UPDATES IN LABOR LAW

Benedict G. Kato
Labor Arbiter, Law Professor
Bar Reviewer & Author
Member, UP Law Center Expert Panel for Labor
Law
 To know enough ...
as not to panic.

To format answers ...

as to appear intelligent.

To write something ... as

not to leave any item
blank.
Reasonable Causal Connection Rule

RCC

Labor
Jurisdiction

SRLL

Sole Reference to Labor Law Rule

Extra-territorialex
 Previous Bar Questions

2003 2008 2012

Asymmetrical
Social Justice Participation Arbitration

Update:
Social Utility Theory
Milan v. NLRC ‘15
 Participation
(a) What are the
Is the workers’ (a) What is co- phases of workers’
management? participation?
participatory right,
exercisable thru (b) What are the
labor-management levels at which
(b) Does its workers may seek
councils, an anti- adoption in the Ph
union right? participation in
have legal basis? decision-making
processes?
 Type of Labor Law that is:

Substantive Remedial

Q: State your agreement or disagreement to the

following propositions:
1. A worker is always an employee.
2. Dean Poquiz was the 2008 Bar examiner.
3. Prof. Azucena was the 2012 Bar examiner.
4. Justice Brion was the 2013 Bar Chairman.
5. LSL is a substantive law; whereas, LRL is a
remedial law.

A: I agree.
PRINCIPLES ON EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE RELATIONSHIP

• Inter-Party •Contractual ;
•Impressed
with PI
LSL LRL

SSS GSIS
• Question of Fact
• In Personam • Question of Law

Prin. of Total Insulation

Prin. of Limited Liability
Prin. of Unaltered Responsibility
Inter-Disciplinary Principles:
Principle of Non-Oppression

New Civil Code

Principle of Least Transmission

1700-1702

of Rights
1306
Principle of Freedom of Contracts
Principle of Abuse of Rights
DAMAGE CLAIMS
Resignation

Abuse of
Rights
Portillo Case ‘12

Non-Compete Clause

Century Properties Case ‘16

 PILLARS OF LABOR RELATIONS
Prof. C.A. Azucena

Workplace Democracy

1
Workers’ Re-Orientation
Education
3 LabR 4 of Unionism
el

2
Business Success
P
Principle of
Merger of
Legal
Personalities

C
Coca-Cola Bottlers Phil v. dela Cruz
J A. Brion
P 2012 Bar

MCQ
No. 29
LoC
Other Inter-Disciplinary Principles

Political Law

Commercial
Criminal Law
Law

Tax Law Legal Ethics

 SECURITY OF TENURE

Illegal Illegal Illegal

Dismissal Transfer Demotion

Meralco v. Lim: Labor Dispute; Habeas Data

 Complete Severance Test

FACT OF DISMISSAL

Complete Overt Act

EER
Severance
The Orchard
Case

Overt Act Test: Tearing of Time Card (Ang ‘13)

 Valid Dismissal
JUST CAUSE AUTHORIZED CAUSE
(Fault-Based) (Non-Fault)

297 298 & 299

Listed Causes Rule
(Bernardo; Mitsubishi)
Analogous Causes Rule
Cognate Offenses Rule
Totality of Infractions Rule
 J Bernabe Decisions

Breach of Trust
Crime Veco Case ‘15
Non-Prosecution
Sanchez Case ‘14 Failure to Qualify
Alcaraz ‘14
Just Causes
Gross Completion
Inefficiency Dacles ‘15
Jacolbe ‘19

“Criminal and labor cases involving an employee arising from the same infraction are separate
and distinct proceedings which should not arrest any judgment from one to the other.”
 “In the Red” v. “In the Black”

Retrenchment Redundancy
(Evidence: FS) (Evidence: FS)

½ Month
Authorized
1 Month
Causes

Closure Automation
 Manalo v. • SE Evidence
Confessor
2012 SMC v. • Clearly &
Convincingly
Duty Free NLRC with SE
Phil Ruling
Masing & • Qual SE
Sons • Quan SE
• Proof Beyond Reasonable
Doubt

• Clear & Convincing Evidence

• Preponderance of Evidence

• Substantial Evidence
Const’l Statutory Contractual
DP DP DP
Serrano PT&T Alcaraz
Distinction Clarification Ruling
 CURATIVE JURISPRUDENCE: Retroactivity

 Pre-Wenphil (Substantially & Procedurally Valid)

 Wenphil (Indemnity)
 Serrano (Ineffectual; Backwages)
 Agabon (P30K Nominal Damages)
 Jaka Foods (P30K or P50K)
 Pacific Timber (Circumstantial; Adjustable)
 Formula for Nominal Damages
Note: Manulife; Aliling
 De Jesus (Retroactivity of Curative Jurisprudence)
 Gargoles
 Crew PEME
Non-Exploratory
Claims
1
WORK-CONNECTION
Disease - Sec. 32-A
Injury - ICO

DISABILITY

Grade Taok List Grade

10 DEATH 1
2
EFFECTIVITY OF
CONTRACT
Exception: Medical Repatriation
THIRD PHYSICIAN RULE

120 240
 USD 60,000
TOTAL PERMANENT DISABILITY

The TAOK List

C.F. Sharp Crew Management, Inc. v. Joel Taok
G.R. No. 193679, 18 July 2012

(a) the company-designated physician failed to issue a declaration as

to his fitness to engage in sea duty or disability even after the lapse of the
120-day period and there is no indication that further medical treatment
would address his temporary total disability, hence, justify an extension of
the period to 240 days;

(b) 240 days had lapsed without any certification being issued by the
company-designated physician;

(c) the company-designated physician declared that he is fit for sea duty within
the 120-day or 240-day period, as the case may be, but his physician of
choice and the doctor chosen under Section 20-B(3) of the POEA-SEC are of
a contrary opinion;
(d) the company-designated physician acknowledged that he is partially
permanently disabled but other doctors who he consulted, on his own and jointly
with his employer, believed that his disability is not only permanent but total
as well;

