Farah Medina and Gina Siloy were employed as tailors by Ganda Tailor Shop on September 10, 2012.

They
worked from 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. daily, including Sundays and holidays. They were paid on a piece-work
basis, according to the style of suits they made. Regardless of the number of pieces they finished in a day, they
were each given a daily pay of at least P200.00.

On January 17, 2014, Medina and Siloy filed a complaint against Ganda Tailor Shop for illegal dismissal and
sought recovery of overtime pay, holiday pay, premium pay on holiday and rest day, and 13th month
pay.

Are Medina and Siloy entitled to the benefits claimed? Explain. [5 points]

Question 3 (5 points)

A, B and C convinced D, E (the sister of D) and F (a friend of D), that for a fee they could process their visa
applications and could refer them for an employment in Chile or Brazil. Each paid Php80,000.00. After several
months, they were not able to leave for abroad. A, B and C did not have any license or authority to recruit. May
A, B and C convicted for large-scale illegal recruitment? Explain. [5 points]

Question 9 (5 points)

Is there an existing employer-employee relationship between working scholar and the school? Explain . [5
points]

SUCACO hired various employees i.e., drivers, crane operators, bucket hookers, among others on February 3,
2010. Their duties involved the hauling and transportation of the sugarcane from the plantation to the mill. At
the start of their respective engagements, the workers signed contracts of employment for a period of one (1)
month or for a given season. SUCACO 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.

On August 23, 2013, the employees filed before the Labor Arbiter complaints for regularization. In its decision,
the Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint for lack of merit. The Labor Arbiter held that the complainants
were seasonal or project workers and not regular employees of SUCACO. The LA pointed out that the
complainants were required to perform, for a definite period, phases of SUCACO's several projects
that were not at all directly related to the latter's main operations.

As the complainants were project employees, they could not be regularized since their respective employments
were coterminous with the phase of the work or special project to which they were assigned and which
employments end upon the completion of each project. Explain. [5 points]

Rito Rarmirez works as a clerk-typist in the Old Love Orphanage, a private charitable institution that subsists on
donations or voluntary contributions. He works for ten (10) hours a day. Is he entitled to overtime
compensation? Explain. [5 points]

Kaye Go-Flores, an American citizen, married to a Filipino, was the resident Manager of Western Airlines, Inc. in
the Philippines. She has to her credit eleven (11) years of continuous service with the company, including nine
(9) years as Western Manager with station at Manila. She received an inter-office communication from M. Albert
Knag, Western's Vice President for Orient Region based in Tokyo, assigning her the position of Director of
International Sales and transferring her to Western's General Office in Minneapolis, U.S.A. effective
immediately. In a letter to VP Knag, Kaye turned down the offer, citing personal and family reasons. Knag
replied in another letter, stating that in view of her refusal, her services were no longer required and that her
previous letter to his office shall be considered as her resignation. Resolve whether or not the assignment in
the inter-office communication constituted a valid exercise of management prerogative. Explain. [5 points]

and the spouse he is with.

Company "Let's Go!" adopted an upgraded salary scale that increased the hiring rates of new
employees without increasing the salary rates of old employees. Miller and Shobie are old
employees of "Let's Go!" and they complained to the management and argued that the upgraded
salary scale resulted to wage distortion.

Is there wage distortion in this case? Explain. [5 points]

Mr. Tom Maraya is the Branch Manager of Sagana Rural Bank. He was dismissed from his
employment because he was found to have misappropriated the amount of P100,000.00 from the
Bank, which he squandered in his nightly karaoke sessions with his several paramours. Because he
had been serving the bank for 30 years and is a recipient of several awards for efficiency, the
Labor Arbiter, in spite of his finding of the legality of his dismissal, awarded him separation pay
based on social justice and as an act of compassion. Is the Decision proper? Explain. [5 points]

Question 8 (5 points)

DEF Banking Corporation has a resthouse and recreational facility in the highlands of Iligan for the use of its top
executives and corporate clients. The resthouse staff includes a caretaker, two cooks, and a laundrywoman. All
of them are reported to the Social Security System as domestic or household employees of the resthouse and
recreational facility, and not of DEF Banking Corporation itself. The employees question the bank's treatment of
their status as mere domestic or household employees and filed an action before the Labor Arbiter to be
declared as regular employees of the bank.

As counsel of the bank, your opinion is sought on the matter. Explain. [5 points]

Question 10 (15 points)

In 1995, Benny, with the help of two American expatriates, Kerk and Mike, formed PTUC. In 2002, PTUC
employed Kerk to be its President for a period of five years, to commence on March 1, 2002 and to end on
March 1, 2007, "renewable for the same period, subject to new terms and conditions".Kerk continued to
render his services to PTUP even after his fixed term contract of employment expired. Records
show that on May 12, 2009, Kerk, signing as President of PTUC, entered into advertisement
agreements with two (2) clients. On July 30, 2009, PTUC's legal counsel sent Kerk a letter, which, in
part, reads:

"We would like to inform you that your Employment Contract had been expired since March 1, 2007 and
never been renewed. So[,] it is clear [that] you are no longer [an] employee as President of [PTUC]
considering the expiration of your employment contract. However, because of your past services to our
client's company despite [the fact that] your service is no longer needed by his company[,] as token[,] he
tolerated you to come in the office [and] as such[,] you were given monthly commissions with allowances.

