MCQ in Labor Law ______________ 1.

The workers employees working conditions, wages, health and safety, termination and retirement are covered by the labor code particularly under the : labor relations law; c. Employer-employees relation law; labor standards law; d. CBA. However, its relationship (employer-employees relationship) is governed particularly by : labor relations law; c. Employer-employees relation law; labor standards law; d. CBA. 2. The workers protection, particularly in cases of loss of income or injury, is better emphasized under the : labor relations law; c. Social Security laws; labor standards law; d. CBA. 3. The promotion of the welfare of the people calculated to insure their economic stability refers to : labor legislation; c. labor relations law; labor standards law; d. social legislation. 4. Humanization of laws and the equalization of social and economic forces so that justice may be approximated refers to : Social legislation; c. Social justice; Compassionate society; d. social responsibility. 5. The company over paid is employees when it pays to them overtime pay amounting to P100,000.00 although such overtime work was aborted due to typhoon, although the employees were already at the work place. The management is asking your opinion whether it could be deducted in the next month payroll. yes. under the principle of no work no pay basis; yes. under the principle of unjust enrichment; no. wages of the employees can not be check-off without its consent; no. the workers are already in work place which aborted the supposed works due to typhoon. Its considered working hours. 6. Aside from following the minimum wage mandate of the law, the employer used to give 1 sack of rice subsidy to each employee who have been employed for at least for 5 years. However, due to the recent price increase of rice from P500.00 to P1,800.00 per sack and of minimum wage hike from P200.00/day to P300.00/day, The management is contemplating to stop the rice subsidy of its employees. What would be your advice to the employer ? Do not stop the granting of the rice subsidy because it is a fringe benefit that has already ripened into a demandable right ; Do not stop the granting of the subsidy because it would amount to diminution of their wages; Stop the granting of the subsidy because such subsidy is an act of generosity on the part of the management which could be withdrawn at any time. Otherwise, the law punishes a person due to its generosity; Stop the granting of the subsidy. Otherwise, it would hurt the financial condition of the management which might lead to actual loss in its operation. 7. The newly hired employees complaint the granting of such subsidy which creates jealousy and wage distortion among the employees. Decide. The contention of the newly hired employees are correct. It creates a sort of discrimination among the employees; The contention of the newly hired employees are correct. The granting of subsidy violates the equal protection clause of the constitution;

The contention of the newly hired employees is wrong. Such subsidy is being granted due to generosity of the employer. Such generosity is not enforceable under the law; The contention of the newly hired employees is wrong. It is a management prerogative to give or not subsidy. As long as the management complied the minimum wage required by law. 8. RA 1234 required that employers with at least 50 employees shall provide them with a housing project. ABC Corporation with 100 employees questioned the legality of RA 1234 being unconstitutional because it imposes additional burden on the part of the employer. Decide on the validity of RA 1234. RA 1234 is a valid exercise of the police power of the state; RA 1234 is a valid legislation pursuant to the welfare clause stated in the constitution; RA 1234 is invalid. It encroaches the management prerogative; RA 1234 is invalid. It imposes additional burden. 9. Sensing that the employer is raking money (income) from the operations, the rank-infile personnel demand for an additional salary from P30,000.00/month to P100,000.00/month, inclusive of all other benefits. Such demand for increase, if granted, would constitute only 10% of the net retained earnings of the company. Would consider the refusal of the management proper? the refusal to grant such demand is proper because the employees were already earning above the minimum wage; the refusal is proper. It is discretionary on the part of the management; the refusal is unsatisfactory. While it is true that the employees has no right over the earnings of the company, however, the management should recognize the right of labor to its just share in the fruits of production; the refusal can not be fully appreciated. The huge earning is the product of the efforts of the employees and therefore, it is fair that the employees should share on it based on compassionate society. 10. An unregistered OFW pilot died in a plane crush in the country where OFWs were banned. His family in the Philippines requested assistance from the POEA. The POEA ask your opinion whether it is proper to render assistance ? POEA should render assistance. The constitution provides that the state shall afford protection to labor, local and overseas, organized and unorganized; POEA should render assistance under the doctrine of parens patria; POEA is justified to refuse assistance because the victim violated the Philippine law banning such employment; POEA is justified to refuse assistance. For lack of budget and likewise, he is not a member of the OFW group. Hence, he can not be entitled to any benefits derived therefrom. 11. Mapiloc Mining Corporation, as a policy, refuses to employ disable applicants for deployment inside its tunnel, such as those that can not walk and have to ride on a wheel chair. As counsel of applicant AA, how would you categorized such refusal ? such refusal is discriminatory ; such refusal is violative to the mandate of the constitution which promotes full employment and equality of employment opportunities for all; such refusal is an abuse of employers management prerogative; such refusal is condemnable, if not an out right unconstitutional and anti-social justice. 12. However, would you agree to the plan of the counsel to bring the matter before the court just to question its validity ? I will disagree on bringing the matter (policy) before the court. Courts has no jurisdiction over issues regarding the validity of an employers policy; I will disagree on bringing the matter (policy) before the NLRC. NLRC, being a quasijudicial body, has no adjudicatory power to determine the constitutionality of an employers policy; The matter should be brought before the attention of the legislative body for possible enactment of a law to curb such abuses of the management; The matter (policy) creates a vacuum in the relationship between the company and its applicants.

