A.1. A.2.

Define, explain or distinguish the X is a member of the Social Security

following terms: System (SSS). In 2015, he died without
any spouse or children. Prior to the
a) Just and authorized causes (2%) semester of his death, X had paid 36
b) Seasonal and project employees (2%) monthly contributions. His mother, M, who
c) Strikes and lockouts (2%) had previously been receiving regular
d) Bona fide occupational qualifications support from X, filed a claim for the
(2%) latter's death benefits.
e) Grievance machinery (2%)
a) Is M entitled to claim death benefits
Answer: from the SSS? Explain. (2.5%)

a) A just cause is a fault-based ground for b) Assuming that X got married to his
dismissal under Art. 297, Labor Code; girlfriend a few days before his death,
whereas, an authorized cause is a non- is M entitled to claim death benefits
fault ground for dismissal under from the SSS? Explain. (2.5%)
Articles 298 and 299 of the Labor
Code. Answer:

b) A seasonal employee is one engaged a) M is entitled to the death benefits.

for the duration of the season for Being the mother of X, who was
which he has been engaged; whereas, single and without issue, she is
a project employee is one whose elevated to the status of sole
employment is co-terminus with the beneficiary (Sec. 8 (k), R.A. 8282).
specific project or undertaking for
which he has been engaged; provided, b) In view of the marriage of X to his
its scope or duration was made girlfriend, M is deemed restored to her
known to him upon engagement (Art. secondary beneficiary status. Hence,
295, Labor Code). X's wife will be his primary
beneficiary until she remarries;
c) Strikes are carried out thru temporary provided, she was living with him at
stoppage of work; whereas, lockouts the time of his death (Sec. 8(k), R.A.
are carried out thru temporary 8282; Yolanda Signey v. SSS, G.R. No.
withholding of work (Art. 279, Labor 173582, 28 January 2008).
Code).

d) A bona fide occupational qualification

(BFOQ) is an occupational
requirement based on quality or
attribute. It is valid if it serves a
legitimate business purpose, it is
work-related, and its possession
enhances an employee's productivity
at work (Star Paper Corp., et al. v.
Simbol, et al., G.R. No. 164774, 12
April 2006).

e) A grievance machinery is a contractual

dispute resolution mechanism for all
grievable disputes. It is a mandatory
provision of a collective bargaining
agreement (CBA), without which it
cannot be registered.
 A.3. A.4.

A, B, and C were hired as resident-doctors Mrs. B, the personal cook in the household
by MM Medical Center, Inc. In the course of X, filed a monetary claim against her
of their engagement, A, B, and C employer, X, for denying her service
maintained specific work schedules as incentive leave pay. X argued that Mrs. B
determined by the Medical Director. The did not avail of any service incentive leave
hospital also monitored their work at the end of her one (1) year of service
through supervisors who gave them and hence, not entitled to the said
specific instructions on how they should monetary claim.
perform their respective tasks, including
diagnosis, treatment, and management of a) Is the contention of X tenable?
their patients. Explain. (2.5%)

One day, A, B, and C approached the b) Assuming that Mrs. B is instead a clerk
Medical Director and inquired about the in X's company with at least 30 regular
non-payment of their employment employees, will her monetary claim
benefits. In response, the Medical prosper? Explain. (2.5%)
Director told them that they are not
entitled to any because they are mere Answer:
"independent contractors" as expressly
stipulated in the contracts which they a) No, X's contention is not tenable. As a
admittedly signed. As such, no employer- kasambahay, Mrs. B is entitled to
employee relationship exists between service incentive leave (R.A. 10361).
them and the hospital. As such, she has the prerogative to
use it, monetize it after 12 months of
a) What is the control test in determining service, or commute it until separation
the existence of an employer- from service. If she elects the second,
employee? (2%) she has three (3) years from demand
for payment to avail of the benefit
b) Is the Medical Director's reliance on (Lourdes Rodriguez v. Park N Ride,
the contracts signed by A, B, and C to G.R. No. 222980, 20 March 2017).
refute the existence of an employer- Hence, not being a prescribed claim, its
employee relationship correct? If not, withholding is unlawful.
are A, B, and C employees of MM
Medical Center, Inc.? Explain. (3%) b) Being a corporate employee, Mrs. B is a
covered employee. And not being one
Answer: of the less than ten (10) regular
employees, as her employer has at
a) Under the Control Test, the person least 30 regular employees, she is
who exercises labor law concept of qualified. Hence, prescription being a
control, actual or reserved, is the non-issue, she is entitled to service
employer of the person over whom he incentive leave.
exercises it. Labor law concept of
control is control over means and
methods of performance (Orozco v. CA,
Philippine Daily Inquirer & Magsanoc,
G.R. No. 155207, 13 Aug. 2008).

b) No, the Medical Director is not correct.

