Prelims Labor Law

UNIVERSITY OF SAN JOSE-RECOLETOS
School of Law
MIDTERM EXAMINATIONS
LABOR LAW II
Atty. Mario Dennis Calvo
Th/F 7:30-9:30/8-9PM
Instructions: In your test booklet (notebook), answer the following questions and
submit in (pdf) through LMS.
Answer the Essay questions legibly, clearly, and concisely. Start each number on a
separate page. An answer to a sub-question under the same number may be written
continuously on the same page and the immediately succeeding pages until
completed.
A mere “Yes” or “No” answer without any corresponding explanation or discussion

will not be given any credit. Thus, always briefly but fully explain your answers
although the question does not expressly ask for an explanation. At the same time,
remember that a complete explanation does not require that you volunteer
information or discuss legal doctrines that are not necessary or pertinent to the
solution to the problem.
1.
Discuss, explain and give distinctions of the following Supreme Court Decisions on the
Jurisdiction of NLRC/Labor Arbiter on termination of Corporate Officers: (10%)
a. Mainland vs. Movilla GR No. 118088

b. Tabang vs. NLRC GR No. 121143
c. Matling Industrial and Commercial Corp. vs. R.R. Coros GR No. 157802
2.
In the case of PNB vs. Cabansag, what is the rationale on why the SC decided that
NLRC/Labor Arbiters have jurisdiction over the cause of action filed by Cabansag
while being employed in PNB-Singapore? 5%
3.
a. Discuss and explain the jurisdiction of NLRC/Labor Arbiters in the claims of

Overseas Filipinos Workers. 5%
b. In the case of Santiago vs CF Sharp, discuss the reasoning on why the Supreme Court
decided that even if there is no employer-employee relationship, the employer is still
liable for the claims of an employee? 5%
c. Discuss and explain the distinction between the perfection of an employment contract
and commencement of employer-employee relationship. 5%
4.
Discuss and briefly explain the different remedies in Labor Disputes as provided by
law. (5%)
5.
RN who was employed as a driver by P BUSES on April 13, 1977, was assigned to the
Laguna-Pasay City route. On May 15, 1989, RN sideswiped an owner-type jeep,
damaging the latter's park light. Unfortunately, the vehicle's owner turned out to be a
police officer who arrested RN and brought him to Camp Crame where the
corresponding criminal complaint was filed against him.
RN obtained his release from detention by virtue of a bail bond secured by P Buses. He
was suspended by the latter for thirty days effective June 8, 1989. RN reported back to
work after serving his suspension. A few days after resuming his driving duties
however, he was re-arrested on the ground that his bail bond was fake. RN reported the
incident to the management of P Buses. On October 15, 1989, RN was advised by P
Buses administrative officer, E that to avoid re-arrest, he would have to refrain from
driving until a settlement could be reached with the jeep owner. From then on, RN
would report for work only to be told to wait until his case was settled. The case was
finally settled on July 20, 1991, with P Buses paying for the damages to the jeep. Three
days thereafter, RN reported for work, but he was requested to file a new application as
he was no longer considered an employee of P Buses, allegedly for being absent without
leave from October 19 to November 20, 1989.
Aggrieved by this turn of events, RN filed a complaint for illegal dismissal and 13th
month pay with the NLRC's National Capital Region Arbitration Branch in Manila.
P Buses did not appear at the first four conferences scheduled by the arbiter, prompting
the latter to warn P Buses that it would be declared in default if it failed to appear at the
next hearing. Threatened with such an eventuality, P Buses representative finally
appeared. On August 28, 1992, it filed a position paper with motion to dismiss, stating,
among other things, that the complaint should have been lodged with the NLRC's
Regional Arbitration Branch in Laguna not only because RN was a resident thereof, but
also because the latter was hired, assigned, and based in Laguna and not NCR-RAB.
The motion to dismiss was denied by the labor arbiter in an order dated January 26,
1993. RN then presented his evidence. On August 30, 1993, P buses filed a second
motion to dismiss, which was likewise denied by the arbiter on the ground that the
same did not raise any new arguments.
Thus, on June 14, 1994, the labor arbiter rendered a decision awarding back wages and
separation pay to RN. The said decision was seasonably appealed to the NLRC by P
Buses. In a resolution issued on September 15, 1995, the NLRC affirmed the decision of
the labor arbiter, granting back wages and separation benefits.
a. Is the Labor Arbiter correct in denying the motion to dismiss on the ground of
improper venue? (5%)
b. Discuss the proper venue of actions as provided under the 2011 Rules of
Procedure. (5%)
c. What are the grounds for Motion to Dismiss under the 2011 Rules of Procedure?
(5%)
6.
San Miguel Corporation sponsored an Innovation Program and under which, the mana
gement undertook to grant cash awards to all SMC employees except higher-
ranked personnel who submit to the Corporation ideas and suggestions found to be be
neficial to the Corporation. Rustico Vega then submitted a proposal but was not accepte
d. Vega filed a complaint against the company with the Regional Arbitration Branch No
.VII, contending that he should be paid 60,000 since his idea was implemented. SMC
in their answer stated that they turned down the proposal for lack of originality.
The Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint on the ground that the money claim is not a
necessary incident of his employment. Upon appeal of Vega to the NLRC, it ordered the
SMC to pay the 60,0000. SMC then seek to annul the judgment on the ground that the L
abor Arbiter and NLRC have no jurisdiction over the case.
a. Does the Labor Arbiter have jurisdiction over the money claims of Mr. Vega?
(5%)
b. Discuss the Reasonable Causal Connection Rule in relation to this case. (5%)
7.
Determine whether or not the Labor Arbiter have jurisdiction over the following cases
and explain briefly: (2%)
a. Violations of the collective bargaining agreement

b. Wage distortions
c. Implementation and enforcement of company personnel policies
d. Claims of an OFW (not deployed) over the employment contract
e. Actual, moral, exemplary and other forms of damages
f. Enforcement of compromise agreements
g. Civil aspects of unfair labor practices
h. Termination of Corporate Officers
i. Money claims of kasambahay or household service workers
j. Money claims of cooperative members and employees
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxnothingfollowsxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Good luck and God Bless

Prelims Labor Law

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Prelims Labor Law

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Prelims Labor Law

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

UNIVERSITY OF SAN JOSE-RECOLETOS

A mere “Yes” or “No” answer without any corresponding explanation or discussion

a. Mainland vs. Movilla GR No. 118088

a. Discuss and explain the jurisdiction of NLRC/Labor Arbiters in the claims of

a. Violations of the collective bargaining agreement

Good luck and God Bless

You might also like