13. The agreement between the Maharlika Fishing Industry and its fishing crew is that whatever caught will be divided into two (2) parts, after deducting the cost of fishing. will goes to the fishing crews which will be divided equally among themselves. The share (income) of each is sufficient for the support of their families. However, lately, due to the strikes of the fishes, the caught is so minimal that each crew shares only P100.00 for a week fishing. Hence, they ask that the management should abono the shortage of their income. Decide. the management should not be liable for abono due to the presence of their contract; the management should make an abono in compliance with the constitutional mandate that the employees shall be given a living wage or wage that is sufficient for their subsistence; the management should not be liable for abono because the management is also suffering from losses in the operation; the management should make some abono based on compassionate society and social resposibilty. 14. Henry work as pogonero of a bakery. Lately, he complained because it is too hot in his working area and wanted to have it air conditioned. But the management refuses because it will be too expensive to have it air conditioned. Hence, the manager, Po Wah, told him that if you can not agwans, you better discans. Would you considered the complaint of Henry meritorious ? meritorious. Workers should be entitled to a human condition of works; unmeritorious. It is logical that pogonero works in a hot place (pogon); meritorious. It every employee has the right to express their grievances; unmeritorious. He had accepted the work and later to complain about it. He is considered estopped. 15. It is the policy of Tulog-Tulog religious organization that there shall be no courtship between male and female members among themselves. However, members Jose and Adela fall in love with each other for being the record holder of the collection, for which they are compensated P100.00 per day and the deficiency shall be treated as a donation to the organization. When caught, both were dismissed from employment. Decide. the dismissal is invalid. Because falling in love with each other is not a valid ground for termination from service under the labor code; the dismissal is valid considering that it violates the policy; the dismissal is valid. Being a religious organization, it is beyond the scope of the labor code; the dismissal is invalid. It is violative to their security of tenure. 16. The Management refuses to recognize any union within its employees due to union competition activities which resulted to a reduction of employees out-put. This is a case of : a. union busting; b. violation of the right of the workers to self organization; c. violation of the employees right to a peaceful concerted activities; d. the refusal to recognize is a management prerogative. 17. The management and the union entered into a CBA wherein it provides for no strike no lock out . whether such agreement is valid ? valid. Such agreement constitutes a waiver of the right to strike. Accordingly, rights may be waived; valid. Such agreement constitute the law between the parties; invalid. To conduct strike is part and parcel of the right to organize; invalid. The employees can not be denied to have a peaceful concerted activities which includes the right to strike in accordance with law. 18. Bigatin Stevedoring Inc. excludes its union members to participate in its policy making operations on the ground that the members were illiterate. This is a case of :