Employer-employee relationship is a
question of both law and fact. Law
provides its cognitive significance,
whereas evidence gives its out-there
representation. Being a matter of law
and evidence, it cannot be the subject
of stipulation. A, B and C, who are not
medical specialists, are the
employees of MM Medical Center, Inc.
owing to the "means-methods
control" exercised by the latter over
them.
 A.5. A.6.

Ms. F, a sales assistant, is one of the eight D, one of the sales representatives of OP,
(8) workers regularly employed by ABC lnc. was receiving a basic pay of
Convenience Store. She was required to P50,000.00 a month, plus a 1% overriding
report on December 25 and 30. commission on his actual sales
transactions. In addition, beginning three
Should ABC Convenience Store pay her (3) months ago, or in August 2019, D was
holiday pay? Explain. (2.5%) able to receive a monthly gas and
transportation allowance of P5,000.00
Answer: despite the lack of any company policy
therefor.
No. ABC Convenience Store, being a retail
establishment, does not have the duty to In November 2019, D approached his
pay holiday pay to Ms. F because she is manager and asked for his gas and
one of its less than ten (10) regular transportation allowance for the month.
employees. As such, she is disqualified by The manager declined his request, saying
Art. 94 (a) of the Labor Code. that the company had decided to
discontinue the aforementioned allowance
considering the increased costs of its
overhead expenses. In response, D argued
that OP, Inc.'s removal of the gas and
transportation allowance amounted to a
violation of the rule on non-diminution of
benefits.

Is the argument of D tenable? Explain.

(2.5%)

Answer:

No, D's argument is not tenable.

The Principle of Non-Diminution of

Benefits (Art. 100, Labor Code) strictly
pertains to pre-promulgation benefits and
not to post-promulgation benefits such
as subject allowance (Apex Mining Co. v.
NLRC, G.R. No. 86200, 2 Feb. 1992;
Insular Hotel Employees Union-NFL v.
Waterfront Insular Hotel Davao, G.R. No.
174040, 22 Sept. 2010). If what is
diminished is a post- promulgation
benefit, the rule violated is the Principle
of Grants. At any rate, the subject
allowance has not yet ripened to a
demandable right since its enjoyment was
for a few months only and the company
did not intend to grant it permanently.
 A.7. termination of subject contracting
agreement.
W Gas Corp. is engaged in the
manufacture and distribution to the A.8.
general public of various petroleum
products. On January 1, 2010, W Gas Corp. Ms. T was caught in the act of stealing
entered into a Service Agreement with Q the company property of her employer.
Manpower Co., whereby the latter When Ms. T admitted to the commission
undertook to provide utility workers for of the said act to her manager, the latter
the maintenance of the former's advised her to just tender her resignation;
manufacturing plant. Although the otherwise, she would face an investigation
workers were hired by Q Manpower Co., which would likely lead to the termination
they used the equipment owned by W Gas of her employment and the filing of
Corp. in performing their tasks, and were criminal charges in court.
likewise subject to constant checking
based on W Gas Corp.'s procedures. Acting on her manager's advice, Ms. T
submitted a letter of resignation. Later on,
On February 1, 2010, Mr. R, one of the Ms. T filed a case for constructive
utility workers, was dismissed from dismissal against her employer. While Ms.
employment in line with the termination T conceded that her manager spoke to
of the Service Agreement between W Gas her in a calm and unforceful manner, she
Corp. and Q Manpower Co. Thus, Mr. R claimed that her resignation was not
filed a complaint for illegal dismissal completely voluntary because she was told
against W Gas Corp., claiming that Q that should she not resign, she could be
Manpower Co. is only a labor-only terminated from work for just cause and
contractor. In the course of the worse criminal charges could be filed
proceedings, W Gas Corp. presented no against her.
evidence to prove Q Manpower CO.'s
capitalization. a) What is the difference between
resignation and constructive
a) Is Q Manpower Co. a labor-only dismissal? (2%)
contractor? Explain. (2.5%)
b) Will Ms. T's claim for constructive
b) Will Mr. R's complaint for illegal dismissal prosper? Explain. (3%)
dismissal against W Gas Corp.
prosper? Explain. (2.5%) Answer:

