Labor issued an Assumption Order. Give the legal
implications of such an order.
Under Art. 263(g) of the Labor Code, such assumption shall have the effect of automatically
enjoining the intended or impending strike or lockout as specified in the assumption order. If one
had already taken place at the time of assumption, all striking or lockout employees shall
immediately return to work and the employer shall immediately resume operations and re-admit all
workers under the same terms and conditions prevailing before the strike or lockout. The Secretary
of Labor and Employment may seek the assistance of law enforcement agencies to ensure
compliance with this provision as well as he may issue to enforce the same. The mere issuance of
an assumption order by the Secretary of Labor automatically carries with it a return to work order,
even if the directive to return to work is not expressly stated in the assumption order. Those who
violate the foregoing shall be subject to disciplinary action or even criminal prosecution.
Under Art. 264 of the Labor Code, no strike or lockout shall be declared after the
assumption of jurisdiction by the Secretary.
TOPIC: STRIKE/LOCKOUT; COMPULSORY ARBITRATION
SUMMARY OF THE RULE: The Secretary of Labor may exercise the power of compulsory arbitration
over the labor dispute when such dispute may cause or likely cause a strike or lockout in an
industry indispensable to national interest. (Divine Word University vs. Secretary of Labor, 213
SCRA 759).
Jenson & Jenson (J&J) is a domestic corporation engaged in the manufacturing of consumer
products. Its rank-and-file workers organized the Jenson Employees Union (JEU), a duly
registered local union affiliated with PAFLU, a national union. After having been certified as
the exclusive bargaining agent of the appropriate bargaining unit, JEU_PAFLU submitted its
proposals for a Collective Bargaining Agreement with the company.
In the meantime, a power-struggle occurred within the national union PAFLU between its
National President, Manny Pakyao, and its National Secretary General, Gabriel Miro. The
representation issue within PAFLU is pending resolution before the Office of the Secretary of
Labor.
By reason of this intra-union dispute within PAFLU, J&J obstinately and consistently refused to
offer any counter-proposal and to bargain collectively with JEU-PAFLU until the representation
issue within PAFLU shall have been resolved with finality. JEU-PAFLU filed a Notice of Strike.
The Secretary of Labor subsequently assumed jurisdiction over the labor dispute.
Can the Secretary of Labor decide the labor dispute by awarding the JEU CBA Proposals as the
Collective Bargaining Agreement of the parties? Explain briefly.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
No. What is involved in the case in question is a corporation engaged in the
manufacturing of consumer products. If the consumer products that are being manufactured
are not such that a strike against the company cannot be considered a strike in an industry
Yes. The Secretary of Labor can decide the labor dispute by awarding the JEU CBA proposals as the
Collective Bargaining Agreement of the parties because when the Secretary of Labor (Article 263
[g]) assumes jurisdiction over a labor dispute causing or likely to cause a strike or lockout in an
industry indispensable to the national interest, the Secretary of Labor exercises the power of
compulsory arbitration over the labor dispute, meaning, that as an exception to the general rule,
the Secretary of Labor now has the power to set or fix wages, rates of pay, hours of work or terms
and conditions of employment by determining what should be the CBA of the parties (Divine Word
University vs. Secretary of Labor, 213 SCRA 759).
37
TOPIC: STRIKES
SUMMARY OF THE RULE: For a strike to be legal, it should either be an economic strike, i.e.,
caused by a bargaining deadlock or an unfair labor practice strike, i.e., caused by the commission
of an unfair labor practice by an employer.
38
On May 24, 1989, the UKM urged its member-unions to join a Welga ng Bayan in support of
its efforts to pressure Congress to increase the daily minimum wage. Union X is a member of
the UKM and represents all the rank and the file employees of the Puritan Mining Company.
Following the call for a nationwide strike, Union X staged a strike and put a picket the
following day. As a result, the companys operations were paralyzed although company officials
and supervisory employees were allowed ingress and egress to and from the company premises.
The picket was likewise peaceful. On May 28, 1989, the UKM leadership announced the end of
the Welga ng Bayan. Union X immediately company sought your legal advice on the legality
of the strike and the liability, if any, of the union officers and the participating members. What
is your opinion? Explain.
The strike was illegal. For a strike to be legal, it should either be an economic strike, i.e.,
caused by a bargaining deadlock or an unfair labor practice strike, i.e., caused by the commission
of an unfair labor practice by an employer.
The strike by Union X was neither an economic strike or an unfair strike. Thus, it was an
illegal strike.
LABOR LAW
2005 CENTRALIZED BAR OPERATIONS
Because it was an illegal strike, any union officer who knowingly participated in it may be
declared to have lost his employment status, meaning such union officer could be legally
terminated.
As for the union members who participated in the strike, the facts show that no illegal acts
were committed. They allowed ingress and egress to and from the company premises. The picket
was peaceful. The mere participation of the union members, without their committing illegal acts,
does not constitute sufficient ground for the termination of their employment.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
The strike is legal and the union officers and participating union members incur no liability
for calling and participating in the strike respectively. Applying the rule in Philippine Blooming Mills
to the effect that the workers only personally assembled to influence the decision making process
of the government which is a constitutionally guaranteed right.
Note: Credit should be given to answer that focus on the procedural requirement for a
strike to be legal, i.e. strike vote, notice, cooling off period.
Porfirio, Estela, Crisostomo, Marita, and Jose Ramirez were brothers and sisters. All were
stockholders, directors and officers of the Pagaspas Marketing Co., Inc. (PMCI). PMCI sold office
machines and supplies. It employed 20 sales persons, 10 delivery men, 20 service personnel,
and 10 administrative employees. On December 10, 1987, 45 rank and file workers of the
company formed and registered a labor union. They sent a letter to Pagaspas demanding
recognition as bargaining agent of all workers, enclosing check-off authorization forms of the
union members, and a set of economic demands. PMCI refused to recognize the union. The
union president went to you, as labor adviser of the federation which they were planning to
affiliate with.
He wants your opinion on what the union may lawfully do to compel management to come to
the bargaining table at that point. What will your advice be?
The union president tells you that they prefer to go on strike. He wants to know the legal
requirements that the union must comply with so the strike will be legal. What advice will you
give?
I will advice the union president to file a petition for certification so that after being
certified as the collective bargaining representative, the union could go back to PMCI and ask it to
bargain collectively with the Union. If PMCI persists in its refusal to bargain collectively, I will
advice the Union to file a case of unfair labor practice against PMCI since a refusal to bargain
collectively is a ULP.
I will tell the union president that these are the requisites that should be complied with if a
strike is to be legal: The union should file a notice of strike with the Bureau of Labor Relations
(assuming PMCI is in Metro Manila). A copy of the notice should also be served upon PMCI. The union
should not actually go on strike until after 30 days (if the strike is because of the ULP committed by
PMCI, i.e., its refusal to bargain collectively) after filing a notice of strike.
There should be a strike vote, either at a meeting or through a referendum. A majority of the union
members on the bargaining unit should approve the declaration of strike. The union should furnish
the Bureau of Labor Relations of the Notice of meeting where a strike vote will be taken. The union
should also inform the Bureau about the result of the voting at least seven (7) days before the
intended strike.
39
40
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
Assuming that there is a valid ground to terminate employment, the employer must comply
with the requirement of procedural due process: written notice of intent to terminate stating the
cause of termination; hearing; and notice of termination. Art. 277 of the Labor Code reads:
xxx The employer shall furnish the worker whose employment is sought to be
terminated a written notice containing a statement of the causes for termination and shall
afford the latter ample opportunity to be heard and to defend himself with the assistance
of his representative if he so desires.