violation of the workers right to participate in policy and decision making process affecting their rights and benefits granted by law; discriminatory act on the part of the management; violation of their rights, if not an outright insult; management prerogative. 19. Due to the coming Christmas party, the union and the management wherein the management wanted to have it held within its compound, while the employees wanted to have it held in a 5 star Insular-waterfront hotel. The conflict should be resolved before the : NLRC; c. labor arbitration; c. Bureau of labor relations. Court; d. CBA grievance committee; 20. Whenever a conflict that may arise between the management and the workers or union, it would be better to submit the conflict before : voluntary arbitration; c. grievance committee; compulsory arbitration; d. quasi-judicial body of the government. 21. The jurisdiction of the Department of Labor and Employment includes : administrative, supervisory and quasi-judicial function; purely administrative and supervisory function ; administrative, supervisory, regulatory and quasi-judicial function; administrative, supervisory and regulatory function. 22. A family corporation was headed by the father, mother and children. The children being the area managers. Juan, not related to the family but connected to the corporation for employment only, complained that for the last 30 years, he was not promoted from his position as clerk. While his superiors (the children) only 19 years old were already the corporate executives. This is a case of : a. monopoly in the succession of office; b. inheritance of the office; c. discrimination; d. denial of employees to grow.

23. The management invited its Salesman David for an investigation regarding the fictitious transaction where the management was defrauded. Instead of responding to the call, David file an injunction before the court. What proper action should the counsel of the management undertake ? move for the dismissal of the injunction case because the court has no jurisdiction over labor issues ? move for the dismissal of the injunction case because labor issues can not be subjected to an injunction; move for the dismissal of the injunction case. Instead, direct the case to a labor arbitration ; move for the dismissal of the injunction case for being premature. 24. It is the policy of Wanbol University known to every body that no unwed mother or single parent shall be allowed to teach or study in the university. Maria Clara was its regular teacher when she fall in love with an American playboy Steve resulting her pregnancy without the benefit of marriage. Hence, the University dismissed her from employment. Decide. the dismissal is proper, considering the policy is well known to every body. Such act of Maria Clara is a clear violation of the policy; the dismissal is proper, the University has its management prerogative to establish such policy no contrary to law; the dismissal is improper. She being a regular teacher, violated her security of tenure; the dismissal is improper. Such pregnancy is not a criminal act which would degrade the University good reputation. 25. Would you consider the policy not to allow a teacher from teaching or student from enrolling whenever they are found to be an unwed mother or single parent ?

such policy is ridiculous, if not blatant violation of the academic freedom of the teacher and students. The state shall afford full protection to labor and equality in the employment regardless of race, creed and sex; such policy violates the equal protection clause of the constitution that people belonging to a particular class shall be treated alike. There is no valid classification between the unwed mother and a duly wed mother; such policy is a management prerogative. Particularly to promote good moral values; such policy is an exercise of academic freedom of the school. 26. Applicant for employment Teban agreed in writing that he is willing to receive a wage of P150.00 although the minimum wage is P350.00. when an ocular inspection held by the Bureau of Labor, this agreement was discovered and order the management to pay Teban an amount of P20,000.00 for the 100 days of work pursuant to the minimum wage order. As counsel of the employer, would you suggest to the management to comply the order ? no. there was an agreement upon the assumption of employment and accordingly, obligation arising from contract shall have the force of law and shall be complied with in good faith; no. the execution of the agreement constitutes as a waiver of whatever the law may required. Accordingly, rights may be waived; yes. parties may enter into any terms, clauses and conditions, provided its is not contrary to law. Otherwise, it shall be treated as null and void for being violative to the law; yes. dura lex sed lex. 27. The NLRC decided in favor of the Matapat Labor Union and the management opted no to further appeal the decision but refuses to pay the awards. The labor Union wanted to implement the awards of P10,000,000.00 pesos but does not know what to do. Please assist them : a. demand from the management the payment of the award; file a motion for writ of execution before the court; file a motion for writ of execution before the NLRC; file an attachment of properties before the court should the management continuously refuses to pay the awards. 28. Management prerogatives is not absolute because it may be subject to limitation : law; b. contract; c. quasi-contract; d. regulations or policies . 29. Labor code applies to : GOCC created by congress; c. GOCC as an agency of the government; GOCC created under BP 68; d. GOCC as an instrumentality of the government. 30. Would it be proper to conclude that the deficiency of the labor code is supplemented by the Civil service law or vice-versa ? no suppletory character. Both are separate and distinct from each other; no suppletory character. Civil service law governs all government employees, while Labor Code governs private employees; yes. both laws covers employment relations; yes. both laws pertains the welfare of the working class. 31. At a certain corner of the street, Maria has been a jeepney barker wherein she received P5.00 every time a jeep is loaded with passengers. This practice started and continues for more than decades. The barangay chairman of the locality ask your opinion as labor expert whether there is an employer-employee relationship between the driver of the jeepneys and Maria ? yes. the P5.00/trip constitutes as wage/compensation of Maria paid by the driver. Hence, it constitute as a proof of the existence of employer-employee relationship;