(e) the company-designated physician recognized that he is totally and permanently

disabled but there is a dispute on the disability grading;
(f) the company-designated physician determined that his medical condition is not
compensable or work-related under the POEA-SEC but his doctor-of-choice and the
third doctor selected under Section 20-B(3) of the POEA-SEC found otherwise and
declared him unfit to work;
(g) the company-designated physician declared him totally and permanently disabled but
the employer refuses to pay him the corresponding benefits; and
(h) the company-designated physician declared him partially and permanently disabled
within the 120-day or 240-day period but he remains incapacitated to perform
his usual sea duties after the lapse of the said periods.
 RECONCILIATION

1 2 3 4 Rule

Benedict Romana v. Magsaysay

• 2014 Racelis Maritime Corp.
• 2015 Licayan G.R. No. 192442, 9 August 2017
(J Bernabe)
 Third Physician Rule

Hammonia Philman Sequence

Sequence
First Opinion
First Opinion Complaint
Second Opinion Second Opinion
Complaint Effect:
Effect: LACK OF CAUSE OF
FIRST OPINION ACTION
CONTROLS
 Third Physician Rule
When Not Applicable Grounds for Disregarding
Third Opinion

1 1. Evident partiality;
if Co-designated Dr. certifies 2. Corruption;
3. Fraud and other undue means;
“Not Work-Connected”
4. Lack of basis;
2 5. Contrary to law and
No assessment within jurisprudence

120/240 Days
 Reliable Medical Opinion
SUPPORTED UNSUPPORTED

FINAL INTERIM

CATEGORICAL CONDITIONAL

SEVERAL SINGLE
EXAMINATIONS EXAMINATION

COMMUNICATED NOT
TO COMMUNICATED
SEAFARER (DR. TO DR. ONLY)
 CRAFTING AN ARGUMENT

Q: Facts. Facts. Facts. Is Marino entitled to full disability compensation? (5%)

A:
Yes.

Marino is entitled to full disability compensation for the following reasons:

(a) his disability is by reason of a work-connected disease; and

(b) he contracted said disease in the course of his 9-month
employment contract.

As to the first requisite, subject disease (lung cancer) is unlisted under Sec.
32-A of the POEA-SEC; however, it is disputably presumed to be work-connected.
Here, the employer failed to overcome said presumption.

As to the second requisite, Marino was exposed to the risk factors of lung
cancer while performing his work during his 9-month employment contract.
Q: Facts. Facts. Facts. Is Marino entitled to full disability compensation? (5%)
A:
A seafarer is entitled to full disability compensation if the following
requisites are present:

(a) his disability is by reason of a work-connected disease; and

(b) he contracted said disease during the period of his employment
contract.

As to the first requisite, the onboard working conditions of Marino must

have contributed even in a small measure only to the development of his lung cancer;
hence, his disease is work-connected; and

As to the second requisite, Marino was exposed to the risk factors of lung
cancer during the term of his contract.
Q: Facts. Facts. Facts. Is Marino entitled to full disability compensation? (5%)

A:
To be entitled to such compensation, the disability must be full. To be full ,
it must be both total and permanent.

Total disability means that Marino could not continue performing his
customary work by reason of his disease. Permanent disability means that his disease
has made it impossible for him to resume sea duty even with adequate medical
attention.

Since Marino cannot return to his customary work anymore, he is entitled to

full disability compensation.

Iwas “Lung Cancer” Answer!!!

 Formatting

Q: Facts. Facts. Facts. Is the company’s defense meritorious(5%)

A: No.

The company’s defense is not meritorious for the following reasons:

(a) the Third Physician Rule does not apply when the company-
designated physician certifies that the seafarer’s disability is not work-related;
(b) as a result, the state of disability of the complainant should be
assessed based on the medical evidence at hand, viz., the medical opinion of the
company-designated physician and that of the seafarer’s physician of choice;
(c) as between the two medical assessments, that of the seafarer’s
physician of choice is more reliable because it is supported, final, and categorical;
whereas, that of the company-designated physician is unsupported, interim and
conditional.

Therefore, the company’s defense that the medical opinion of its physician
is determinative of the state of disability of the complainant lacks merit.
 Death Claim

Q: Facts. Facts. Facts. Is the denial of the death claim proper? (5%)

A: Yes.

The denial is proper for the following reasons:

(1) What is disputably presumed is the first requisite only, viz., that the
disease is work-connected. The second is not similarly presumed;
(2) For this reason, it is the burden of the claimant to prove the second
requisite, i.e., the unlisted disease was contracted by the diseased seafarer during the term of his
employment contract;
(3) To prove the second requisite, he must prove the following:
(a) the risk factors of the unlisted disease;
(b) the seafarer’s work involves said risk factors;
(c) the period of his exposure is sufficient for him to contract the
unlisted disease; and
(d) he contracted it not by reason of his notorious negligence.

Since the second requisite has not been proven in accordance with law, the denial
of the death claim is proper.
 The Alcantara Method

Q: Facts. Facts. Facts. Is the company’s defense meritorious (5%)

A: No, the company’s defense is not meritorious. (What is its defense?)

According to the company, the medical opinion of its physician is

determinative of the state of disability of the complainant since a third physician was
not selected thru the fault of the complainant. This has no merit. (Why?) The
reasons are as follows:

(a) the Third Physician Rule does not apply (When?) when the
company-designated physician certifies that the seafarer’s disability is not work-
related;
(b) as a result, the state of disability of the complainant should be
based on the medical evidence at hand (What?) , viz., the medical opinion of the
company-designated physician and that of the seafarer’s physician of choice;
(c) as between the two medical assessments, that of the seafarer’s
physician of choice is more reliable (Why?) because it is supported, final, and
categorical; whereas, that of the company-designated physician is unsupported,
interim and conditional. (Why? What? When? Where? Who?)
 Special Labor Laws
The basis of Labor Law is police power;
its purpose is social justice.