Not only must the dismissal be for a valid or unauthorized cause as provided by law but the
rudimentary requirements of due process notice and hearing must also be observed before an
employee must be dismissed (Salaw v. NLRC, 202 SCRA 7). To meet the requirements of due
process, the law requires that an employer must furnish the workers sought to be dismissed with
two written notices before termination of employment can be legally effected, that is, (1) a notice
LABOR LAW
2005 CENTRALIZED BAR OPERATIONS
which apprises the employee of the particular acts or omissions for which his dismissal is sought;
and (2) subsequent notice, after due hearing, which informs the employee of the employers
decision to dismiss him (Tanala v. NLRC, 252 SCRA 314).
TOPIC: JURISDICTION
SUMMARY OF THE RULE: Regular courts have jurisdiction over cases arising from slanderous
language uttered against an employee by an employer. This is a simple action for damages for
tortious acts allegedly committed by defendant-employer (Medina vs. Castro-Bartolome, 116 SCRA
597).
Mariet Demetrio was a clerk-typist in the Office of the President of a multinational corporation.
One day she was berated by the President of the company, the latter shouting invectives at her
in the presence of employees and visitors for a minor infraction she committed. Mariet was
reduced to tears out of shame and felt so bitter about the incident that she filed a civil case for
damages against the company president before the regular courts. Soon thereafter, Mariet
received a memorandum transferring her to the Office of the General Manager without
demotion in rank or diminution in pay. Mariet refused to transfer.
However, with respect to the civil suit for damages, the company lawyer filed a Motion to
Dismiss for lack of jurisdiction considering the existence of an employer-employee relationship
and therefore, it is claimed that the case should have been filed before the Labor Arbiter.
Rule on the Motion to Dismiss. Should it be granted or denied. Explain briefly.
The Motion to Dismiss should be denied. It is a regular court and not a Labor Arbiter that
has jurisdiction on the suit for damages. The damages did not arise from the employer-employee
relations which would not have placed the suit under the jurisdiction of a Labor Arbiter. The suit
arises from the fact that the President of the company shouted invectives at Mariet Demetrio in the
presence of employees and visitors. Her complaint for damages is against an officer of the Company
based on slanderous language alleged made by the latter. This falls under the jurisdiction of the
ordinary courts. There is here a simple action for damages for tortious acts allegedly committed by
the defendant. Such being the case, the governing statue is the Civil Code and not the Labor Code.
(Medina vs. Castro-Bartolome, 116 SCRA 597)
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
The Motion to dismiss should be granted. According to the Labor Code (Article 217 (a)4),
the Labor Arbiter has original and exclusive jurisdiction to hear and decide, among others, claims
for actual, moral and exemplary and other forms of damages arising from the employer-employee
relations. The claim for damages in the case in question arose from the fact that the President of
the Company shouted invectives at Mariet Demetrio in the presence of employees and visitors for a
minor infraction she committed. If the infraction has something to do with her work, then, the
claim for damages could be considered as arising from employer-employee relations. Thus, the
claim is under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Labor Arbiter.
The affected members of the rank-and-file employees elevated the Labor Arbiters decision to
the NLRC via a petition for review filed after the lapse of the 10-day reglementary period for
perfecting an appeal. Should the NLRC dismiss the petition outright or may the NLRC take
cognizance thereof?
The NLRC should dismiss the appeal outright because the same was filed beyond the
reglementary period of appeal. Article 223 of the Labor Code reads: Decisions, awards, or orders
of the Labor Arbiter are final and executory unless appealed to the Commission by any or both
parties within 10 calendar days from the receipt of such decisions, awards, or orders.
TOPIC: JURISDICTION
SUMMARY OF THE RULE: Article 223 of the Labor Code provides that: Decisions, awards, or
orders of the Labor Arbiter are final and executory unless appealed to the Commission by any or
both parties within 10 calendar days from the receipt of such decisions, awards, or orders.
41
42
LABOR LAW
2005 CENTRALIZED BAR OPERATIONS
chores as cleaning, fetching water and all kinds of errands after school hours. She gives him
rice and P30.00 before the boy goes home at 7:00 every night. The school principal learned
about it and charged her with violating the law which prohibits the employment of children
below 15 years of age. In her defense, the teacher stated that the work performed by her
pupil is not hazardous, and she invoked the exception provided in the D.O. of DOLE for the
engagement of persons in domestic and household service.
Is her defense tenable? Reason.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No. Her defense is not tenable. Under Art. 19 of the Labor Code on minimum employable
age, no child below 15 years of age shall be employed except when he works directly under the sole
responsibility of his parents or guardian, the provisions of the alleged D. O. of DOLE to the contrary
notwithstanding. A mere Department Order cannot prevail over the express prohibitory provisions
of the Labor Code.
[N.B. Sec. 3, RA 9231 allows a child below 15 years of age to work for not more than 20
hours a week; provided that the work shall not be more than 4 hours at any given day; provided
further, that he does not work between 8PM and 6AM of the following day; and provided, finally,
that the work is not hazardous or deleterious to his health or morals. This is a law approved only
on July 28, 2003, which is beyond the cut-off period of the then 2004 Bar Examinations.]
C. Which of the following may be considered among industries most vital to national interest as
to be subject of immediate assumption of jurisdiction by the Secretary of Labor or certification
for compulsory arbitration in case of strike or work stoppage arising from a labor dispute?
1. Bulletin daily newspaper publishing company
2. Local franchise of Jolibee and Starbucks
3. Shipping and port services in Cebu and Manila
4. Enchanted Kingdom, Elephant Island and Boracay Resort
5. LBC, DHL and FedEX centers
Justify your answer or choice.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Certification of labor dispute for immediate assumption of jurisdiction by the Secretary
refers to industries indispensable to national interest:
1. Bulletin Daily Newspaper, since access to information is a requirement for an
informed citizenry.
2. Shipping and port services, since the country needs domestic sea transport due
to our topography and for the smooth flow of business and government operations.
3. LBC, DHL and FedEX centers, since couriers are essential to foreign and domestic
business and government operations.
D. Employees of ABC declared a strike after filing a Notice of Strike with the DOLE. They
barricaded company gates and damaged vehicles entering company premises. On the second
day after the strike, ABC filed a petition with the DOLE Secretary to intervene through the
issuance of an assumption of jurisdiction order that the Secretary may issue when a strike or
lockout will adversely affect national interest. ABC furnished the Secretary with evidence to
show that company vehicles had been damaged; that electric power had been cut off; and
equipment and materials were damaged because electric power was not immediately restored.
ABC forecast that the countrys supply of chlorine for water treatment (which the company
produces) would be affected adversely if ABCs operations were closed down by the strikers.
Could the DOLE Secretary intervene, assume jurisdiction and issue a TRO? Briefly justify
your answer.
43
No.
Assuming that what we have is a originally chartered GOCC, they cannot, under Eo 180 and
related jurisprudence, stage such walk-out which is basically a case of strike.
Even if GFI was organized under the Corporation Code, still no such walk-out is allowed
without complying with the requirements of a valid strike, among which is that said strike should be
validly grounded on a (a) deadlock in collective bargaining, or (b) ULP.
44
LABOR LAW
2005 CENTRALIZED BAR OPERATIONS
CASE DOCTRINES
BOOK ONE
POEA; POWERS AND FUNCTIONS.
APPROVAL OF OVERSEAS CONTRACTS
An agreement that changes the employees pay and benefits to make them lesser than
those contained in a POEA-approved contract is void, unless such subsequent agreement is
approved by the POEA (Chavez vs. Bonto-Perez).
REIMBURSEMENT OF OVERPAID FEES
POEA has the power to order refund or reimbursement of fees fraudulently or illegally
collected, or in excess of what is legally allowed. (Eastern Assurance & Surety Corporation vs.