But because of your inhuman treatment x x x [of] the rank and file employees[,] which caused great
damage and prejudices to the company as evidenced [by] those cases filed against you[,] specifically[:] (1)
x x x for Grave Oral [T]hreat pending for Preliminary Investigation, Pasay City Prosecutor's Office x x x[;]
(2) x x x for Summary Deportation[,] BID, Pasay City Prosecutor's Office; and (3) x x x for Grave Coercion
and Grave Threats, we had no other recourse but to give you this notice to cease and desist from entering
 the premises of the main office[,] as well as the branch offices of [UTP] from receipt hereof for the
protection and safety of the company[,] as well as to the employees and to avoid further great damages
that you may cause to the company x x x."

On August 10, 2009, Kerk filed before Regional Arbitration Branch of the NLRC a Complaint against
PTUC and its officers for: (a) illegal dismissal; (b) non-payment of salaries, 13th month and
separation pay, and retirement benefits; (c) payment of actual, moral and exemplary damages and monthly
commission of P200,0000.00; and (d) recovery of the company car, which was forcibly taken from him, personal
laptop, office paraphernalia and personal books.

In Kerks Position Paper, he claimed that even after the expiration of his employment contract on
March 1, 2007, he rendered his services as President and General Manager of PTUC . In December of
2008, he began examining the company's finances, with the end in mind of collecting from delinquent accounts
of PTUC's distributors. After having noted some accounting discrepancies, he sent e-mail messages to the other
officers but he did not receive direct replies to his queries. Subsequently, on July 30, 2009, he received a
notice from PTUC's counsel ordering him to cease and desist from entering the premises of UTP
offices.

PTUC, on its part, argued that the termination letter sent to Kerk on July 30, 2009 was based on (a) the
expiration of the fixed term employment contract they had entered into, and (b) an employer's prerogative to
terminate an employee, who commits criminal and illegal acts prejudicial to business. PTUC alleged that Kerk
bad-mouthed, treated his co-workers as third class citizens, and called them "brown monkeys". Kerk's presence
in the premises of PTUC was merely tolerated and he was given allowances due to humanitarian considerations.

1. Is Kerk's termination in accordance with substantive due process? Explain. [5 points]

2. Is Kerk's termination in accordance with procedural due process? Explain. [5 points]
3. Is Kerk entitled to 13 th month pay? Explain. [5 points]
Question 11 (10 points)

NSD Philippines Inc. (NSD), with Gary Ocampo as its president and general manager, is engaged primarily in the
business of marketing research and information, as well as research consultancy and other value-added
services to a widebase of clients, both local and international. As a market research facility, NSD conducted
public surveys about consumer goods, products, merchandise and/or services of its clients. NSD hired several
field personnel on a project-to-project basis whose functions were the following: a) to gather data
on consumer goods, commodities, merchandise, and such other products as requested by clients,
through personal interviews, telephone interviews and/or such other modes akin to the foregoing;
and b) to submit the gathered data to the company for evaluation and/or analysis.

Jeanette Manalo, Vilma Barrios, Lourde Fernandez, and Leila B. Taiño (Complainants) were hired by
NSD as field personnel on various dates starting 1996 for several projects. They were made to sign a
project-to-project employment contract. Thereafter, NSD would file the corresponding termination report with
the Department of Labor and Employment Regional Office (DOLE-RO). Case records show that the last time NSD
filed an establishment termination report was in November 2007.

Petitioners were likewise assigned office-based tasks for which they were required to be in the
office from 9:00 o'clock in the morning to 6:00 o'clock in the evening, but most of the time, they
worked beyond 6:00 o'clock without receiving the corresponding overtime pay. These office based
tasks were not on a per project basis and Complainants did not sign any contract for these jobs. These
assignments were not reported to the DOLE either.

Later in August 2008, a meeting among the Field Interviewers (FIs) was called by NSD' field manager. They
were told that all old FIs assigned in the "tracking" projects would be pulled out eventually and replaced by new
FIs contracted from an agency. Old FIs would be assigned only to "ad hoc" projects, which were seasonal. This
prompted Complainants to file a consolidated complaint for regularization before the Labor Arbiter.

On October 20, 2008, Complainant and NSD were required to file their respective position papers. On October
21, 2008, Complainants were advised by NSD not to report for work anymore because they were being pulled
out from their current assignments and that they were not being lined up for any continuing or incoming
projects because it no longer needed their services. They were also asked to surrender their company IDs.
Complainants, thereafter, filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, overtime pay, damages, and attorney's fees
against NSD. Later, the labor cases for regularization and illegal dismissal were consolidated.

At the time of their termination, are the complainants project employees of NSD? Explain. [10 points]