TWIN-FUNCTIONS OF SOCIAL JUSTICE

(Calalang v. Williams)

(1) HUMANIZING FUNCTION (2) EQUALIZING FUNCTION

Gender Sensitive Laws Anti-Discrimination Laws

1 1
Anti-Age Discrimination in Employment
Anti-Sexual Harassment Act Act
(RA 7877) (RA 10911)
2 2
Expanded Maternity Leave Act Solo Parents Welfare Act
(RA 11210) (RA 8972)
 R.A. 11210 & R.A. 8972
The Plus 15 Days Rule
R.A. 8282
60 Days - Normal Solo Parent
Delivery (ND) & Miscarriage
78 Days - CS (Plus 15 Days w/ Pay)

R.A.11210
105 Days - ND & CS IF NO DAD SUC
Plus 15 Days w/ Pay
Plus 30 Days w/o Pay +
60 Days - Miscarriage Dependent
& Emergency Pregnancy
Termination
7 Days - Father
(Less than 18 DULU)
- Alternate
Caregiver
 EXPANDED MATERNITY LEAVE ACT

Miscarriage, or
Normal Delivery, or
Cesarean Section
105 60 Emergency Pregnancy
Termination
135 = 15 = 120
30
Solo Parent +30
w/o pay with pay
150
7
Alternate
Caregiver
= 14 ?
7
Paternity
Leave Act
 CURRENT EVENTS: BAR
TRIGGERS
1
The Xavier University Law Professor

Law Student: “Sir, come again.”

Law Prof: “ You want me to come again? I have

not come the first time and don’t you know that
it took me 5 minutes to come, and you want me
to come again?”
The Gravamen of Sexual Harassment

2
The Indecent Proposal
(A.M. N0. MTJ-13-1821)
 Where: WET Env’t
Who: Pastor TETE w/ MIA
How: DRR 4 Sexual Favor
Why: W - COER
ET - GASHOS

• WHAT Acceptance, or
• Rejection = HOI Env’t

• Note: Safe Spaces Act of 2019

 R.A. 11313: Prohibited Acts
 Cursing (Note: PI Doctrine) versus
 Wolf-Whistling
 Catcalling Violation of
 Leering & Intrusive Gazing Magna Carta for Persons
 Taunting with Disability
 Unwanted Invitations
(R.A. 7277)
 Misogynistic Act
 Homophobic Act
 Transphobic Act Doctrine
 Sexist Slurs
 Persistent Unwanted Comment of
on One’s Appearance
 Relentless Request for Personal Mutant Ninja
Data Turtle
 20%
Services
Suffering from
Restriction of
Different Abilities;
Hence, cannot
perform activity as
1%
normal human
Employment
beings can do. Ridicule/Vilification
(more than 100
employees)
Cause

Mental, Physical or
Sensory Impairment
5% Note: Bar 2012
Food
 3
Gretchen Diez
Hypo:
A janitress was dismissed from work for barring a transgender from using the CR
for women. In the written complaint of the latter to management, the former allegedly
pulled his belt to drag him out of said facility. In defense, the janitress claimed that two
females complained to her that there was a man inside the CR. Although she showed him
the CR for PWDs, he insisted on using the ladies’ CR when he saw the long queue.
Resolve (5%).

Answer:
The issue to resolve is whether the janitress has violated R.A. 11313 in a manner
amounting to serious misconduct.

The act complained of is neither a homophobic nor a transphobic act. The

janitress was simply acting on the legitimate complaint of the two females who had the
right to privacy. Absent malice, as shown by the fact that she offered a reasonable option
which the transgender would not consider without justification, intent to display anti-
transgender or anti-transsexual animus cannot be lightly presumed.

Therefore, not having violated R.A. 11313, the janitress cannot be considered as
having committed serious misconduct. Hence, her dismissal is baseless.
 Right

Coverage
Right Right
Exclusions

Right
 Med
Clearance

7: 10-6
Terms Except Women

FAMIS

Reversion
 Medical Clearance

Pregnant/Nursing

Female Status &

Security of Tenure
Night Worker Benefits

Giving Birth

Alternative Work
16 Weeks
Add’l Periods
 Rest

HeLau GarCY
Except
1.
Decent & Humane
Treatment
Occasional or 13th Month Pay
Sporadic
2.
Foster Family
Arrangement
Social Security
 7 Days Parental Leave

IF NO DAD
SUC Flexible Work
Discrimination + Schedule 1

DEPENDENT
(Less than 18 DULU)

Flexible Work Schedule 2

 Hiring

ANY AGE
(Young or Old)

Except
Promotion
1 Retirement
Age is BFOQ
2
Bona Fide Seniority
System
3
Action is certified by
SOLE

Dismissal
 Employment
(No 1% Requirement)

At least 60
y/o
20%
VAT & Income
Discount on Provided Tax Exempt
Goods & Services

Resident
Citizen of Ph

Social, Health Services

 20%
Services
Suffering from
Restriction of
Different Abilities;
Hence, cannot
perform activity as
1%
normal human
Employment
beings can do. Ridicule/Vilification
(more than 100
employees)
Cause

Mental, Physical or
Sensory Impairment
5% Note: Bar 2012
Food
Bar 2012, MCQ No. 39

Which of the following is not a privilege of a person

with disability under the Magna Carta for disabled persons?

(a) At least 20% discount of purchase of medicines in all

drugstores;
(b) Free transportation in public railways;
(c) Educational assistance in private and public schools
through scholarship grants;
(d) A and C.
 4
Jollibee & the PWDs of Yorme
Question:
Jollibee UST, owned by Dra. Aprille Lazaro who employs 50
students, has received a letter request from Manila Mayor Isko
Moreno to employ at least 2 persons with disability. Comment (1%).