Answer: a) A resignation is a voluntary self-

termination when personal reasons
a) Q Manpower Co., not being cannot be sacrificed in favor of the
substantially capitalized and possessed exigency of the employer's business
with investment in the form of tools, (Gan v. Galderma Philippines, Inc., et
equipment, machineries or work al., G.R. No. 177167, 17 Jan. 2013). In
premises, is a labor-only contractor. contrast, a constructive dismissal is a
Relevantly, its apparent labor-only quitting because the employer makes
contractor status is confirmed by the continued employment impossible,
fact that it does not control the unreasonable or unlikely (Phil. Japan
means and methods of performance of Active Carbon Corp. v. NLRC, G.R. No.
the manpower it supplied. Since 83239, 8 March 1989).
both essential element and confirming
element are present, it is a labor-only b) No, Ms. T's claims will not prosper. She
contractor. (Prof. C.A. Azucena, Book was not placed in a situation that left
1). her no option except to self-terminate.
Instead, she was just given a gracefu
b) Yes, it will prosper. In labor-only exit. A graceful exit is within the
contracting, the legal personality of prerogative of an employer to give
the principal merges with that of its instead of binding an employee to his
labor-only contractor who is just its fault, or filing an action for redress
agent (Coca-Cola Bottlers Phils., Inc. v. against him (Central Azucarera de
dela Cruz, et aI., G.R. No. 184977, 7 Bois, Inc., et al. v. Janet T. Siason, G.R.
Dec. 2009). Hence, pursuant to the No. 215555, 29 July 2015).
Principle of Merger of Legal
Personalities, the former as the real
employer can be proceeded against for
illegal dismissal despite the
 A.9. of jurisdiction, resulting in the
nullification of the assailed
After due proceedings, the Labor Arbiter dispositions, should be sought based
(LA) declared Mr. K to have been illegally on the NLRC's grave abuse of its
dismissed by his former employer, AB, Inc. appellate power amounting to lack of,
As a consequence, the LA directed ABC, or excess of jurisdiction.
Inc. to pay Mr. K separation pay in lieu of
reinstatement as well as his full
backwages. A.10.

While ABC, Inc. accepted the finding of For purposes of prescription, within what
illegal dismissal, it nevertheless filed a periods from the time the cause of action
motion for reconsideration, claiming that accrued should the following cases be
the LA erred in awarding both separation filed:
pay and full back wages, and instead,
should have ordered Mr. K's reinstatement a) Money claims arising from employer-
to his former position without loss of employee relations (1%)
seniority rights and other privileges, but b) Illegal dismissal (1%)
without payment of backwages. In this c) Unfair labor practice (1%)
regard, ABC, Inc. pointed out that the LA's d) Offenses under the Labor Code (1%)
ruling did not contain any finding of e) Illegal recruitment (1%)
strained relations or that reinstatement
was no longer feasible. In any case, it Answer:
appears that no evidence was presented
on this score. a) Money claims arising from employer-
employee relationship shall be
a) Is ABC, Inc.'s contention to delete the prosecuted within 3 years from date
separation pay, and instead, order they become a legal possibility, or can
reinstatement without backwages be judicially brought (Art.306, Labor
correct? Explain. (3%) Code; Art.1150, New Civil Code; Anabe
v. Asian Construction, G.R. No. 183233,
b) Assuming that on appeal, the National 23 Dec. 2009);
Labor Relations Commission (NLRC)
upholds the decision of the LA, where, b) Illegal dismissal shall be assailed
how, and within what timeframe within 4 years from complete
hould ABC, Inc. assail the NLRC ruling? severance of employer-employee
(2%) relationship, or date of
salary/positional downgrade (Art.
Answer: 1146, New Civil Code; Orchard Golf
& Country Club v. Francisco, G.R. No.
a) As to separation pay, the LA's decision 178125, 18 March 2013);
fails to state that there is a bar to
reinstatement; hence, he should have c) Unfair labor practice shall be brought
ordered reinstatement pursuant to the by complaint under the Labor Code not
general rule prescribed by Art. 294 of later than 1 year from date of
the Labor Code. Since the alternative commission (Art. 305, Labor Code).
relief of separation pay is an As to its criminal aspect, it shall be
exception, it must be justified with a prosecuted within 3 years from date
reinstatement bar. As to backwages, of finality of the ULP judgment (Art.
however, it cannot be deleted because 305, Labor Code).
it is a logical consequence of a finding
of illegal dismissal (FCT Marketing d) Offenses under the Labor Code shall
Services, Inc. v. Mariphil Sales, G.R. be prosecuted within 3 years from date
No. 202090, 9 Sept. 2015). Hence, of commission (Art.305 / Labor Code);
absent any reason for limiting or and
withholding it, it should be awarded
as it was awarded by the LA. e) Illegal recruitment shall be prosecuted
within 5 years if simple illegal
b) After the denial of the appellant's recruitment, and within 20 years if
motion for reconsideration, the NLRC's economic sabotage (Sec.7, Rule IV, RA.
decision and order of denial can be 10022).
assailed under Rule 65 of the Rules of
Court thru the filing a petition for
certiorari within 60 days from receipt
of said denial order. Correction of error
 B. 11. B.12.