Secretary of Labor).
ISSUANCE OF SEARCH AND SEIZURE ORDERS
Under the Constitution, only a judge may issue warrants of search and arrest. The labor
authorities must go through the judicial process. The Secretary of Labor, not being a judge, may no
longer issue search or arrest warrants. To that extent, Article 38, paragraph (c), of the Labor Code,
is declared of no force and effect (Salazar vs. Achacoso and Marquez).
ILLEGAL RECRUITMENT; CONCEPT.
ILLEGAL RECRUITMENT vis--vis ESTAFA
A person convicted for illegal recruitment under the Labor Code can be convicted for
violation of the Revised Penal Code provisions on estafa provided the elements of the crime are
present (People vs. Calonzo).
BOOK TWO
APPRENTICESHIP AGREEMENTS: CONCEPT.
CONCEPT
An apprenticeship program needs prior approval by the Department of Labor and
Employment. If employed without a pre-approved apprenticeship program, the apprentice is not an
apprentice but a regular employee (Nitto Enterprises v. NLRC).
APPRENTICESHIP vis--vis EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE RELATIONSHIP
If the student referred to in Art. 72 of the Labor Code, in the course of doing a task in
behalf of the school, causes injury to a third person, the school can be held liable. The
Implementing Rules provision that there is no employer-employee relation between the school and
the student pertains to observance of labor regulations, such as payrolls to be kept, working
conditions or rest periods. It is not the decisive law in a civil suit for damages instituted by an
injured third person. The applicable law is Article 2180 of the Civil Code (Filamer Christian
Institute v. CA).
45
Piece-rate workers who work inside the company premises under the close supervision and
control of their employers are regular employees (Labor Congress of the Philippines vs. NLRC).
46
Piece-rate workers who work outside the company premises and are unsupervised or whose
time spent in their work cannot be reasonably ascertained are NOT regular employees (Makati
Haberdashery, Inc. vs. NLRC).
FISHERMEN
Fishermen who work not under the orders of the boat-owners as regards their employment;
that they go out to sea not upon directions of the boat-owners, but upon their own volition as to
when, how long, and where to go fishing; that the boat-owners do not in any way control the crew
members with whom the former have no relationship whatsoever; that they simply join the trip for
which the pilots allow them, without any reference to the owners of the vessel; and that they only
share in their own catch produced by their own efforts are NOT regular employees (Pajarillo vs.
SSS).
Fishermen who conduct fishing operations under the control and supervision of the boatowners operations manager are regular employees. Matters dealing on the fixing of the schedule of
LABOR LAW
2005 CENTRALIZED BAR OPERATIONS
the fishing trip and the time to return to the fishing port were the prerogative of the boat-owner
(Ruga, et al. vs. NLRC).
CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT; HOURS OF WORK
WAITING TIME
Waiting spent by an employee shall be considered as working time if waiting is considered
an integral part of his work or if the employee is required or engaged by an employer to wait
(Zapanta v. National Alliance of Teachers and Office Workers Assoc, Sept. 5, 1980).
MEAL TIME
Meal time is NOT working time if the employee is completely freed from duties during his
meal period even though he remains in the workplace (Pan American World Airways System [Phil.]
vs. Pan American Employment Association).
Where work is continuous for several shifts, the mealtime breaks should be counted as
working time for purposes of overtime compensation (National Devt Company vs. CIR and the
National Textile Workers Union).
WORKING WHILE SLEEPING
Sleeping time may be considered working time if it subject to serious interruption or takes
place under conditions substantially less desirable than would be likely to exist at the employees
home (Skidmore vs. Swift and Co.).
ON CALL
An employee who is required to remain on call on the employers premises or so close
thereto that he cannot use the time effectively for his own purposes is working while on call. The
time he stays in the place of work is considered hours worked (National Labor Union vs. Gotamco
Lumber Co. vs. CIR).
NIGHT SHIFT DIFFERENTIAL
Additional compensation for nighttime work is founded on public policy, hence the same
cannot be waived. It is argued that that laborer can rest during the day after having worked the
whole night. But can the repose by day produce to the human body the same complete
recuperative effects which only the natural rest at night can give him? It is believed that since time
immemorial the universal rule is that a man works at night due to some driving necessity rather
than for reasons of convenience (Mercury Drug co., Inc. vs. Nardo Dayao, et al.).
OVERTIME PAY
The right to overtime pay cannot be waived. The right is intended for the benefit of the
laborers and employees. Any stipulation in the contract that the laborer shall work beyond the
regular 8 hours without additional compensation for the extra hours is contrary to law and null and
void (Cruz vs. Yee Sing).
47
48
If the commissions are in a wage-or sales- percentage type, they may properly be
considered part of the basic salary. These commissions are not overtime payments, nor profitsharing payments nor any other fringe benefit. Thus, the salesmans commissions, comprising a predetermined percent of the selling price of the goods sold by each salesman, were properly included
in the term basic salary for purposes of computing their 13th month pay (Philippine Duplicators,
Inc. vs. NLRC and Philippine Duplicators Employees Union).
In remunerative schemes consisting of a fixed or guaranteed wage plus commission, the
fixed or guaranteed wage is patently the basic salary for this is what the employee receives for a
standard work period. Commissions are given for extra efforts exerted in consummating sales or
other related transactions. They are, as such, additional pay, which the Court has made clear do
not form part of the basic salary (Boie-Takeda Chemicals, Inc. vs. Dionisio Dela Serna).
LABOR LAW
2005 CENTRALIZED BAR OPERATIONS
PROPORTIONATE 13th MONTH PAY
An employee who has resigned or whose services were terminated at anytime before the
time of payment of the 13 th month pay is entitled to 13th month pay in proportion to the length of
time he worked during the year, reckoned from the time he started working during the calendar
year up to the time of his resignation or termination from the service (International School of
Speech vs. NLRC and MC Mamuyac).
WAGES; PAYMENT OF WAGES
NON-LAWYERS NOT ENTITLED TO ATTORNEYS FEES
Although the law allows, under certain circumstances, non-lawyers to appear before the
National Labor Relations Commission or any Labor Arbiter, however, this does not mean that they
are entitled to attorneys fees. Their act of representing, appearing or defending a party litigant in
a labor case does not, by itself, confer upon them legal right to claim for attorneys fees.
Entitlement to attorneys fees presupposes the existence of attorney-client relationship. This
relationship cannot exist unless the clients representative is a lawyer (Five J Taxi, et al. vs. NLRC).
WAGES; PROHIBITION REGARDING WAGES
WAGE DEDUCTIONS: SETTING OFF OF MONEY CLAIM OF EMPLOYEE AGAINST NONPAYMENT OF STOCK
SUBSCRIPTIONS
Article 113 of the Labor Code allows such a deduction from the wages of the employees by
the employer, only in three instances, to wit: (a) in cases where the worker is insured with his
consent by the employer, and the deduction is to recompense the employer for the amount paid by
him as premium on the insurance; (b) for union dues, in cases where the right of the workers or his
union to check-off has been recognized by the employer or authorized in writing by the individual
worker concerned; and (c) in cases where the employer is authorized by law or regulations issued
by the Secretary of Labor (Apodaca vs. NLRC, et a.).
WAGE DISTORTION
49
It is true that a compromise agreement once approved by the court has the effect of res
judicata between the parties and should not be disturbed except for vices of consent and forgery.
However, The NLRC may disregard technical rules of procedure in order to give life to the
constitutional mandate affording protection to labor and to conform to the need of protecting the
working class whose inferiority against the employer has always been earmarked by disadvantage
(Principe vs. Philippine-Singapore Transport Services, Inc.,).