Answer:
R.A. 7277 requires that private establishments with more than
100 employees employ PWDs to the extent of 1% of their manpower.
Since Jollibee UST employs less than 100, it cannot be required to hire
PWDs. Therefore, the mayor’s request can be politely turned down,
except if there is a City ordinance mandating said employment
regardless of number of employees and its validity has not been
judicially challenged yet.
 4
McDo & the Sr. Citizens of Yorme
Question:
McDo UST, owned by Atty. Karl Alen Yu who employs 101
students, has received a letter request from Manila Mayor Isko
Moreno to employ at least 2 senior citizens of Manila. Comment
(1%).

Answer:
Unlike R.A. 7277 which requires that private establishments
with more than 100 employees employ PWDs to the extent of 1% of
their manpower, R.A. 9994 does not have an equivalent provision
Hence, even if McDo UST employs more than 100, it cannot be
required to hire senior citizens. This said, the mayor’s request can be
politely turned down, except if there is a City ordinance mandating
said employment regardless of the silence of the law on the matter
and its validity has not been judicially challenged yet.
 2 Full Monthly Salaries

Cannot Work

WOMAN
Gynecological Disorder Surgical Procedure

6 continuous
aggregate employment
AREC Claims

AOO Disease
Proximate Cause Theory
Increased Risk Theory

DISABILITY
or
DEATH

ICO Injury

OFF-PREMISES RULES
Reasonable Nexus Rule
Update: 2019 R.A. 11360 (Service Charges)
 RETIREMENT BENEFITS

ART. 302 CASES

1
Requisites The Jaculbe Case
2
Computation The Gerlach Case
22.5. x P500 x 10 Yrs
length of service
average daily salary

15 ( ½ salary); 5 (SIL); 2.5 (1/12 of 13th month pay )

 ORILC: “FP ...... T & PC”
specific term generic terms

13MP with 13MP

PR
PR HP
SIL
with HP
with SIL

13MP w/o 13MP

w/o HP
TT HP
SIL
with HP & SIL

FP 13MP w/o 13MP

w/o SIL
PC HP
with HP & SIL
SIL

Cases: AutoBus (Bus Driver/Conductor) R&E Transport (Taxi Driver);

David v. Macasio ‘’14 (Butcher)
 2019 R.A. 11360 : The “Entire TIP” Law
Covered Employees Rules:
Lo MaNiGas Ho Cock 1. In the event
Resty of prescribed wage
Excluded: increase, SC cannot be
Managerial Employees credited as compliance.
Hence: No more 85% - 15%
2. Complete and
full distribution.
 Notes on SIL

Modes of
Availment RA 10361
12 Months
& Kasambahay
Prescription
 REMINDER

2012 Bar
2008 Bar

Bar 2013
Overview of Labor Procedure
 The Halaguena Case

Sole
Reasonable
Reference
Causal Jurisdiction
to Labor
Connection
Law

Employer-Employee Relationship

1. Habeas Data (Meralco v. Lim, 2010)

2. Theory of Secondment (Intel v. NLRC, 2014)
3. Quasi Contract Doctrine (American Power Conversion Corp. v. Lim, 2018)
 Conferment of Jurisdiction
The Bartolome Ruling
Voluntary Arbitrator 28 Jan 2019
(J Bernabe)

Acquisition of Jurisdiction
Voluntary Arbitrator The Tabigue Ruling

Appeal
Voluntary Arbitrator Court of Appeals

Update: Guagua National Colleges v. CA

28 Aug 2018
BY APPOINTMENT of VA

2004 Revised
1989 Procedural
Procedural
Guidelines
Guidelines

Sec. 4 Sec. 4
Rule IV Rule IV

Mutually
Appointed by
appointed by
the NCMB.
parties.
Good Luck!
 CONCEPT OF LABOR LAW
When a labor law is Labor Jurisdiction
not Labor Law
Reasonable Causal
Halaguena, et al. Connection Rule
v &
PAL Sole Reference to
G.R. No. 172013, 2 Oct. 2009 Labor Law Rule
 When “other law” is Labor
Law
Sec. 31 Art. 1378
Corporation Code New Civil Code

Carag v. NLRC Gerlach v. Reuters Ltd.

G.R. No. 147590, 2 April Phils
2007 G.R. No. 148542, 17 Jan,
2005
Employer
Art. 219(e), PD 442 Principle of Least
“...acting in the interest of an
employer...” Transmission of
Rights
 TYPES OF LABOR LAW
Questions Asked Not Yet Asked

1995 Types of Labor

Standards Law
1997 Extraterritoriality
Docket Fees
2003 Double Indemnity Law
2 0 06 Attorney’s Fees
LSL as Substantive Law
v
LRL as Remedial Law
 LABOR PRINCIPLES

1998
2007
2008
2009
2011
2012
 CONSTITUTIONAL
PRINCIPLES
The The
FULL PROTECTION COGNATE CLAUSES
CLAUSE
COGNATE CLAUSES

THE SOCIAL JUSTICE CLAUSE

2003 Bar
Twin-Functions of Social Justice
The Social Utility Theory
Justice for the Deserving Rule
The Anti-Rascal Rule
 The Great Clauses
• Due Process Clause • Equal Protection
Clause
THE LESSOR AMOUNT
RULE STRICT JUDICIAL
Sec. 10, R.A. 8042
SCRUTINY TEST
1998 Marsaman Ruling
2008 Flourish Maritime
Ruling
2009 Serrano Ruling
2010 R.A. 10022
2011 Thenamaris Ruling
2014 Sameer Ruling
 CIVIL LAW PRINCIPLES
Prin. of Freedom of Contracts
Prin. of the Necessitous Person
Prin. of Unjust Enrichment
Prin. of Least Transmission of Rights
Quasi-Contract Doctrine
 INTER-DISCIPLINARY PRINCIPLES
Threefold Liability Rule
Presumed Identity Approach
Forum Non Conveniens
Manner of Creation Test
Strict Judicial Scrutiny Test
Distinct Impression Rule
 EER PRINCIPLES
EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE RELATIONSHIP
CHARACTERISTICS & RELATED
PRINCIPLES