yes. the work of Maria as barker is necessarily needed by the driver in order to have passengers; no. there is no employer-employee relationship because the driver has no control over how Maria would bark or call passengers; no. there is no employer-employee relationship. 32. Every Christmas, the company tenders a Christmas party for its employees and their families. For the occasion, the company orders lumpia shanghai from Masarap caterer. This practice has been observed for more than decades. But lately, Masarap caterer discovered that the company ordered lumpia shanghai from Healthy caterer, a competitor. Hence, the Masarap caterer ask your opinion whether it would be proper to file an illegal dismissal against the company for not ordering from them ? yes. the act of the company constitute as illegal dismissal. The act of ordering lumpis shanghai is seasonal. Hence, every season, the company should order from them; yes. there is bad faith on the part of the company for lack of notice and hearing with Masarap caterer before ordering from its competitor; no. there is no employer-employee relationship. And likewise, it a management prerogative where to order the lumpia shanghai; no. the action would not prosper due to absence of employer-employee relationship. 33. Rosita worked as domestic helper of Don Pepot receiving a monthly salary of P3,000.00. However, for 3 months, she was not paid of her salary. Rosita is now contemplating to file an action for recovery of unpaid salary before : DOLE b.. Court c. NLRC d. Barangay Lupon per PD 1508 d. open shop.

34. Such act constitutes unfair labor practice : union shop; b. closed shop; c. run away shop;

35, Such act constitutes illegal dismissal : constructive dismissal; c. transfer of work place; diminution of salary; d. demotion of rank. 36. Such act constitutes work hours and, therefore, compensable : waiting time for the bus to ferry them to the work place; playing madjong to passed the time while waiting for a call; on an errand for the companys job; while returning home. 37. The rule is that all work connected injuries are compensable, except when the injuries sustained while : under intoxication; c. under insanity; under a private act; d. suicide. 38. The underlying reason for prohibiting direct hiring of OFW is that : a. The POEA will be deprived of the required contribution of the OFW; b. The government could not monitor their whereabouts; c. To avoid the OFW from being exploited by their foreigner employer; d. To avoid being undocumented alien abroad. 39. Jamil was a working student of a state university until he graduated. The arrangement is that jamil waives all his rights to wages and the University will allows him to study. Computing the minimum wage he is supposed to received and the tuition fee he is supposed to pay, it turns out that he has an excess of P200,000.00. Hence, he filed a complaint for unpaid wages before the NLRC. Decide. he is entitled to the difference of P200,000.00 as a working student who serve the necessary activities of the university; he is not entitled due to the arrangement; he is entitled to such difference because such waiver is void being contrary to policy and in case of ambiguity, the agreement shall be resolve in favor of the working class;