Briefly discuss the powers and Due to serious business reverses, ABC Co.
responsibilities of the following in the decided to terminate the services of
scheme of the Labor Code: several officers receiving "fat"
compensation packages. One of these
a) Secretary of Labor (2%) officers was Mr. X, its Vice-President for
b) Bureau of Labor Relations (2%) External Affairs and a member of the
c) Voluntary Arbitrators (2%) Board of Directors. Aggrieved, Mr. X filed
a complaint for illegal dismissal before
Answer: the National Labor Relations Commission
(NLRC)-Regional Arbitration Branch.
(a) Secretary of Labor
ABC Co. moved for the dismissal of the
(i) Ordinary Powers. Visitorial and case on the ground of lack of jurisdiction,
enforcement (Art. 128, Labor Code); asserting that since Mr. X occupied the
appellate (review of compliance orders position of Vice-President for External
issued under Art. 128, Labor Code; and Affairs which is listed in the by-laws of
review of CE orders per Art. 272, Labor the corporation, the case should have
Code); rule-making (Art. 5, Labor Code); been tiled before the Regional Trial Court.
and, control and supervision (The Heritage
Hotel Manila v. NUWHRAIN- HHMSC, G.R. The Labor Arbiter (LA) denied ABC Co.'s
No. 178296. 12 Jan. 20 II). motion, and proceeded to rule that Mr. X
was illegally dismissed. Hence, he was
(ii) Extraordinary Powers. Assumption reinstated in ABC Co.'s payroll pending
power under Art. 278 (g); and its appeal to the NLRC.
suspension power under Art. 292 (b),
both of the Labor Code. a) Did the LA err in denying ABC Co.'s
motion to dismiss on the ground of
lack of jurisdiction? Explain. (2.5%)
(b) Bureau of Labor Relations
b) Assuming that jurisdiction is not at
(i) Original Jurisdiction. Jurisdiction over issue and that the NLRC reverses the
intra-union and inter-union disputes LA's ruling of illegal dismissal with
involving national unions, and like labor finality, may ABC Co. claim
organizations (Art. 232, Labor Code). reimbursement for the amounts it paid
to Mr. X during the time that he was
(ii) Appellate Jurisdiction. Jurisdiction on payroll reinstatement pending
over appealed decisions of the DOLE appeal? Explain. (2.5%)
Regional Director in intra-union and inter-
union cases (Art. 232, Labor Code; Answer:
Barles v. Bitonio, G.R. No. 120270, 16
June 1999). a) The LA did not err. Even if the office
occupied by Mr. X may have been
(c) Voluntary Arbitrators listed in the corporate by-laws as a
corporate office, it should have been
(i) Traditional Jurisdiction. Jurisdiction shown that he was appointed to it by
over unresolved disputes arising from CBA the Board of Directors. Absent
interpretation or implementation; and evidence, Mr. X was a corporate
unresolved disputes arising from the employee; hence, the tenurial issue he
enforcement or implementation company brought to the LA was not an intra-
personnel policies (Art. 274 , Labor Code). corporate issue. (Cosare v. Broadcom
Asia, Inc., et al., G.R. No. 2011298, 5
(ii) Jurisdiction by Stipulation. Feb. 2014). Moreover, mere
Jurisdiction over such other membership in the governing board
disputes as may be expressly does not make one a corporate
conferred by a CBA or similar officer. Unless elected as President,
agreement (Vivero v. CA, G.R. No. Secretary or Treasurer, a member of
138938, 24 Oct. 2000). the board would not qualify as a
(iii) corporate officer (Sec. 24, Revised
Corporation Code).

