JD 236 FINAL EXAM - Fuerzas

Saint Columban Law School Final Examination
Subject: Labor Relations Prepared by: Atty. Nilda F. Vicente

June 13, 2022
INSTRUCTIONS:
1. Read each question very carefully and write your answers in

your Examination Notebook in the same order as the questions.
Write your answers only on the front page of every sheet. Note
well the allocated points for each question or sub-question. In
your answers, use the numbering system in the questionnaire.
2. Answer the questions clearly, and concisely. Start each answer
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.
3. Your answer should demonstrate your ability to analyze the
facts, apply the pertinent laws and jurisprudence, and arrive at a
sound or logical conclusion. Always support your answer with
the pertinent laws, rules, and/or jurisprudence.
4. Each item is worth 5%.
5. Write your name in the attestation below.
ATTESTATION
I do hereby attest to uphold honor and honesty in taking this final
examination.
Carl Joseph C. Fuerzas
Name of Examinee
GOD BLESS YOU☺
“In your quest for the noble profession, STUDY not because you are forced or pressured to do so,
instead, STUDY because you are moved by fervor and passion to nail your dream on the roll
and to uphold the true spirit of the rule of law with a right heart.”
Atty. Nilda F. Vicente
FINAL EXAMINATION
1
June 13, 2022
LABOR LAW II
PART I
1. Distinguish reasonable causal connection rule from

reasonable connection rule.
Reasonable causal connection rule pertains to the connection of an

alleged act to the work of the employee as a just cause for dismissal.
Reasonable connection rule pertains to the alleged infraction of rights

to the employer-employee relationship, in order to determine which
court will have jurisdiction of the case.
2
June 13, 2022
2. Correlate collective bargaining agreement with Kiok Loy

Doctrine.
Collective bargaining agreement is an agreement between the

employer and the appropriate bargaining with respects to the terms
and conditions of employment of the workers.
To determine who is the appropriate bargaining agent, the Kiok Loy

Doctrine provides for the following criteria:
1. The will of the employees
2. The substantial mutual interest of the employees
3. Prior history of bargaining
4. Similarity of employment status.
To qualify as the appropriate bargaining agent to represent the

bargaining unit in the collective bargaining agreement, the union must
follow the Kiok Loy Doctrine.
3
June 13, 2022
3. Correlate certification election with substitutionary doctrine.
A certification election is a process to determine who is the proper

bargaining agent of a bargaining unit and this process must be filed
by a legitimate labor union.
By virtue of the substitutionary doctrine a labor union despite being

not registered it attaints partial legal personality by affiliating to a
legitimate federation or a national union. By acquiring partial legal
personality, they can now file a certification election.
4
June 13, 2022
4. Correlate yellow dog contract and blue-sky bargaining with

the right to self-organization.
The right to self-organization is a right founded on our constitution, it

provides for the mechanisms of employees to protect their
employment rights. And one this mechanism is the right to join labor
unions.
Yellow dog contract and blue-sky bargaining are considered unfair

labor practices for it prohibits employees from joining labor unions,
restraining their constitutional right to self-organization.
5
June 13, 2022
5. Correlate strike, lockout, and picketing with unfair labor

practice and explain the effects of their nexus, if any.
Strike, lockout and picketing are the mechanisms allowed under the
Labor Code to redress their grievances to their employer regarding
unfair labor practices.
Unfair labor practices are acts of employer and unions which is

prohibited by law. And if such acts are committed, one of the ways for
the aggrieved party to show dissent to such acts is by a strike or
lockout for the employees or a lockout for the employer.
6
June 13, 2022
6. Explain in substance the effects of the assumption of jurisdiction

of the Secretary of Labor.
The Labor Code allows the Secretary of Labor to assume

jurisdiction over labor disputes in an industry which is of national
interest, such assumption effects to enjoin or injunct the union
from striking or the company from declaring a lockout. And if a
strike or a lockout is already happening, they are required to
terminate such action.
Any strikes of lockouts conducted despite the assumption of

jurisdiction of the Secretary of Labor will be invalid or illegal.
7
June 13, 2022
7. Distinguish the power of the Secretary of Labor or its

representative under Article 128 and Article 129 of the Labor
Code, as amended and renumbered.
Article 128 provides for the visitorial and enforcement power of the
Secretary of Labor.
8
June 13, 2022
8. Explain the jurisdictional flow of an illegal dismissal case from its

filing to its appeal and until the decision becomes final and
executory.
Illegal Dismissal cases are under the original jurisdiction of Labor