50
LABOR LAW
2005 CENTRALIZED BAR OPERATIONS
ATTORNEYS FEES
There are only two kinds of cases where attorneys fees may be assessed: (1) cases arising
from unlawful withholding of wages and (2) cases arising from collective bargaining negotiations
(Reahs Corporation vs. NLRC).
PROHIBITION OF PAYMENT OF ATTORNEYS FEES
Art. 222 of the Labor Code prohibits the payment of attorneys fees only when it is effected
through forced contributions from the workers from their own funds as distinguished from the union
funds. The purpose of the provision is to prevent imposition on the workers of the duty to
individually contribute their respective shares in the fee to be paid the attorney for his services on
behalf of the union in its negotiations with the management. The obligation to pay the attorneys
fees belongs to the union and cannot be shunted to the workers as their responsibility (Bank of the
Philippine Islands vs. NLRC, et al.).
ATTORNEYS FEES ARISING FROM RECOVERY OF WAGES AND OTHER BENEFITS
Art 111 of the Labor Code regulates the amount recoverable as attorneys fees in the
nature of damages sustained by and awarded to the prevailing party. It may not be used therefore,
as the lone standard in fixing the exact amount payable to the lawyer by his client for the legal
services he rendered. Moreover, while it provides for the maximum allowable amount of attorneys
fees, it does not direct the instantaneous and automatic award of attorneys fees in such maximum
limit (Traders Royal Bank Employees Union-Independent vs. NLRC).
FEES FOR SERVICES RENDERED BY UNION OFFICERS
Art. 222(b) prohibits attorneys fees, negotiation fees and similar charges arising out of the
conclusion of a bargaining agreement from being imposed on any individual union member. The
collection of the special assessment partly for the payment services rendered by union officers,
consultants and other may not be in the category of attorneys fees or negotiations fees. But
there is no question that it is an exaction which falls within the category of a similar charge and
therefore, within the coverage of the prohibition in the aforementioned article (Palacol vs. FerrerCalleja)
APPEAL; EXECUTION OF DECISIONS, ORDERS AND AWARDS
FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH A WRIT OF EXECUTION
The remedy for refusal of the employer to reinstate employee despite several writs of
execution is not the grant of additional backwages to serve as damages but to cite the employer in
contempt (Christian Literature Crusade v. NLRC).
EXECUTION OVER PROPERTY OWNED ONLY BY THE JUDGMENT DEBTOR
If the property under levy does not belong to the judgment debtor in the NLRC case, it
could not be validly levied upon by the sheriff for the satisfaction of the judgment therein. Even
upon a prima facie showing of the ownership by the third-party claimant, if the third-party claim
If the employer fails or is unable to comply with a final and executory judgment for the
reinstatement of an employee, the plain and obvious remedy is simply the compulsion of the
employer by writ of execution to effect the mandated reinstatement and pay the amounts decreed
in the judgment, and disregard or overrule the employers claim of inability to reinstate the
employee. If there be valid and unsuperable cause for such inability to reinstate, this factor must
be taken into account in the process of directing and effectuating the award of relief to the
employee consistent with the judgment. The remedy is certainly not the institution of a separate
action, whether in the regular courts or the labor arbiters branch. Such recourse would violate the
well-settled principle of res judicata. It would give rise to multiplicity of actions which the law
abhors and exerts every effort to eschew (MAI Philippines Inc. vs. NLRC et al.).
51
52
Generally, redress must first be sought within the union itself in accordance with its
constitution and by-laws (Kapisanan ng mga Mangagawa sa MRR vs. Hernandez).
CHECK-OFF
Attorneys fees may not be checked-off or deducted from any amount due to an employee
without his written consent, except for mandatory activities under the Code.(Vengco vs. Trajano).
DEDUCTIONS FOR UNION SERVICE FEE
Deductions for union service fee are authorized by law and do not require individual checkoff authorizations (Radio Communications of the Philippines Inc. vs. Sec. of Labor).
LABOR LAW
2005 CENTRALIZED BAR OPERATIONS
LABOR ORGANIZATIONS; RIGHTS OF LEGITIMATE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS
COMPROMISE BINDING UPON MINORITY MEMBERS OF UNION
A compromise agreement between the union and the company, pursuant to which the
complaint in an unfair labor practice case had been withdrawn and dismissed, is binding upon the
minority members of the union (Dionela vs. Court of Industrial Relations).
RIGHT TO SELF-ORGANIZATION; COVERAGE
EMPLOYEE-MEMBERS OF A COOPERATIVE
It is the fact of ownership of the cooperative, and not the involvement in the management
thereof, which disqualifies a member from joining any labor organization within the cooperative.
Thus, irrespective of the degree of their participation I the actual management of the cooperative,
all members thereof cannot form, assist or join a labor organization for the purpose of collective
bargaining (Benguet Electric Cooperative vs. Ferrer-Calleja).
UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES; EMPLOYERS
ACCEPTANCE OF MASS RESIGNATION
Acceptance of a voluntary resignation is not ULP. When persons voluntarily terminate their
employment relationship, they cannot claim that they were dismissed (Enriquez vs. Zamora).
FORCED VACATION LEAVE
The forced vacation leave without pay in view of the economic crisis, being neither
malicious, oppressive or vindictive, does not constitute ULP (Philippine Graphic Arts, Inc. vs.
NLRB).
ULP EVEN BEFORE UNION ID REGISTERED
Under Art. 248 of the Labor code of the Philippines, to interfere with, restrain, or coerce
employees in their exercise of the right to self-organization is an unfair labor practice on the part
of the employer. Paragraph d of said article also considers it an unfair labor practice for an
employer to initiate, dominant, assist or otherwise interfere with the formation or administration
of any labor organization, including the giving of financial or other support to it. (Judric Canning
Corporation vs. Inciong)
ULP THROUGH VIOLENCE AND INTIMIDATION
An employer unlawfully coerced employers by directing two individuals to his office at gun
point on the day of representation election after the individuals had informed the employer that
they were on the premises to vote in the election and they did in fact vote (Holly Hill Lumber vs.
NLRB).
53
TEST OF DISCRIMINATION
54
LABOR LAW
2005 CENTRALIZED BAR OPERATIONS
VALIDITY OF THE CLOSED SHOP AGREEMENT
A closed shop agreement is valid form of union security, and such a provision in a collective
bargaining agreement is not a restriction of the right of freedom of association guaranteed by the
Constitution (Manila Mandarin Employees Union vs. NLRC).
ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF CLOSED-SHOP AGREEMENT
A closed-shop agreement is advantageous because it
a. Increases the strength and bargaining power of labor organizations.
b. Prevents nonunion workers from sharing in the benefits of the unions activities without
also sharing its obligations.
c. Prevents the weakening of labor organizations by discrimination against union
members.
d. Eliminates the lowering of standards caused by competition with nonunion workers.
e. Enables labor organizations effectively to enforce collective agreements.
f. Facilitates the collection of dues and the enforcement of union rules.
g. Creates harmonious relations between the employer and the employee (NLU vs.
Aguinaldos Echague).
ULP IN A GIVEN PERIOD SHOULD BE INCLUDED IN SINGLE CHARGE
When a labor union accuses an employer of acts of unfair labor practice allegedly
committed during a given period of time, the charges should include all acts of unfair labor
practice committed against any and all members of the union during that period. The union should
not, upon the dismissal of the charges first preferred, be allowed to split its cause of action and
harass the employer with subsequent charges, and based upon acts committed during the same
period of time (Dionela vs. Court of Industrial Relations).
COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT; CONCEPT
CBA DEFINED
A collective bargaining agreement (CBA), as used n Art 252 of the labor code, refers to a
contract executed upon request of either the employer or the exclusive bargaining representative
of the employees incorporating the agreement reached after negotiations with respect to wages,
hours of work and all other terms and conditions of employment, including proposals for adjusting
any grievances or questions under such agreement (Davao Integrated Port Stevedoring Services vs.
Abarquez).
PARTIES TO COLLECTIVE BARGAINING
The duty to bargain collectively arises only between the employer and its employees.
Where nether party is an employer or employee of the other no such duty would exist. Needless to
add, where there is no duty to bargain collectively, the refusal to bargain violates no rights (Allied
Free Workers Union vs. Compania Maritima).
55
56
The parties to a collective agreement are required to furnish copies to the appropriate
Regional Office with accompanying proof of ratification by the majority of all the workers in the
bargaining unit. This was not done in the case at bar. We do not declare the CBA invalid or void
considering that the employees have enjoyed from it. They cannot receive benefits under the
provisions favorable to them and later insist that the CBA is void simply because other provisions
turn out not to the liking of certain employees. It is iniquitous to receive benefits from a CBA and
later on disclaim its validity (Planters Products, Inc. vs. NLRC).
CERTIFICATION OF THE CBA BY THE BUREAU OF LABOR RELATIONS
Neither is the certification of the CBA by the bureau of labor relations required to put a
stamp of validity to such contract. Once it is duly entered into and signed by the parties, a
collective bargaining agreement becomes effective as between the parties regardless of whether
the same has been certified by the BLR (Liberty Flour Mills Employees vs. Liberty Flour Mills, Inc.).
LABOR LAW
2005 CENTRALIZED BAR OPERATIONS
COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT: TERMS
EFFECTIVITY OF CBA CONCLUDED AFTER SIX MONTHS
FROM EXPIRATION OF THE OLD CBA
In the absence of a new CBA, the parties must maintain status quo and must continue in full
force and effect the terms and conditions of the existing agreement until a new agreement is
reached. In this manner, the law prevents the existence of a gap in the relationship between the
collective bargaining parties. Another legal principle that should apply is that in the absence of an
agreement between the parties, then, an arbitrated CBA takes on the nature of any judicial or
quasi-judicial award; it operates and may be executed only prospectively unless there are legal
justifications for its retroactive application (Manila Electric Company vs. Quisumbing and MEWA).
AGREED BUT UNSIGNED CBA WITHIN SIX MONTHS
The renegotiated CBA retroacts if the parties reached agreement within six months from
expiry date. The determining point is the date they agreed, not the date they signed (Mindanao
Terminal vs. Confesor and ALU-TUCP).
COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT: EXCLUSIVE BARGAINING REPRESENTATION
EMPLOYEES PARTICIPATION IN FORMULATING THE CODE OF DISCIPLINE
Verily, a line must be drawn between management prerogatives regarding business
operations pers se and those which affect the rights of the employees. In treating the latter,
management should see to it that its employees are at least properly informed of its decisions or
modes of action.
The collective bargaining agreement may not be interpreted as cession of employees right
to participate in the deliberation of matter which may affect their rights and the formulation of
policies relative thereto. And one such matter is the formulation of a code of discipline (Philippine
Airlines, Inc. vs. NLRC).
GLOBE DOCTRINE
The desires of the employees are relevant to the determination of the appropriate
bargaining unit. The relevancy of the wishes of the employees concerning their inclusion or
exclusion from a proposed bargaining unit is inherent in the basic right of self-organization. While
the desires of employees with respect to their inclusion in the bargaining unit is not controlling, it
is a factor which would be taken into consideration in reaching a decision (Globe Machine &
Stamping Co).
SINGLE OR EMPLOYER UNIT IS FAVORED
57
58
The Deadlock rule simply provides that a petition for certification can only be
entertained if there is no pending bargaining deadlock submitted to conciliation or arbitration or
had become the subject of a valid notice of strike or lockout. The principle purpose is to ensure
stability in the relationship of the workers and the management (National Congress of Unions in the
Sugar Industry of the Philippinines-TUCP vs. Trajano).
DEADLOCK RULE WHEN NOT APPLICABLE
The deadlock rule does not apply where there is a certification of election ordered to be
conducted (Kaisahan ng Manggagawang Pilipino vs. Trajano).
FREEDOM PERIOD UNDER 253-A AND 256
The freedom period under Arts 253-A and 256 is different from and ought not to be
mistaken for the other 60-day period mentioned in art. 253. The latter speaks of the right of the
parties to propose modifications in the existing CBA, as an exception of the rule that the CBA
cannot be modified during its lifetime. This 60-day period under Art. 253 does not and cannot refer
LABOR LAW
2005 CENTRALIZED BAR OPERATIONS
to the representative status of the incumbent union since the acquisition or loss of representative
status of a union is to be resolved through a certification election, and not through CBA negotiation
with the employer. Therefore, the 60-day period under 253 refers to modifying or renegotiating the
CBA provisions other than the representational. Those stipulations, in practice, are called
economic or non-political. To clarify terms, the 60-days in 253 may be called renegotiation
proposal period or simply proposal period, while under Arts 253-A and 256 is, as already
established, the freedom period. The proposal period is the last 60 days of the last year of the
nonrepresentational provisions; the freedom period is the last 60 days of the CBAs fifth year (San
Miguel Corporation vs. Trajano).
CBA SURREPTITIOUSLY REGISTERED
Even if the existing CBA is registered surreptitiously, as alleged by the petitioner union, but
no evidence is presented proving the alleged surreptitious registration, the petition for C.E. cannot
be granted. The contract bar rule applies. Whether or not the CBA was indeed surreptitiously
registered is a factual matter whose determination is outside the ambit of a petition for certiorari
(Pambansang Kapatiran ng mga Anak Pawis sa Formey vs. Sec. of Labor).
CBA SIGNED BEFORE OR WITHIN FREEDOM PERIOD
A collective bargaining agreement which was prematurely renewed is not a bar to the
holding of a certification election. Such indecent haste in renewing the CBA despite an order
enjoining them from doing so is designed to frustrate the constitutional right of the employees to
self-organization (Associated Labor Unions vs. Calleja).
VALIDITY OF CBA SIGNED DURING REPRESENTATION DISPUTE
When a collective bargaining agreement is entered into at the time when the petition for
certification election had already been filed by a union and was then pending resolution, the said
collective bargaining agreement cannot be deemed permanent, precluding the commencement of
negotiations by another union with the management. In the meantime, however, so as not to
deprive the workers of the benefits of the said agreement, it shall be recognized and given effect
on a temporary basis, subject to the results of the certification election. The agreement may be
continued in force if the union that negotiated it is certified as the exclusive bargaining
representative of the workers or may be rejected and replaced in the event the rival union emerges
as the winner (Associated Trade Unions vs. Trajano).
CBA WHICH IS NOT AUTOMATICALLY RENEWED
A bargaining contract which provides for automatic renewal in the absence of notice by one
of the contracting parties to alter, modify or terminate it prior to a specified period preceding the
terminating date, will usually operate as a bar to a certification election. However, this rule does
not apply where the employer filed, with the Court of Industrial Relations, reasonably prior to
specified date for automatic renewal, a petition or manifestation of its intention to terminate such
contract if and when it is found that the collective bargaining agency with whom the employer had
the contract no longer represented the majority of the employers workers (PLDT Employees Union
vs. PLDT Company and Free Telephone Workers Union).
59
60
LABOR LAW
2005 CENTRALIZED BAR OPERATIONS
TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYMENT
In government employment, it is the legislature and, where properly given delegated
power, the administrative heads of government, which fix the terms and conditions of employment.