b) ABC Co. cannot claim reimbursement

because Mr. X had nothing to do with
the reinstatement given him. On the
 contrary, the company exercised its (b) Yes, Mr. A may hold XYZ Recruitment
exclusive right to determine which Co. liable for the payment of his wages
type of reinstatement to give him. Had under the rule that a recruiter is solidarily
it informed him of the possibility of a liable for breaches of the term and
reimbursement, he would not have conditions of the POEA-approved
chosen to be driven to penury at the employment contract (Sec. 1 (f), Rule II,
end of the day thru a reimbursement Book II, POEA Rules and Regulations;
by compulsion. In this case, the Datuman v. First Cosmopolitan
Principle of Unjust Enrichment has no Manpower and Promotion Services, tnc.,
application; hence, he can keep the G.R. No. 156029, 14 Nov. 2008).
salaries he received. (Garcia, et al. v.
PAL, G.R. No. 164856,20 Jan. 2009).
B.14.

B.13. Upon a review of the wage rate and

structure pertaining to its regular rank
Mr. A signed a one (1)-year contract and file employees, K Corporation found
with XYZ Recruitment Co. for deployment it necessary to increase its hiring rates
as welding supervisor for DEF, Inc. for employees belonging to the different
located in Dubai. The employment job classification levels to make their
contract which the Philippine Overseas salary rates more competitive in the labor
Employment Administration (POEA) market.
approved, stipulated a salary of
US$600.00 a month. After the implementation of the new
hiring salary, Union X, the exclusive
Mr. A had only been in his job in Dubai bargaining agent of the rank and file
for six (6) months when DEF, Inc. employees, demanded a similar salary
announced that it was suffering from adjustment for the old employees. It
severe financial losses and thus intended argued that the increase in hiring rates
to retrench some of its workers, among resulted in wage distortion since it
them Mr. A. DEF, Inc. hinted, however, erased the wage gap between the new
that employees who would accept a lower and old employees. In other words, new
salary could be retained. employees would enjoy almost the same
salary rates as K Corporation's old
Together with some other Filipino employees.
workers, Mr. A agreed to a reduced
salary of US$400.00 a month and thus, a) What is wage distortion? (2%)
continued with his employment.
b) Did a wage distortion arise under the
a) Was the reduction of Mr. A's salary circumstances which legally obligated
valid? Explain. (2.5%) K Corporation to rectify the wages of
its old employees? Explain. (3%)
b) Assuming that the reduction was
invalid, may Mr. A hold XYZ Answer:
Recruitment Co. liable for
underpayment of wages? Explain. a) A wage distortion is the elimination
(2.5%) or serious contraction of the wage
gap advantage enjoyed by one wage
Answer: group over another of same wage
region; provided, such elimination or
(a) No, the reduction is not valid. There is compression is caused by a wage
a contractual breach. Applying lex ex law, or wage order (Art. 124, Labor
contractus or lex loci celebrationis, Code); CBA renegotiation (Metro
Philippine law controls; hence, the Transit Organization, Inc. v. NLRC, et
substantial character of the alleged al. G.R. No. 116008, 11 July 1995); or
financial losses must have been proven merger (Manila Mandarin Employees
with financial statements duly certified Union v. NLRC, et al. G.R. No. 108556,
by an independent external auditor. Mere 19 Nov. 1996); but not a promotion
announcement of losses would not (NFL v. NLRC, G.R. No. 103586, 21
suffice. The threat of retrenchment was July 1994).
just a scheme to conveniently effect the
illegal substitution of the POEA-approved b) No. Since the cause of the alleged
employment contracts. elimination is not one of the
recognized causes, as it was an
adjustment of the hiring rate for new
 hires joining other wage groups, the by the company-designated physician,
elimination of the wage gap is not a much less a final and definitive
wage distortion. It is rather clear that assessment of his actual condition. Since
the increased rate would only be given Seafarer G still felt unwell, he sought an
to new hires and not to all the opinion from a doctor of his choice who
members of the wage group/s they later issued an independent assessment
would be joining. Hence, the company stating that he was totally and
has nothing to adjust or rectify. permanently disabled due to his illness
sustained during work.