1
ASSYMETRICAL RELATIONSHIP
( The Social Utility Theory )
Milan, et al. v. NLRC
G.R. No. 202961, 4 Feb. 2015
 2
CONTRACTUAL RELATIONSHIP
( The Principle of Non-Oppression )
Art. 1701, New Civil Code

3
MASTER-SERVANT RELATIONSHIP
(The Principle of Shared-Responsibility)
Sec. 3, Art. XIII, 1987 Const’n
 3
INTER-PARTY RELATIONSHIP
( The Principle of the Strong Arm of
Equity )

4
IN PERSONAM RELATIONSHIP
( The Principle of Total Insulation )
 5
QUESTION OF FACT
( The Substantial Evidence Rule )

6
QUESTION OF LAW
( The Two-Tier Test )

Note:
Law “intends” EER; fact “extends” it.
EER as a legal concept is real if it has an “out there”
representation.
 EER TESTS
ACCEPTED TESTS NON-TESTS

Four-fold Test Less Than 8 Hours

& Talent Fee
Component Tests (Legend Hotel v.
--------- Realuyo)
Two-Tier Test
--------- Nature of Work
Ecclesiastical Affair Test (Atok Big Wedge v.
Gison)
THEORY OF SECONDMENT
INTEL TECHNOLOGY PHIL. V. NLRC
G.R. No. 200575, 5 Feb. 2014
local hire
Intel HK cut ties
clearances

Intel Arizona Intel Chengdu

Intel Ph
 QUASI-CONTRACT DOCTRINE
• Employer-Employee • Art. 2142, NCC
Relationship
Certain lawful,
J del Castillo voluntary and unilateral
acts give rise to the
American Power juridical relation of quasi-
Conversion Corp., et contract to the end that
al. v. Jason Yu Lim no one shall be unjustly
enriched or benefited at
G.R. No. 214291, 11 Jan.
2018 the expense of another.
 LABOR STANDARDS LAW
PRINCIPLES

Liberal Interpretation Rule (Art. 4)

Hocheng Phils Corp. v. Farrales
G.R. No. 211497, 18 March 2015
Operative Fact Doctrine (Art. 5)
Note: D.O. 119-12, R.A. 10151
LACAPH Test (Art. 6)

Theory of Imputed Knowledge (Arts. 12-38)

Sunace Int’l Mgmt Services, Inc. v. NLRC
G.R. No. 161757, 25 Jan. 2006
 BOOK I
RECRUITMENT LAW
Art. 13(b) DISTINCT IMPRESSION
RULE
Darvin v. CA & Pp v. Goce
CUTE CPAs BAD DEFENSES
Have Cute Red Peanuts Pp v. Chua, 4 April 2001
Pp. v. Panis, 11 July 1986
Pp. v. Comila, 28 Feb. 2007
Pp. v. Jamilosa, 27 Jan. 2007
Rodolfo v. Pp, 10 Aug. 2006
Pp v. Navarra, 19 Feb. 2001
Pp. v. Ocden, 1 June 2011
 ALIEN EMPLOYMENT
Sec. 12, Art. XII, AEP EXCLUSIONS
Const’n

Arts. 40-42, P.D. 442 Memorize!

D.O. 186-17
6 Seamen PEME
Non-Exploratory
Case No. 40
1
WORK-CONNECTION
Disease - Sec. 32-A
Injury - ICO

DISABILITY

Grade Case No. 44 Grade

10 DEATH 1
Case No. 42
2
EFFECTIVITY OF
CONTRACT
Exception: Medical Repatriation
THIRD PHYSICIAN RULE

120 Case No. 43 240

 RECONCILIATION

1 2 3 4 Rule

Benedict Romana v. Magsaysay

• 2014 Racelis Maritime Corp.
• 2015 Licayan G.R. No. 192442, 9 August 2017
 • NOT WORK • OUTSIDE PERIOD
CONNECTED
1st Line
3-dayReporting Requirement
Abandonment of Treatment
Effect of
Notorious Negligence
MEDICAL
2nd Line
Unlisted Disease REPATRIATION
1234 Rule
3rd Line
The Canuel Case
Third Physician Rule
Disability Grading The Racelis Case
 Third Physician Rule

The Hammonia ThePhilman

Sequence Sequence

First Opinion First Opinion

Second Opinion Complaint
Complaint Second Opinion
Effect: Effect:
FIRST OPINION LACK OF CAUSE OF
CONTROLS ACTION
 USD 60,000
TOTAL PERMANENT DISABILITY

The TAOK List

C.F. Sharp Crew Management, Inc. v. Joel Taok
G.R. No. 193679, 18 July 2012

(a) the company-designated physician failed to issue a declaration as

to his fitness to engage in sea duty or disability even after the lapse of the
120-day period and there is no indication that further medical treatment
would address his temporary total disability, hence, justify an extension of
the period to 240 days;

(b) 240 days had lapsed without any certification being issued by the
company-designated physician;

(c) the company-designated physician declared that he is fit for sea duty within
the 120-day or 240-day period, as the case may be, but his physician of
choice and the doctor chosen under Section 20-B(3) of the POEA-SEC are of
a contrary opinion;
(d) the company-designated physician acknowledged that he is partially
permanently disabled but other doctors who he consulted, on his own and jointly
with his employer, believed that his disability is not only permanent but total
as well;