And this is effected through statutes or administrative circulars, rules, and regulations, not through
collective bargaining (Social Security System Employees Association vs. Court of Appeals).
SECOND FACTOR IN LEGALITY OF STRIKE: PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS
When the law says the labor union may strike should the dispute remain unsettled until
the lapse of the requisite number of days (cooling-off period) from the mandatory filing of the
notice, the unmistakable implication is that the union may not strike before the lapse of the
cooling-off period. Similarly, the mandatory character of strike ban after the report on the strike
vote is manifest in the provision that every case, the union shall furnish the MOLE with results of
the voting at least seven days before the intended strike, subject to the (prescribed) cooling-off
period and 7-day strike ban must both be complied with, although the labor union may take a strike
vote and report the same within the statutory cooling-off period (National Federation of Sugar
Workers vs. Ovejera).
LEGALITY OF STRIKE NOT DEPENDENT UPON ABILITY OF MANAGEMENT
TO GRANT DEMANDS
The demands that gave rise to the strike may not properly be granted under the
circumstances of this case, but the fact should not make said demands and the consequent strike
illegal. The ability of the Company to grant said demands is one thing, and the right of the laborers
to make said demands is another thing. The latter should be kept inviolate. There are adequate
instrumentalities which may be resorted to in case of excesses (Central Vegetable Oil
Manufacturing vs. Philippine Oil Industry Workers Union).
STRIKE AGAINST EMPLOYEES UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
Union busting, or interference with the formation of a union, constitutes an unfair labor
practice act, hence a valid ground for the declaration of strike (Zamboanga Wood Products, Inc.,
vs. NLRC).
TESTS IN DETERMINING THE EXISTENCE OF AN UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE STRIKE
There are two tests in determining the existence of an unfair labor practice strike:
1.
Objectively, when the strike is declared in protest of unfair labor practice which is
found to have been actually committed; and
2. Subjectively, when a strike is declared in protest of what the union believed to be
unfair labor practices committed by management, and the circumstances warranted such belief in
good faith, although found subsequently as not committed (Norton and Harrison Co. Labor Union v.
Norton and Harrison Co.).
By law, the right to be the exclusive representative of all the employees in an appropriate
collective bargaining unit is vested in the labor union designated or selected for such purpose by
the majority of the employees in the unit concerned. When a union, after winning in an election,
is certified as the exclusive bargaining representative, any other union who participated in the
election thereby becomes a minority union. A minority union cannot demand collective bargaining
with the employer. Such right properly belongs to the union that commands the majority.
Moreover, the defeated union cannot lawfully undertake a strike against the employer; if one is
being done, it must come to a halt. Neither can it picket to compel bargaining. To allow said union
to continue picketing for the purpose of drawing the employer to collective bargaining table would
obviously be to disregard the results of the consent election. To further permit the unions
picketing activities would be to flaunt at the will of the majority. After a union has been certified
as the bargaining representative, a strike by a minority union t compel an employer to bargain with
61
RETRENCHMENT
62
LABOR LAW
2005 CENTRALIZED BAR OPERATIONS
the court may impose the condition that the employer shall not admit any new laborer in case of
available work in the future before the laid-off men who are able, willing and available to do the
same shall have been recalled to work (Mayon Engineering Workers Union vs. Mayon Engineering
and Machine Shop).
RETRENCHMENT AND CONSERVATORSHIP
The retrenchment of personnel as a consequence of conservatorship proceedings against an
insurance company in financial difficulties is a cost-saving measure resorted to by the conservator
to preserve the assets of the company for the protection of not only the policyholders and creditors
but also the investors and the public in general. Conservatorship proceedings contemplate, not the
liquidation of the company involved, but a conservation of company assets and business during the
period of stress by the commissioner of Insurance, who thereafter yields control to the regular
officers of the company (Garcia vs. NLRC).
FOUR STANDARDS OF RETRENCHMENT
Firstly, the losses expected should be substantial and not merely de minimis in extent. If
the loss purportedly sought to be forestalled by retrenchment is clearly shown to be insubstantial
and inconsequential in character, the bona fide nature of the retrenchment would appear to be
seriously in question.
Secondly, the substantial loss apprehended must be reasonably imminent, as such
imminence can be perceived objectively and n good faith by the employer. There should, in other
words, be certain degree of urgency for the retrenchment, which is, after all, a drastic recourse
with serious consequences for the livelihood of the employees retired or otherwise laid-off.
Thirdly, there must be reasonably necessary and likely to effectively prevent the expected
losses. The employer should have taken other measures prior or parallel to retrenchment to
forestall losses, i.e., cut other costs than labor costs.
Lastly, but certainly not the least important, alleged losses if already realized, and the
expected imminent losses sought to be forestalled, must be proven by sufficient and convincing
evidence. The reason for requiring this quantum of proof is readily apparent: any less exacting
standard of proof would render too easy the abuse of this ground for termination of services of
employees (Lopez Sugar Corporation vs. Federation of Free Workers, et al.)
REDUNDANCY DISTINGUISHED FROM RETRENCHMENT
CLOSURE OF BUSINESS
Under Article 284 of the Labor Code, three requirements may be seen to be established in
respect of cessation of business operations of an employer company not due to business reverses,
namely: a) service of written notice to the employees and to the MOLE at east one month before
the intended date thereof; b) the cessation of or withdrawal from business operations must be bona
fide in character; and c) payment to the employees of termination pay amounting to at east onehalf month pay for each year of service, or one month pay, whichever is higher (Mobil Employees
Association and Inter-Island Labor Organization).
Redundancy exists where the services of an employee are in the excess of what is
reasonably demanded by the actual requirements of the enterprise. A position is redundant where
it is superfluous, a superfluity of a position or positions may be the outcome of a number of factors,
such as over hiring of workers, decreased volume of business, or dropping of a particular product
line or service activity previously manufactured or undertaken by the enterprise.
Retrenchment, on the other hand, is used interchangeably with the term lay-off. It is the
termination of employment initiated by the employer through no fault of the employees and
without prejudice to the latter resorted to by management during periods of business recession,
industrial depression, or seasonal fluctuations, or during lulls occasioned by lack of orders, shortage
of materials, conversion of the plant machinery, or of automation. Simply put, it is an act of the
employer of dismissing employees because of losses in the operation of a business, lack of work,
and considerable reduction on the volume of his business a right consistently recognized and
affirmed by this court (Sebuguero, et al. vs. NLRC).
63
64
The employers prior consultation with the union with which the employee is affiliated is
legally insufficient. The rights of an employee whose services are sought to be terminated to be
informed beforehand of his proposed dismissal (or suspension) as well as of the reasons therefore,
and to be afforded an adequate opportunity to defend himself from the charges leveled against
him, are rights personal to the employee. Those rights are not satisfied by the employers obtaining
the consent of or consulting with the labor union. Such consultation or consent is not substitute for
actual observance of those rights of the employee. The employee can waive those rights, if he
chooses, but the union cannot waive them for him (Century Textile Mills, Inc. vs. NLRC, et. al.).
DUE PROCESS IN AUTHORIZED CAUSES
In employment termination due to authorized causes, the due process requirement is not
completely done away with. Investigation and hearing need not be done by the employer, but the
one-month advance notices to the affected employee and to the DOLE must be complied with,
otherwise the termination is illegal (Wittshire File Co. vs. NLRC).
BASIS OF COMPUTATION OF BACKWAGES
The base figure to be used in the computation of backwages due to the employee should
include not just the basic salary, but also the regular allowances that he had been receiving such as
LABOR LAW
2005 CENTRALIZED BAR OPERATIONS
the emergency living allowances and the 13 th- month pay mandated by the law (Paramount Vinyl
Product Corporation vs. NLRC).