Seafarer G then proceeded to file a claim

B.15. for total and permanent disability
compensation. The company asserts that
On December 1, 2018, GHI Co., an the claim should be dismissed due to
organized establishment, and Union J, the prematurity since Seafarer G failed to
exclusive bargaining agent therein first settle the matter through the third-
executed a five (5)-year collective doctor conflict resolution procedure as
bargaining agreement (CBA) which, after provided under the 2010 POEA-SEC.
ratification, was registered with the
Bureau of Labor Relations.
a) What is the third-doctor conflict
a) When can the union ask, at the resolution procedure under the 2010
earliest, for the renegotiation of all POEA-SEC?Explain. (2%)
terms of the CBA, except its
representation aspect? Explain. b) Will Seafarer G'S claim for total and
(2.5%) permanent disability benefits prosper
despite his failure to first settle the
b) When is the earliest time that another matter through the third-doctor
union can file for a petition for conflict resolution procedure? Explain
certification election? Explain. (2.5%) (3%)

Answer: c) Assuming that Seafarer G failed to

submit himself to a post-employment
a) Except for the representation aspect medical examination within three (3)
of the CBA, the other provisions can working days from his return, what is
be renegotiated not later than 3 years the consequence thereof to his claim?
from date of the CBA's effectivity Explain. (2%)
(Art. 265, Labor Code).
Answer:
b) Another union can file a petition for
certification election during the a) In the event of conflicting medical
freedom period of the CBA which is its assessments, the parties are required
last 60 days. (Art.265 , Labor Code). to select a third physician whose
finding shall be final and binding on
them. Under Sec. 20(B) of the 2010
B.16. POEA-SEC, the selection is consensual;
however, jurisprudence has made it
W Ship Management, Inc. hired Seafarer mandatory (Philippine Hammonia
G as bosun in its vessel under the terms Ship Agency, Inc. v. Eulogio Dumadag,
of the 2010 Philippine Overseas G.R. No. 194362, 26 June 2013).
Employment Administration-Standard
Employment Contract (POEA-SEC). b) Yes, it will prosper. The Third
Physician Rule has no application
On his sixth (6th) month on board, when the company-designated
Seafarer G fell ill while working. In physician exceeds the 120-day
particular, he complained of stomach treatment period without making a
pain, general weakness, and fresh blood final, categorical and definitive
in his stool. When his illness persisted, he assessment. Here, he allowed 209
was medically repatriated on January 15, days to elapse without issuing a fit-to-
2018. On the same day, Seafarer G work assessment or a disability grade
submitted himself to a post-employment (Apines v. Elburg Shipmanagement
medical examination, wherein he was Phil., Inc., G.R. No. 202114. 9 Nov.
referred for further treatment. As of 2016).
September 30, 2018, Seafarer G has yet
to be issued any fit-to-work certification
c) Non-compliance with the 3-day employer's intent to hire him as a
reporting requirement results in the probationary employee (Abbott
forfeiture of G's entitlement to Laboratories v. Alcaraz, G.R. No.
disability compensation (Sec. 20(8), 192571, 23 July 2013).
POEA-SEC).
b) The violation of Ms. A's right to
statutory due process requires the
B.17. assessment of the University with
nominal damages. The amount is
Ms. A is a volleyball coach with five (5) P30,000.00 because a dismissal for
years of experience in her field. Before failure to qualify is akin to a dismissal
the start of the volleyball season of 2015, for a just cause (Abbott Laboratories
she was hired for the sole purpose of v. Alcaraz, G.R. No. 192571, 23 July
overseeing the training and coaching of 2013).
the University's volleyball team. During
her hiring, the Vice-President for Sports
expressed to Ms. A the University's B.18.
expectation that she would bring the
University a championship at the end of When resolving a case of unfair labor
the year. practice (ULP) filed by a union, what
should be the critical point of analysis to
In her first volleyball season, the determine if an act constitutes ULP?
University placed ninth (9th) out of 10 (2.5%)
participating teams. Soon after the end