Arbiters; it must be first submitted to them for resolution.
The decision of the Labor Arbiters is subject to the appellate

jurisdiction of the National Labor Relations Commissions.
The decision of the NLRC can only be appealed to a higher court

through a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court to
the Court of appeals, but such petition presupposes that a motion for
reconsideration was already made to the NLRC.
The Decision of the Court of Appeals can be further appealed to the

Supreme Court through a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the
Rules of Court whose decision will become final and executory.
9
June 13, 2022
9. Explain the jurisdictional flow of a case of unresolved grievances

arising from the interpretation or implementation of the collective
bargaining agreement (CBA) from its filing to its appeal and until
the decision becomes final and executory.
Unresolved grievances from the interpretation or implementation of

the collective bargaining agreement should first be submitted for
resolution to the Grievance Machinery provided for in the CBA.
Failure or dissatisfaction of the result of the resolution of the Grievance

Machinery, it must be submitted to the Voluntary Arbiters within 7 days
from notice of the result of the Grievance Machinery, whose decision
shall become final and executory.
10
June 13, 2022
10. Explain the effects in a case where the employer

terminates an employee based on a just or authorized cause but
found to have bypassed the procedural requirements for
termination.
The Labor Code requires for a valid dismissal it must be based on just
or authorized caused and the employee must be given due process.
The Supreme Court has held that even if there is a procedural lapse
for the dismissal of an employee, if it is based on a just or authorized
cause, the validity of the dismissal will not be affected. It will stay valid
but the consequence is that the employer will be liable for nominal
damages in favor the dismissed employee.
11
June 13, 2022
FINAL EXAMINATION
LABOR LAW II
PART II
ESSAY
1. A, B, C, D, E were employees of URSUMCO engaged in sugar

milling. They were hired on various dates and on different
capacities, as drivers, crane operators, bucket hookers, welders,
mechanics, laboratory attendants and aides, steel workers,
laborers, carpenters and masons, among others. At the start of
their respective engagements, they were made to sign contracts
of employment for a period of one (1) month or for a given
season. URSUMCO repeatedly hired them to perform the same
duties and, for every engagement, required the latter to sign new
employment contracts for the same duration of one month or a
given season. Time came, A, B, C, D, E filed before the LA
complaints for regularization, entitlement to the benefits under
the existing Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) for salary
increase, allowances, COLA and bonus, and attorney’s fees
alleging that they were regular employees of URSUMCO
because they perform jobs necessary and desirable to its usual
business. URSUMCO contended that they were seasonal or
project employees as they perform phases of URSUMCO’s
several projects that were not at all directly related to the latter’s
main business.
12
June 13, 2022
1. a.) What is the status of employment of A, B, C, D, & E? Explain

fully with legal basis.
They are Regular Seasonal Employees.
The Labor Code allows seasonal employees who are only hired
for a specific season to not attain regular status but the Supreme
Court has held the repeated hiring of such employees will
already give rise that their employment is necessary and
desirable to the employer and they shall be treated already as
Regular Seasonal Employees who enjoys the same tenurial
rights as a regular employee.
Here, the employees though made to sign a contract for only one
month or a season, their repeated re-hiring already equates that
their services was necessary and desirable to the employer.
Hence, they are already regular seasonal employee because of

their repeated hiring.
13
June 13, 2022
1. b.) Corollary to their status of employment, are they entitled to

the benefits under the existing CBA? Explain fully with legal basis.
They are entitled to the benefits
The law provides that CBA covers all types of employees

regardless of their employment status be it regular or for a definite
period.
Hence, even if they are only as claimed by their employer seasonal

employees, they are still entitled to the benefits under the CBA.
14
June 13, 2022
2. FIMCO is a corporation engaged in the production of matches.