(e) the company-designated physician recognized that he is totally and permanently

disabled but there is a dispute on the disability grading;
(f) the company-designated physician determined that his medical condition is not
compensable or work-related under the POEA-SEC but his doctor-of-choice and the
third doctor selected under Section 20-B(3) of the POEA-SEC found otherwise and
declared him unfit to work;
(g) the company-designated physician declared him totally and permanently disabled but
the employer refuses to pay him the corresponding benefits; and
(h) the company-designated physician declared him partially and permanently disabled
within the 120-day or 240-day period but he remains incapacitated to perform
his usual sea duties after the lapse of the said periods.
 BOOK II
SPECIAL WORKERS
PERSONS WITH
LEARNER V. APPRENTICE DISABILITY
Sec. 5, Magna Carta for
PONDACA Persons with Disability
L A
Period 3 6
Obligation with w/o Bernardo, et al. v.
Nature SS HT NLRC
Dismissal Reg x G.R. No. 122917, 12 July
Approval no need needed 1999
Complaint LA RD
Appeal NLRC, 10 SOLE, 5
 BOOK III
 COVERAGE OF MANDATORY BENEFITS
Diagram of Art. 82, P.D. 442 & P.D. 851

 WAGE & WAGE RULES

Definition of Wage
(Legend Hotel, Fuji TV Network)
Prescriptive & Proscriptive Rules
Other Rules

 SPECIAL GROUPS OF WORKERS

Special Workers v. Special Group of Workers
The Kasambahay Act
Types of Homework
 WAGE & WAGE RULES

Art. 97 WAGE V. TALENT FEES

5-Point Definition
Legend Hotel Mla v.
ReMon Realuyo
G.R. No. 153511, 18 Jul 2012
HowDesi
FixAs
Fuji TV Network v.
PayCon 4 WorSer Espiritu
Fac G.R. No. 204944, 3 Dec.
2014
Types of Industrial Homework
(Art. 155)
Thru Delivery Thru Sale

P P

delivers sells
GAM GAM

HW HW

Fabrication/Processing Fabrication/Processing
 APPLICABILITY OF WAGE RULES

Double Indemnity Law Prescriptive

(R.A. 8188) &
Proscriptive
Sapio v. Undaloc Rules
Construction
G.R. No. 155034, 22 May 2008
 Wage DISTORTION
Characteristics: Definition (Art. 124)

1 ... a situation where an increase

in prescribed wage rates results in
INTER-WAGE GROUP the elimination or severe
contraction of intentional
2 quantitative differences in wage
or salary rates between and
INTRA-WAGE REGION among employee groups in an
establishment as to effectively
obliterate the distinctions
embodied in such wage structure
based on skills, length of service,
or other logical bases of
differences.
... a situation where an increase in prescribed wage rates
results in the elimination or severe contraction of intentional
quantitative differences in wage or salary rates between and
among employee groups in an establishment as to effectively
obliterate the distinctions embodied in such wage structure
based on skills, length of service, or other logical bases of
differences.

... increase.... elimination or severe contraction ...

differences in wage or salary rates ....
 Elements of WD
Wage Group A (Regulars)........................ P350.00
1
Wage Group B (Casuals) ......................... P300.00

2 Wage Gap ........................... P 50.00

Eliminated ...... P 00.00

Compressed .... P 24.00

3 Cause: Wage Law or Wage Order
CBA
Merger ...... Exclude promotion (‘84 NFL)
QUESTIONS Un-Asked Questions

1
ASKED QUESTIONS
Promotion (NFL)
1
When is there a
2
WD? WDA Formula (Metrobank)
2 3
How is WD
resolved? Aborted WD (PIMI)
 Uses: OEstablishment v.
UEstablishment
WD Resolution OTHER USES
o Effectivity of Eco
OE Provisions
GM ........................ VA o CE Petition
o CE Appeal
UE o CB Duty
NCMB ..................... LA o SEBA Request
WDA FORMULA
WDA = Min Wage x PI Bar Question: Adjust the WD
Actual Salary (5%)

Wage Details: WDA = P300.00 x P50

P350.00
Min Wage ........... P300.00 = P 00. 857 x P50
WG A .................. P350.00 = P42.857
WG B ................. P300.00
Prescribed Increase (PI) Add: P350.00 + P42.857
Plus P50.00 for WG B P392.857
Effect: WGap Elimination Effect: WGap ....... P42.857
P350 – P350 = P00.00
 The PIMI Case

Preempted Wage Distortion

 ART. 100
Principle Principle
of of
Non-Diminution Grants

PRE-PROMULGATION POST-PROMULGATION
BENEFITS BENEFITS
Waterfront Insular Hotel of
Davao Case
Apex Mining Corp. v. NLRC
Rivera, et al. v. Espiritu, et al.
 Arts. 101-105
Read to Recall Provisions
101 – payment by result
102 – forms of payment
103 – time of payment
104 – place of payment
105 – direct payment

Caveat:The easiest an be the hardest!

JOB-CONTRACTING (Art. 106-109):
EE+CE1
Comprehensive Case No.14
Solidary LOC
EE+CE2
P SA C•LSL
Limited
Case No. 15 •H&S
Solidary •LRL
•SocLeg SUBSTANTIAL
EC CAPITAL
Case No.13
JC

W INVESTMENT
 ART. 110
WORKERS’ PREFERENCE
ARTS. 2241 & 2242 (NCC) ART. 2244 (NCC)

Special Preferred Credits Ordinary Preferred

(SPCs) Credits
(OPCs)
LIEN
attaches to a specific property PREFERENCE
does not attach to any
property
 ART. 111
10% Attorney’s Fees
ORDINARY EXTRA-ORDINARY

Masmud v. NLRC EVIDENCE

(Agreement/Quantum Meruit)
Labor Standards Cases
Seafarers Protection Act, 2017 v
Labor Relations Cases
 READ TO RECALL PROVISIONS
(ARTS. 112-127)
2 Non-Diminution Rules
1. Art. 100 (addresses itself to PD 442)
2. Art. 127 (addresses itself to wage boards)

2 No Injunction Rules
1. Art. 266 (in labor disputes)
2. Art. 126 (in WB proceedings)
ARTS. 128 & 129:
Visitorial Power v. Adjudicatory Power
 Points of Distinction
APPEAL
1. Appellate Body (Art. 128 – SOLE; Art. 129 – NLRC)
2. Appeal Period (Art. 128 – 10 days; art. 129 – 5 days)
3. Motion to Reduce (Art. 128 – prohibited by D.O. 183-17; Art. 129 –
allowed by NLRC Rules of Procedure)