of the season, the Vice-President for Answer:
Sports informed Ms. A that she was a
mere probationary employee and hence, The nature of an unfair labor practice
she need not come back for the next (ULP) is that it is a violation of workers'
season because of the poor performance right to self-organization (Art. 258, Labor
of the team. Code; Cutiti v. Eastern
Telecommunications Phils., G.R. No.
In any case, the Vice-President for Sports 165381, 9 February 2011). An act,
claimed that Ms. A was a fixed-term however unfair it may be, is not a ULP
employee whose contract had ended at unless listed as such under Articles 259
the close of the year. and 260 of the Labor Code. Therefore, the
critical point of analysis in a ULP case
a) Is Ms. A a probationary, fixed-term, filed by a union is whether the act
or regular employee? Explain your complained of is expressly listed as ULP
reasons as to why she is or she is not under Art. 259 of the Labor Code.
such kind of an employee for each of
the types of employment given. (5%)
B. 19.
b) Assuming that Ms. A was dismissed by
the University for serious misconduct Because of dwindling sales and the
but was never given a notice to consequent limitation of production,
explain, what is the consequence of a rumors were rife that XYZ, Inc. would
procedurally infirm dismissal from reduce its employee force. The next day,
service under our Labor law and the employees of XYZ, Inc. received a
jurisprudence? Explain. (2%) notice that the company will have a
winding down period of 10 days, after
Answer: which there will be a six (6)-month
suspension of operations to allow the
a) Ms. A is a regular employee. She company to address its precarious
cannot be considered a fixed-term financial position.
employee in the absence of a fixed-
term employment contract, nor a On the fourth (4th) month of suspension
probationary employee because it was of its operations XYZ, Inc. posted
not expressly communicated to her announcement that it will resume its
upon her engagement that her tenure operations in 60 days but at the same
was for six (6) months unless she time announced that instead of closing
survived pre-disclosed standards for down due to financial losses, it will
regularization. When an employee is retrench 50% of the work force.
hired without being apprised of such
standards, he is deemed a regular a) Is the announcement that there
employee regardless of the would be retrenchment affecting 50%
 of the work force sufficient compliance B.20.
with the legal requirements for
retrenchment? Explain. (2.5%) Discuss the differences between
compulsory and voluntary/optional
b) Assuming that XYZ, lnc. instead of retirement as well as the minimum
retrenchment, extended the benefits provided under the Labor Code
suspension of its operations from six for retiring employees of private
(6) months to eight (8) months, establishments. (2.5%)
would the same be legally
permissible? If not, what are the Answer:
consequences? (2.5%)
A voluntary/optional retirement is a
Answer: termination of employment based on a
bilateral agreement to terminate
a) No. The 30-day notice requirement is a employment at an agreed age regardless
written notice that must be served on of years in service, or after a certain
both the Department of Labor and number of years in service regardless of
Employment and the affected age. It is a matter of contract. In contrast
employees (Art. 298, Labor Code). a compulsory retirement is a termination
Hence, the posted announcement is a of employment by operation of law. It is a
violation of the prescribed pre- matter of statute.
termination procedure.
Under Art. 302 of the Labor Code, retiring
b) Temporary suspension of business employees shall be paid retirement
operations under Art. 301 of the Labor benefits computed as follows: (22.5 days
Code should not exceed 6 months; x Daily Rate) x Length of Service. The 22.5
otherwise, the suspension would days consist of 15 days representing half-
ripen to constructive dismissal after month salary, 5 days as service incentive
the period expires. In such case, the leave, and 2.5 days representing 1/12 of
company would be ordered to reinstate 13th month pay. The full 22.5. days shall
and pay backwages. be used if the retiree is entitled to both
service incentive leave and 13th month
pay. Meantime, the 15 days must always
be used.