FIMCO Industries Labor Association (FILA) is the duly
authorized sole and exclusive bargaining agent of FIMCO’s
daily-paid workers. When the last collective bargaining
agreement was about to expire on December 31, 2017, FIMCO
and FILA negotiated for its renewal. However, the negotiation
resulted in a deadlock on economic issues mainly due to
disagreements on salary increases and benefits. On March 9,
2018, FILA filed with NCMB a Notice of Strike on the ground of
the bargaining deadlock. On March 16, 2018, the union
conducted a strike vote where a majority of the union members
voted for a strike as its response to the bargaining impasse. On
April 21, 2018, FILA staged a strike. On May 3, 2018, FIMCO
filed with the NLRC a petition for preliminary injunction and TRO
to enjoin the strikers from preventing through force, intimidation
and coercion the ingress and egress of non-striking employees
into and from the company premises. On May 15, 2018, the
NLRC issued an ex-parte TRO effective for a period of twenty
(20) days. On June 23, 2018, FIMCO sent a letter to 36 union
members directing them to explain within 24 hours why they
should not be dismissed for the illegal acts they committed
during the strike of preventing ingress to and egress from the
FIMCO compound. On June 26, 2018, 36 union members were
informed of their dismissal. On July 6, 2018, FILA filed
complaints for unfair labor practice and illegal dismissal. On
August 28, 2018, FIMCO filed a petition to declare the strike
illegal and subsequently dismissed the union officers.
15
June 13, 2022
2.a.) Was the strike valid? Explain fully with legal basis.
The strike is invalid.
The Labor code allows strikes as an exercise of right of self-

organization but this must be subject to a lawful purpose and lawful
means. One of the requisites for a valid strike is that the union conduct
a strike vote and give notice to the DOLE of the result of the strike vote
at least 7 days before the intended strike.
Here, after the union conducted a strike vote on March 16, 2018, they
failed to give notice to the DOLE of the result of such strike vote.
Hence, for failure to give notice of the result of the strike vote, the
strike conducted became illegal.
16
June 13, 2022
2.b.) Was the dismissal of the union officers and union members
valid? Explain fully with legal basis.
For the union officers their dismissal is valid.
The Labor Code allows dismissal of union officers for mere

participation of an illegal strike. Here, the strike they conducted was
illegal. Therefore, they could be validly dismissed.
For the union members their dismissal is invalid.
The Labor Code only allows dismissal of union members if they are
proven to do illegal acts in the conduct of their strike. Here, the
company merely alleges they committed illegal acts during the strike,
they were not able to prove such allegation. Hence, they were
illegally dismissed.
17
June 13, 2022
3. Sometime on October 2016, Solidbank and Solidbank

Employees Union (Union) were set to renegotiate the economic
provisions of their 2014-2019 Collective Bargaining Agreement
(CBA) to cover the remaining two years thereof. Negotiations
commenced on November 17, 2016 but seeing that an
agreement was unlikely, the Union declared a deadlock
on December 22, 2016 and filed a Notice of Strike on December
29, 2016. During the collective bargaining negotiations, some
Union members staged a series of mass actions. In view of the
impending actual strike, then Secretary of Labor and
Employment assumed jurisdiction over the labor dispute. The
assumption order dated January 18, 2000 directed the parties to
cease and desist from committing any and all acts that might
exacerbate the situation. In said Order dated March 24, 2017,
DOLE Secretary resolved all economic and non-economic
issues submitted by the parties. Dissatisfied with the Secretary’s
ruling, the Union officers and members decided to protest the
same by holding a rally infront of the Office of the Secretary of
Labor and Employment in Intramuros, Manila, simultaneous with
the filing of their motion for reconsideration of the March 24,
2017 Order. Thus, on April 3, 2017, an overwhelming majority of
employees joined the mass leave and protest action at the
Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) office while the
banks provincial branches in Cebu, Iloilo, Bacolod and Naga
followed suit and boycotted regular work. The union members
also picketed the bank’s Head Office in Binondo on April 6, 2017,
and Paseo de Roxas branch on April 7, 2017. As a result of the
employees’ concerted actions, Solidbank’s business operations
were paralyzed. Then President of Solidbank, issued a
memorandum addressed to all employees calling their absence
from work and demonstration infront of the DOLE office as an
illegal act, and reminding them that they have put their jobs at
risk as they will be asked to show cause why they should not be
18
June 13, 2022
terminated for participating in the union-instigated concerted