BACKWAGES UP TO RETIREMENT AGE ONLY
If the ordered reinstatement is no longer feasible because he employee has reached
retirement age, the court will not insist on reinstatement and even the backwages will not extend
beyond the employees retirement date (Equitable Banking Corporation vs. NLRC and R.L. Salac).
INFLATION
Regarding the argument that the inflation that has supervened justifies the imposition of
interest, the Court has held that the effects of extraordinary inflation are not to be applied without
an agreement between the parties and without an official declaration thereof by competent
authorities (Lantion, et al. vs. NLRC).
APPLICABILITY OF THE STRAINED RELATIONS PRINCIPLE
The rule is that strained relations may be invoked only against employees whose positions
demand trust and confidence, or whose differences with their employer are of such nature or
degree as to preclude reinstatement (Maranaw Hotels vs. CA).
REINSTATEMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN ORDERED BY LABOR ARBITER
If the labor arbiter has not ordered reinstatement of the employee, the NLRC cannot award
backwages for the period when the appeal was pending at the NLRC. An order for reinstatement
must be specifically declared and cannot be presumed; like backwages, it is separate and distinct
relief given to an illegally dismissed employee. There being no specific order of reinstatement and
the order being for complainants separation, there can be no basis for the award of salaries/
backwages during the pendency of appeal (Filflex Industrial and MFG. Corp vs. NLRC).
DAMAGES
If the evidence adduced by the employee before the Labor Arbiter should establish that the
employer did indeed terminate the employees services without just cause or without according
him due process, the Labor Arbiters judgment shall be for the employer to reinstate the employee
and him backwages, or exceptionally, for the employee simply to receive separation pay. These are
reliefs explicitly prescribed by the labor code. But any award of moral damages by the Labor
Arbiter obviously cannot be based on the labor code but would be grounded on the Civil Code. Such
an award cannot be justified solely upon the premise (otherwise sufficient for redress under the
Labor Code) that the employer fired his employee without just cause or due process (Suario vs.
Bank of the Philippine Islands).
MORAL DAMAGES
Moral damages may be awarded to compensate one for diverse injuries such as mental
anguish, besmirched reputation, wounded feelings and social humiliation. It is however, not enough
that such injuries have arisen. It is essential that they have sprung from a wrongful act or omission
of the defendant which was the proximate cause thereof (Suario vs. BPI).
65
The general rule is that an employee who voluntarily resigns from employment is not
entitled to separation pay, unless there is a stipulation for payment in the employment contract or
Collective Bargaining Agreement, or payment of the amount is sanctioned by established employer
practice or policy (Travelaire & Tours Corp. vs. N. Medelyn).
66
LABOR LAW
2005 CENTRALIZED BAR OPERATIONS
BAR-TYPE QUESTIONS
1. Does the penal provisions of RA 8042 violate the equal protection clause of the Constitution?
The equal protection clause is directed principally against undue favor and individual or
class privilege. It is not to prohibit legislation which is limited to the object to which it is directed
and by the territory in which it is to operate. It does not require absolute equality, but merely all
persons be treated under like conditions both as to privileges conferred and liabilities imposed.
(EXEC. SECRETARY VS. CA, May 25, 2004)
2. Is every controversy or money claim by an employee against the employer or vice versa
within the exclusive jurisdiction of the labor arbiter?
No. Not every controversy or money claim by an employee against the meployer or vice
versa is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the labor arbiter. A money claim by a worker against
the employer or vice versa is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the labor arbiter only if there is a
reasonable causal connection between the claim asserted and the employer-employee relation.
Absent such link, the complaint will be cognizable by the regular courts of justice. (EVIOTA VS. CA,
July 29, 2003)
3. Natividad works with TCM College as a liaison officer with a rank of Assistant Registrar. He
was arrested by police authorities for violation of he Dangerous Drugs Act without warrant, and
a criminal complaint was filed against him. TCM College sent a Memorandum to Natividad
informing him that his employment is already terminated. The criminal case was dismissed for
lack of merit. Natividad did not, however, file any complaint to the NLRC against the college
on account of his dismissal.
Natividad was arrested anew for violation of the same Act. This time, he filed with the
NLRC a complaint for illegal dismissal. The Labor Arbiter and the NLRC denied Natividad but on
certiorari, the CA affirmed, with modification, holding that although there was a valid cause for
private respondents dismissal, the petitioner did not follow the procedure for the termination
of his employment. Was Natividad illegally dismissed so as to entitle him to backwages?
The normal consequences of finding that an employee is illegally dismissed are, firstly, the
employee becomes entitled to reinstatement without loss of seniority rights and second, payment
of backwages to the period from his illegal dismissal up to actual reinstatement. The award of
backwages is not conditioned on the employers ability or inability to pay. While it may be true
that Natividad was detained, he was not convicted by final judgement in the Criminal Case.
Indeed, he is presumed innocent until his guilt is proved beyond reasonable doubt. (TOMAS
CLAUDIO MEMORIAL COLLEGE, INC. VS. CA, February 16, 2004)
4. Is an order of execution of a final and executory judgement in a labor case still appealable?
5. What evidence is needed to show that employer committed ULP under the Labor Code?
Substantial evidence is required to support the claim. Substantial evidence has been
defined as such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a
conclusion. In the case at bar, the complaint was made only after a deadlock was declared by the
Union. It is clear that such ULP charge was merely an afterthought. (STANDARD CHARTERD BANK
EMPLOYEES UNION VS. CONFESOR, June 16, 2004)
No. Settled is the rule that after a judgemnt has become final, no additions can be made
thereto, and nothing can be done therewith except execution; otherwise, there would be no end to
litigations, thus settling at naught the main role of courts of justice, which is to assist in the
enforcement of the rule of law and the maintenance of peace and order, by setting justiceable
controversies with finality. (KING INTEGRATED SECURITY SERVICES, INC. VS. GALO S. GATAN, July
7, 2003)
67
Petitioner however filed a complaint with the Regional Arbitration Office of the NLRC
for illegal strike against the respondents on the ground that the latter failed to comply with the
requirements provided under Arts. 263 and 264 of the Labor Code. In their answer, the
respondents alleged that the petitioner committed ULP prior to the filing of the November 16,
1990 notice of strike. Hence, there was no need for the respondent union to comply with Arts.
263 and 264 of the Labor Code, as the notice filed by the union on September 27, 1990 was
sufficient compliance with the law. Is the strike staged by the respondent union on November
16 legal?
68
NO. The requisites for a valid strike are as follows: (a) a notice of strike filed with the DOLE thirty
days before the intended date thereof or fifteen days in case of ULP; (b) strike vote approved by a
majority of the total union membership in the bargaining unit concerned obtained by secret ballot
in a meeting called for that purpose; and (c) notice given to the DOLE of the results of the voting at
least seven days before the intended strike. The requisite seven-day period is intended to give the
DOLE an opportunity to verify whether the projected strike really carries the approval of the
majority of the union members. The notice of strike and the cooling-off period were intended to
provide an opportunity for mediation and conciliation. The requirements are mandatory and failure
of a union to comply therewith renders the strike illegal. A strike simultaneously with or
immediately after a notice of strike will render the requisite periods nugatory. Moreover, a strike
that is undertaken, despite the issuance by the SOLE of an assumption or certification order,
becomes a prohibited activity and, thus, illegal pursuant to Art. 264 of the Labor Code, as
amended. Consequently, the union officers and members are deemed to have lost their
employment status for having knowingly participated in an illegal act.
In this case, the respondent union filed its notice of strike with the DOLE on November 16,
1990 and on the same day, staged a picket on the premises of the hotel, in violation of the law.