COMPLAINT
1. Art. 128 (exercisable over establishments; notice of inspection)
2. Art. 129 (simple money claims brought by complaint)

EXTENT OF POWER
POWER TO CLOSE/SUSPEND
Note: Replacement Wages (Marcopper Ruling)
SPECIAL GROUPS OF WORKERS

MINORS Art. 137

Below 15
Rule: Cannot be employed!
Art. 137
Exception: work under sole
responsibility of PG &
& schooling not interfered with.
15 – 18
RA 9231 Rule: May be employed
under non-hazardous / non-
deleterious conditions.
 R.A. 9231
(Below 15)
PG Employers Non-PG Employers
Employer Area
Under sole responsibility of Essential public
PG & where only members of entertainment or information
his/her family are employed.
Conditions
Conditions
No danger to safety, health, PG sign employment
morals & normal dev’t contract with child’s
Education consent, DOLE approval &
work permit.
Provide primary &
secondary education
 Prohibitions & Hours of Work
Below 18 cannot be employed Work Hours & Work Window
as to subject them to:
Below 15
D-A-N-C-E Daily - 4 Hrs max
Weekly- 20 Hrs max
Except - 8 pm - 6 am

15 – 18
Daily - 8 Hrs max
Weekly- 40 Hrs max
Except - 10 pm – 6 am
 Bar Trend

The Teacher 13 - Singer

&
Her 12-year old Pupil 15 - Librarian

17 - Dancer
 WOMEN
Arts. 133 – 135 RA 7877
Anti-Sexual Harassment
Art. 133 - Sex Act
Art. 134 - Marriage
Art. 135 - Pregnancy RA11313
Safe Spaces Act
 Where: WET Env’t
Who: Pastor TETE w/ MIA
How: DRR 4 Sexual Favor
Why: W - COER
ET - GASHOS

• WHAT Acceptance, or
• Rejection = HOI Env’t

• Note: Safe Spaces Act of 2019

 Industrial Homeworker
Thru Delivery Thru Sale

P P

delivers sells
GAM GAM

HW HW

Fabrication/Processing Fabrication/Processing
 KASAMBAHAY
(RA 10361)
HeLau Gar Cya Rights
Inter Alia:
Except

Family Driver
SSS Coverage
(2014 Bar)
Occasional/Sporadic

Foster Family Arrangement

 SOCLEG

The Limited Portability Law

What is portable?
Length of Service and Contributions

What is limited?
GAMOGAMO V. PNOC

Common Benefits Rule

 SSS
Policy Characteristics
The State shall EDPP 1. Morality-free
and SSS that is SVT Bar Questions
to promote SP 2. Non-discriminatory
against D SODOM Bartolome Case
resulting in LF

Nature of SSS Funds

1. EMPLOYEE COVERAGE

Not over 60

Compulsory
RA 8282
RA 10361
Types
Sps of SSS
Voluntary Members
Adm. Agreements

EXCEPT: CAFGO

2. EMPLOYER COVERAGE
BENEFITS

sss SSS

EC
 Beneficiaries
Primary Secondary
Spouses Parents
1. legal Dependent for support
2. living with
Children
1. below 21
2. unmarried
3. unemployed
 The Signey Case
Y
• Child 1
A (predeceased X)

• Child 2
X B • Child 3

• Child 4
C • Child 5
 GSIS
COVERAGE BENEFITS
1. Not over 65
2. Appointive or elective
DISABILITY DEATH
3. EER (4-fold Test)
4. Basic salary
Disease Disease
AAO AOO

Injury Injury
ICO ICO
 OFF-PREMISES RULES
Personal Comfort Doctrine
- within time limit
- within space limit
Continuing Act Rule
- unreasonable diversion
- unreasonable departure
Marked Men Rule
Place of Assignment
• ABSENT

Place of Contingency
• PRESENT
DEATH COMPENSATION CASES
REASONABLE NEXUS RULE
HINOGUIN (night pass)
NITURA (instruction; 24-hour duty)
Note: DE LA REA (on official leave)
ALVARAN (peace-keeping mission)
ALEGRE (purely personal mission)
RODRIN (Utmost Liberality Rule)
 LABOR STANDARDS LAW

SEAFARERS: MONEY CLAIMS UNDER THE

POEA-SEC

o Sickness Allowance
o Disability Compensation
o Death Compensation
o Reimbursements
 COMPENSABILITY RULES
WORK-CONNECTION EFFECTIVITY OF
CONTRACT
Listed Diseases
Sec. 32-A, POEA-SEC
BURDEN
Unlisted Diseases
Sec. 20(B), POEA-SEC
OF
Disputable Presumption
of Work-Connection
PROOF
6 Seamen PEME
Non-Exploratory
Case No. 40
1
WORK-CONNECTION
Disease - Sec. 32-A
Injury - ICO

DISABILITY

Grade Case No. 44 Grade

10 DEATH 1
Case No. 42
2
EFFECTIVITY OF
CONTRACT
Exception: Medical Repatriation
THIRD PHYSICIAN RULE

120 Case No. 43 240

 RECONCILIATION

1 2 3 4 Rule

Benedict Romana v. Magsaysay

2014 Racelis Maritime Corp.
2015 Licayan G.R. No. 192442, 9 August 2017
 NOT WORK
CONNECTED OUTSIDE PERIOD
1st Line
3-dayReporting Requirement Effect of
Abandonment of Treatment MEDICAL REPATRIATION
Notorious Negligence
2nd Line
Unlisted Disease The Canuel Case
1234 Rule The Racelis Case
3rd Line
Third Physician Rule
Disability Grading
 Third Physician Rule
The Hammonia Sequence The Philman Sequence