action. The employees work abandonment/boycott lasted for
three days, from April 3 to 5, 2017. On the third day of the
concerted work boycott (April 5, 2017), the President then issued
another memorandum declaring that the bank is prepared to
take back employees who will report for work starting April 6,
2017 provided these employees were/are not part of those who
led or instigated or coerced their co-employees into participating
in this illegal act. Out of the 712 employees who took part in the
three-day work boycott, a total of 513 returned to work and were
accepted by the bank. For their failure to return to work, the said
199 employees were each issued a show-cause memo directing
them to submit a written explanation within twenty-four (24)
hours why they should not be dismissed for the illegal strike in
defiance of the Assumption Order of the Secretary of Labor
resulting to grave and irreparable damage to the Bank, and
placing them under preventive suspension. Consequently, the
199 employees were terminated. Resolve with legal basis the
following:
19
June 13, 2022
3.a.) Was the protest rally and concerted work abandonment/boycott

staged by the employees of Solidbank valid in contemplation of law?
Explain fully with legal basis.
It was invalid.
The Labor Code provides that once Secretary assumes jurisdiction

over a labor dispute, the union is already enjoined or prohibited to
conduct strikes or pickets.
Here, the Secretary had already assumed jurisdiction of their dispute,

but despite such assumption order, they still conducted a strike to
contest the decision of the Secretary. They should have followed the
legal remedies of appeal instead of conducting a strike.
Hence, their strike is invalid.
20
June 13, 2022
3.b.) Were the 199 employees validly terminated? Explain fully with
legal basis.
They were validly terminated
The Law allows a worker to strike under their rights to self-

organization and their security of tenure will not be affected by such
strike. However, the Supreme Court has held in a plethora of cases
the employees who participated in illegal strikes are deemed to have
lost their employment status.
Here, the employees participated in an illegal strike, the employer

even gave them the chance to return to work. For their participation
in the illegal strike, they have lost their right to their employment
status and they can be validly dismissed by their employer.
21
June 13, 2022
4. Pepsi-Cola is a company engaged in the production of soft

drinks with sales offices located nationwide. The employees of
the various offices organized themselves and formed unions.
Consequently, there were three (3) unions formed namely:
Union A for the rank-and-file employees; Union B for the
supervisory employees and Union C for the secretaries of the
different departments. During the certification election, Union A
was certified as the sole and exclusive bargaining agent to enter
into a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) with Pepsi-Cola.
One of the provisions in the CBA is the existence of a union
closed-shop clause where all employees are required to be a
member of the union. However, on the fifth (5th) year of the CBA
and during the freedom period, the employees of the bargaining
unit changed their bargaining agent where Union B won as the
new bargaining agent. With the change of the bargaining agent,
many of the employees immediately signify their intention not to
anymore join the union as an exercise of their right to self-
organization. With their action, they were immediately
terminated. Consequently, they filed a case for illegal dismissal
contending that since there is already a new bargaining agent,
they are no longer bound to respect the previous CBA.
22
June 13, 2022
4.a.) Is the contention of the employees who excluded themselves

from the union correct? Explain with legal basis. Explain fully with legal
basis.
Their contention is not correct.
The Labor Code provides that a Collective Bargaining Agreement