The respondents cannot argue that since the notice of strike on November 16, 1990 were for the
same grounds as those contained in their notice of strike on September 27, 1990 which complied
with the requirements of the law on the cooling-off period, strike ban, strike vote and strike vote
report, the strike staged by them on November 16, 1990 was lawful. The matters contained in the
LABOR LAW
2005 CENTRALIZED BAR OPERATIONS
notice of strike of September 27, 1990 had already been taken cognizance of by the SOLE when he
issued on October 31, 1990 a status quo ante bellum order enjoining the respondent union from
intending or staging a strike. Despite the SOLE order, the respondent union nevertheless staged a
strike on November 16, 1990 simultaneously with its notice of strike, thus violating Art. 264(a) of
the Labor Code, as amended, which provides that x x x No strike or lockout shall be declared
after assumption of jurisdiction by the President or the Secretary or after certification or
submission of the dispute to compulsory or voluntary arbitration or during the pendency of cases
involving the same grounds for the strike or lockout. (GRAND BOULEVARD HOTEL VS. GENUINE
LABOR ORGANIZATION OF WORKERS IN HOTEL, RESTAURANT AND ALLIED INDUSTRIES, July 8, 2003)
8. Respondents applied for employment in Taiwan with petitioner, Phil. Employ Services and
Resources, Inc. (PSRI for brevity). The respondents were deployed in Taiwan. When they
encountered problems, they brought their attention to the manager who told them to forget
about it and refrain to air their complaints.
Respondent Navarra and another employee, Pio Gabito, were summoned by the
management and told that they were to be repatriated, without specifying the ground or cause
therefor. They pleaded that they be informed of the cause or causes for their repatriation, but
their requests were rejected. The manager of their employer summoned the police, who
arrived and escorted them to the airport. Upon respondent Navarra's arrival in Manila, the
petitioner sought to settle his complaints. After the negotiations, the petitioner agreed to pay
P49,000 to the said respondent but, in consideration thereof, the latter executed a quitclaim
releasing the petitioner from any or all liabilities for his repatriation. Were petitioners illegally
dismissed when they repatriated by their Taiwan employers? Was Navarras execution of
quitclaim and receipt of P 49, 000 sufficient to conclude his waiver of right against illegal
dismissal?
9. The petitioner is a domestic corporation engaged in the business of providing telegraph and
communication services thru its branches all over the country. It employed various employees,
among whom were private respondents. The petitioner came up with a Relocation and
Restructuring Program. Private respondents received separate letters from the petitioner,
giving them the option to choose the branch to which they could be transferred. Thereafter,
the private respondents and other petitioner's employees were directed to "relocate" to their
new PT&T Branches.
The petitioner offered benefits/allowances to those employees who would agree to be
transferred under its new program. Moreover, the employees who would agree to the transfers
would be considered promoted. The private respondents rejected the petitioner's offer. Hence,
Yes. Respondents dismissal was not based on just, valid and legal grounds. As such, the
rule lex loci contractus (the law of the place where the contract is made) governs. Therefore, the
Labor Code, its implementing rules and regulations, and other laws affecting labor, apply in this
case. In order to effect a valid dismissal of an employee, the law requires that there be just and
valid cause as provided in Article 282 and that the employee was afforded an opportunity to be
heard and to defend himself. Dismissal may also be based on any of the authorized causes provided
for in Articles 283 and 284 of the Labor Code.
The petitioner failed to substantiate its claim that respondent Navarra's repatriation was
based on a valid, legal and just cause. We thus rule that the respondents were constructively
dismissed from their employment. There is constructive dismissal if an act of clear discrimination,
insensibility, or disdain by an employer becomes so unbearable on the part of the employee that it
would foreclose any choice by him except to forego his continued employment. It exists where
there is cessation of work because "continued employment is rendered impossible, unreasonable or
unlikely, as an offer involving a demotion in rank and a diminution in pay."
We rule that the deed of release executed by respondent Navarra did not completely
release the petitioner from its liability on the latter's claim. As a rule, quitclaims, waivers or
releases are looked upon with disfavor and are commonly frowned upon as contrary to public policy
and ineffective to bar claims for the measure of a worker's legal rights. If (a) there is clear proof
that the waiver was wangled from an unsuspecting or gullible person; or (b) the terms of the
settlement are unconscionable, and on their face invalid, such quitclaims must be struck down as
invalid or illegal. (PHIL EMPLOY SERVICES VS. PARAMIO, ET AL, April 15, 2004)
69
10. The petitioner is a domestic corporation engaged in garments manufacturing using the
brand name KAMISETA. The petitioner employed private respondent Torno as trimmer. The
private respondent and a co-employee, Maricar Buan, were tasked to handle the inventory of
finished products. Sometime thereafter, the petitioner started to receive information from the
head of its production department that, according to other employees, Buan and the private
respondent had been stealing KAMISETA items from the factory. On the basis of a report, the
petitioner issued a disciplinary action form suspending the private respondent indefinitely
without pay. A notice of dismissal was addressed to the private respondent specifying the
charge against her, the factual basis thereof and the imposable penalties for the said charge if
proven.
70
The private respondent failed to appear during the scheduled hearing. Consequently,
the petitioner decided to dismiss the private respondent from her employment. When notified
of the petitioners decision, the private respondent filed a complaint for illegal dismissal with
prayer for reinstatement and payment of backwages, non-payment of service incentive leave
pay and 13th-month pay against the petitioner before the National Capital Regional Arbitration
Branch. LA rendered a decision holding that the respondent was illegally dismissed and
directed the petitioner to pay backwages and separation pay to the private respondent.
However, according to the labor arbiter, reinstatement could no longer be effected, as the
relationship between the private respondent and the petitioner had been strained and
ruptured. Aggrieved, the petitioner appealed the decision to the NLRC, alleging that it was
deprived of its right to a formal hearing before the labor arbiter rendered her decision. LAs
failure to conduct a hearing deprived the petitioner of its vested right; consequently, her
decision was null and void. Does the absence of a formal hearing amount to denial of
petitioners right to due process? Is termination of the private respondents employment based
on a just and valid cause?
We agree with the CA that the petitioner did not have a vested right to a formal hearing
simply and merely because LA Tumanong granted its motion and set the case for hearing. Pursuant
LABOR LAW
2005 CENTRALIZED BAR OPERATIONS
to Section 5, Rule V of the New Rules of Procedure of the NLRC, the labor arbiter has the authority
to determine whether or not there is a necessity to conduct formal hearings in cases brought before
him for adjudication. The holding of a formal hearing or trial is discretionary with the labor arbiter
and is something that the parties cannot demand as a matter of right. It is entirely within his
authority to decide a labor case before him, based on the position papers and supporting
documents of the parties, without a trial or formal hearing. The requirements of due process are
satisfied when the parties are given the opportunity to submit position papers wherein they are
supposed to attach all the documents that would prove their claim in case it be decided that no
hearing should be conducted or was necessary.
The private respondent was illegally dismissed. In order to effect a valid dismissal, the law
requires that (a) there be just and valid cause as provided under Article 282 of the Labor Code; and
(b) the employee be afforded an opportunity to be heard and to defend himself. As stated by the
CA, the petitioner had failed to show that it had complied with the two-notice requirement: (a) a
written notice containing a statement of the cause for the termination to afford the employee
ample opportunity to be heard and defend himself with the assistance of his representative, if he
so desires; (b) if the employer decides to terminate the services of the employee, the employer
must notify him in writing of the decision to dismiss him, stating clearly the reason therefor.
(SHOPPES MANILA VS. NLRC, January 14, 2004)