First Opinion First Opinion

Second Opinion Complaint
Complaint Second Opinion
Effect: Effect:
FIRST OPINION LACK OF CAUSE OF
CONTROLS ACTION
 USD 60,000
TOTAL PERMANENT DISABILITY
The TAOK List
C.F. Sharp Crew Management, Inc. v. Joel Taok
G.R. No. 193679, 18 July 2012

(a) the company-designated physician failed to issue a declaration as

to his fitness to engage in sea duty or disability even after the lapse of the
120-day period and there is no indication that further medical treatment
would address his temporary total disability, hence, justify an extension of
the period to 240 days;

(b) 240 days had lapsed without any certification being issued by the
company-designated physician;

(c) the company-designated physician declared that he is fit for sea duty within
the 120-day or 240-day period, as the case may be, but his physician of
choice and the doctor chosen under Section 20-B(3) of the POEA-SEC are of
a contrary opinion;
(d) the company-designated physician acknowledged that he is partially
permanently disabled but other doctors who he consulted, on his own and jointly
with his employer, believed that his disability is not only permanent but total
as well;

(e) the company-designated physician recognized that he is totally and permanently

disabled but there is a dispute on the disability grading;
(f) the company-designated physician determined that his medical condition is not
compensable or work-related under the POEA-SEC but his doctor-of-choice and the
third doctor selected under Section 20-B(3) of the POEA-SEC found otherwise and
declared him unfit to work;
(g) the company-designated physician declared him totally and permanently disabled but
the employer refuses to pay him the corresponding benefits; and
(h) the company-designated physician declared him partially and permanently disabled
within the 120-day or 240-day period but he remains incapacitated to perform
his usual sea duties after the lapse of the said periods.
RIGHT TO SECURITY OF TENURE
VIOLATIONS
ryt 2 rmain mplyd til dsmsd
4 a jst or au2rizd coz
1
MANAGEMENT Illegal Dismissal
PREROGATIVE 2
Illegal Demotion
DOCTRINE 3
OF Illegal Transfer
PERPETUAL EMPLOYMENT
 REGULAR EMPLOYMENT
ART. 294 Magic Terms
1 Necessary
Nature of Work Desirable
2 Vital
1 Year Rule Indispensable
3 Repeated hiring
Project Short intervals
4 Contract of Adhesion
Seasonal
 VALID DISMISSAL
JUST CAUSE AUTHORIZED CAUSE
(Fault-Based) (Non-Fault Based)
A Listed Cause, Art. 297

1
Analogous Causes Rule
2
Cognate Offenses Rule
3
Totality of Infractions Rule
 LOSS OF TRUST & CONFIDENCE
Rule: Breach must be KIP not CHIT

K- Knowing
I - Intentional
P- Purposeful
C - Careless
H - Heedless
I - Inadvertent
T - Thoughtless
 LOSS OF TRUST & CONFIDENCE

Gaite v. Filipino Society of Composers Authors and

Publishers, Inc.
G.R. No. 219324, 8 Aug. 2018
Facts: Admission in email by GM of misappropriation of P17M;
NTE; Preventive Suspension with pay; Explanation denying the charge
and notifying management of filing of a complaint for constructive
dismissal; Investigation; Notice of Dismissal.

Issue: WON Gaite was validly dismissed.

Held: Yes. Gaite was a manager; her transfer of funds was

unauthorized; and her act was sufficient basis for loss of trust and
confidence.
Sample Argument: GomBurZa Method
The dismissal is valid.

The first requisite for dismissal on the ground of loss of

trust and confidence is that the employee concerned must be
holding a position of trust and confidence. The second
requisite is that the loss of confidence must be based on a
wilful breach of trust and founded on clearly established
facts.

Since Daniel is a middle manager and he knowingly,

intentionally and purposely violated financial rules as
determined during plant level investigation, his breach is a
sufficient basis for loss of confidence.
 SERIOUS MISCONDUCT
Misconduct
... improper or wrong conduct
Simple Misconduct
... trivial or unimportant
Serious Misconduct
... of such grave and aggravated character
... Renders employee unfit for continued
employment
WILFUL DISOBEDIENCE
Willful - American; Wilful – English

1
Reasonable Rule
2
Work-related
3
Made Known
4
Wilfully Violated
5
Wrongful and Perverse Attitude
 CRIME OR OFFENSE
VICTIM:
(1) Employer;
(2) Member of Immediate Family; or
(3) Authorized Representative
OTHER VICTIMS:
(1) Co-employee
(2) Stranger
VICTIMLESS:
Note: Attacking an artificial leg is malicious
mischief only.
 ANALOGOUS CAUSES
1
Expulsion from Union Types of Analogous
2 Causes
Quarrelsome Attitude 1
3 Analogous Causes for
Inefficiency Dismissal
4 2
Abandonment Analogous Causes for
Quitting
 DISMISSAL OF CERTAIN TYPES OF
EMPLOYEES
1 7
TEACHER CASUAL EMPLOYEE
2 8
UNION MEMBER/OFFICER SPECIAL WOKERS
3 9
PROBATIONARY EMPLOYEE OFW
4 10
SEAFARER OTHERS
5
PROJECT EMPLOYEE
6
FIXED-TERM EMPLOYEE
 CONSEQUENCES OF ILLEGAL
DISMISSAL
FULL BACKWAGES
How full is Full?
Limited Backwages
Withheld Backwages
IMMEDIATE REINSTATEMENT
How immediate is Immediate?
Reinstatement Bars
Separation Pay
OTHER RELIEFS
Financial Assistance
Damages
Attorney’s Fees
 AUTHORIZED CAUSES
Group One Group Two

1 1
Retrenchment Redundancy
2 2
Closure Automation
 MEDICAL TERMINATION
Prescribed Form of Evidence
The Solis Case
Due Process
Possible Bar Problems
Separation Pay
 RETIREMENT LAW
ART. 302 CASES
1
Requisites The Jaculbe Case

2 The Gerlach Case

Computation
22.5. x ADS x LoS