shall have a life of 5 years. The Labor Code also provided that upon
expiration of the CBA, it shall remain effective and binding if there is
no new CBA that was agreed upon by the union and the employer.
Here, even if there is a change in a bargaining agent and the expiration

of the 5-year life of the original CBA, it shall still remain effective and
binding until a new CBA is agreed upon by the union and the
employer.
23
June 13, 2022
4.b.) Who may not join, form or assist a union? Explain fully the
reasons for their prohibition.
The following are not allowed to join or form a union:
a. Managerial Employees- they are entrusted with the formulation an

enforcement of company policies, they cannot be expected to join or
form a union which could also be the one to bargain regarding such
company policy because if such is the case, they will be bargaining
with themselves.
b. Supervisory employees- prohibited to join unions for the rank-and-
file employees, otherwise they would be co-mingling with the
employees they expect to supervise.
c. Confidential employees- by implication they are also prohibited to
join unions for reasons of conflict of interest for they are entrusted with
confidential data.
d. Government employees- they are not covered by the Labor Code
but by the Civil Service Law.
e. Cooperative members- cooperative employees are allowed to form
unions but for cooperative members they are prohibited because as
members they are also considered owners of the cooperative.
f. Aliens- foreign nationals are not allowed to join unions by reason of
public policy.
24
June 13, 2022
5. Gabriel was hired by Petron Corporation (Petron) as

Maintenance Technician sometime in May 1987. Owing to his
years of service and continued education, Gabriel rose from the
ranks and eventually became a Quality Management Systems
(QMS) Coordinator on 18 October 2004. However, Gabriel did
not get any increase in his salary or any additional benefits
despite his new position in the company. Gabriel lamented that
he was unable to reap the benefits of his promotion because of
a complaint letter filed by Gia, the goddaughter of Gio, the
General Manager of the Refining Division. As a result, Gabriel
was given notice to explain his side, though the notice failed to
include the letter of Gia. Nevertheless, Gabriel denied harassing
Gia and her family, and explained he had already settled the
misunderstanding in confidence. Gabriel was charged with
dishonesty and misconduct. He was made to justify why he
should not be terminated. Gabriel complied wherein he stressed
that he had been placed in an unbearable and humiliating
situation. After the hearing committee was convened, Gabriel
failed to show up at work so he was given another notice of
violation for absence without official leave. In his explanation,
Gabriel said that he was merely following the advice of his
psychiatrist and that he had no work to report back to given that
he had been placed under floating status since the beginning of
the investigation. On 12 May 2005, management took
disciplinary action by suspending Gabriel from work for ten (10)
days. Thereafter, Gabriel filed a complaint for illegal dismissal.
25
June 13, 2022
5.a.) Was the dismissal of Gabriel valid?
The dismissal is invalid.
The Labor code allows serious misconduct as a just cause for

termination. However as held by the Supreme Court for serious
misconduct to be a valid ground for dismissal it must be connected to
the performance of his duties or be made incidental thereto.
Here, the alleged misconduct of harassing Gia and her family bears
no connection to the performance of duties of Gabriel. Such could
not be a valid ground for his dismissal.
Hence, the dismissal is invalid.
26
June 13, 2022
Now, granting that the Labor Arbiter ruled in favour of Gabriel.

Upon appeal by Petron to the NLRC, the latter reversed LA’s
decision. Then, Gabriel filed a motion for consideration but was
denied and received by his counsel on record on May 14, 2018.
However, on July 10, 2018, Gabriel filed a motion for extension
due to time and distance constraints for he needed to secure an
authentication from the Philippine Consular Office in Australia as
he was then working in Australia. CA denied the motion for
extension and dismissed the case. Despite the dismissal,
Gabriel filed his motion for reconsideration with prayer to admit
the attached petition for certiorari claiming that the factual
circumstances of his case are exceptional and merit a relaxation
of the rules of procedure.
27
June 13, 2022
5.b.) Will you grant Gabriel’s motion for reconsideration? Rule on the
merits.
The motion for consideration should not be granted.
As held by the Supreme Court, the rules on procedure should be

strictly complied with otherwise it would be fatal to the case, as an
exception to this rule, the Supreme Court allowed a relaxation of the
rules only on substantial and compelling grounds where a rigid and
technical application of the rules would result to injustice.
Here, reason of time and distance is not what is contemplated as

substantial and compelling grounds to relax the rule, Gabriel only
filed a motion for extension on July 10, 2018 which is already beyond
the reglementary period allowed to bring such motion. Gabriel should
have filed the motion for extension within the reglementary period
allowed which is 15 days counted from May 14, 2018 considering he
is aware of the fact that he has documents to procure from Australia.
Hence, the motion should not be granted.
28

JD 236 FINAL EXAM - Fuerzas

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

JD 236 FINAL EXAM - Fuerzas

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

JD 236 FINAL EXAM - Fuerzas

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Saint Columban Law School Final Examination

Subject: Labor Relations Prepared by: Atty. Nilda F. Vicente

1. Read each question very carefully and write your answers in

Atty. Nilda F. Vicente

1. Distinguish reasonable causal connection rule from

Reasonable causal connection rule pertains to the connection of an

Reasonable connection rule pertains to the alleged infraction of rights

2. Correlate collective bargaining agreement with Kiok Loy

Collective bargaining agreement is an agreement between the

To determine who is the appropriate bargaining agent, the Kiok Loy

To qualify as the appropriate bargaining agent to represent the

3. Correlate certification election with substitutionary doctrine.

A certification election is a process to determine who is the proper

By virtue of the substitutionary doctrine a labor union despite being

4. Correlate yellow dog contract and blue-sky bargaining with

The right to self-organization is a right founded on our constitution, it

Yellow dog contract and blue-sky bargaining are considered unfair

5. Correlate strike, lockout, and picketing with unfair labor

Unfair labor practices are acts of employer and unions which is

6. Explain in substance the effects of the assumption of jurisdiction

The Labor Code allows the Secretary of Labor to assume

Any strikes of lockouts conducted despite the assumption of

7. Distinguish the power of the Secretary of Labor or its

8. Explain the jurisdictional flow of an illegal dismissal case from its

Illegal Dismissal cases are under the original jurisdiction of Labor

The decision of the Labor Arbiters is subject to the appellate

The decision of the NLRC can only be appealed to a higher court

The Decision of the Court of Appeals can be further appealed to the

9. Explain the jurisdictional flow of a case of unresolved grievances

Unresolved grievances from the interpretation or implementation of

Failure or dissatisfaction of the result of the resolution of the Grievance

10. Explain the effects in a case where the employer

1. A, B, C, D, E were employees of URSUMCO engaged in sugar

1. a.) What is the status of employment of A, B, C, D, & E? Explain

They are Regular Seasonal Employees.

Hence, they are already regular seasonal employee because of

1. b.) Corollary to their status of employment, are they entitled to

They are entitled to the benefits

The law provides that CBA covers all types of employees

Hence, even if they are only as claimed by their employer seasonal

2. FIMCO is a corporation engaged in the production of matches.

The strike is invalid.

The Labor code allows strikes as an exercise of right of self-

For the union officers their dismissal is valid.

The Labor Code allows dismissal of union officers for mere

For the union members their dismissal is invalid.

3. Sometime on October 2016, Solidbank and Solidbank

terminated for participating in the union-instigated concerted

3.a.) Was the protest rally and concerted work abandonment/boycott

The Labor Code provides that once Secretary assumes jurisdiction

Here, the Secretary had already assumed jurisdiction of their dispute,

Hence, their strike is invalid.

They were validly terminated

The Law allows a worker to strike under their rights to self-

Here, the employees participated in an illegal strike, the employer

4. Pepsi-Cola is a company engaged in the production of soft

4.a.) Is the contention of the employees who excluded themselves

Their contention is not correct.

The Labor Code provides that a Collective Bargaining Agreement