the NLRC has no jurisdiction over the complaint due to absence of employer-employee relationship. 40. Matibay recruitment agency recruited A, B, C, D and E for placement in Taiwan with a promise to leave immediately not later than December 2008. Unfortunately, until now they are still waiting for that promise despite of having paid P100,000.00 each as placement fee. With the assistance of the DOLE, they individually filed for the refund of their payment and illegal recruitment : illegal recruitment committed by syndicate; illegal recruitment committed in large scale; recruitment without license; simple illegal recruitment. 41. Simple illegal recruitment prescribed in (from the act of illegal recruitment) : 2 years ; c. 4 years; e. 6 years; 3 years; d. 5 years; f. 1 year. 42. While economic sabotage prescribed in (from the act of illegal recruitment) : a. 10 years; b. 15 years; c. 20 years; d. 5 years. 43. Teban wanted to be a magician someday. Hence, he applied and allowed to work with the International Circus headed by Master of the masters of Magic Prof. Von Tog. What possible category of employment should he deserved : a. learner; b. apprentice; c. probationary; d. regular; e. casual; d. seasonal.

44. The employees of the Grandair Lines filed a notice of strike. What is the underlying reason(s) why the Secretary of Labor assumed immediate jurisdiction over the said notice of strike ? a. because the airlines is composed of hundred personnels which will cripple the riding public; b. because the airlines is vested with public interest; c. because the airlines is has advance booking of passenger which will be stranded. 45. Dr. Tesoro passed the medical board examination and before his license could be released, he must have rendered a 2 years residency in a reputable hospital. Hence, he worked as a resident physician in Magaling hospital where he is given a P30,000.00 monthly allowance. However, he was dismissed for being a chick-boy as pregnated 10 nurses at the same time. Hence, he complaint for violation of his security of tenure. Decide. a. his dismissal is valid. His act is violative to the proper norm of a physician; b. his dismissal is valid. There is no violation of security of tenure because of absence of employer-employee relationship; c. his dismissal is valid. His act is violative to the reproduction program of the government; d. his dismissal is valid. His act constitute mass production. 46. Jose signed a learnership with the BB food manufacturing. His work is to taste the food manufactured whether it is fit for consumption. After a month, Jose died due to infatso. Will his employment be considered regular in order to avail the benefits under the law ? his employment is considered as regular, his task is necessarily connected with the activities of the employer; his employment is considered as regular, the learnership agreement was not approved by the TESDA, hence, it is not effective and Jose is not considered as a learner; his employment is considered as regular, the cause of his died is work related; his employment is regular, and therefore, entitled to all the benefits under the law.

47. Conductor X of the Bachelor bus plying Davao Butuan route is asking whether he is entitled to overtime pay because the bus leave Davao terminal at 7am and arrived at Butuan terminal at 2pm. Rest for 2 hours, then leave for Davao at 4pm and arrive Davao terminal at 11pm. During the trip, inspectors come and go to check the bus. Decide; X is entitled to overtime pay, being a regular employee; X is entitled to overtime pay because he is required to work beyond the 8 hrs. labor law; X is not entitled to overtime payment because hes is a field personnel; X is not entitled to overtime pay because, during the trip, he is given free meals from the carenderia where he stop for the lunch of the passengers. 48. Due to her sexy figure and weight of 50 pounds, Makarina was assigned as a flight stewardess of the Grandair Airlines. However, due to fat salaries, she became so fat the she weight 100 kilos and could hardly move inside the plane due to obesity. Hence, the management decided to ground her until she regained her original physique and weight. Is the decision of the management proper ? a. the decision is improper, it amounts to constructive dismissal of Makarina; b. the decision is improper, it amounts to discrimination; c. the decision is proper, Makarina violated the international standard of an stewardess qualification and the same is a continuing requirement; d. the decision is proper. Otherwise, the plane could not take of due to heavy weight. 49. In the execution of any labor contract or CBA, could the parties avails the benefit of freedom to stipulate ? freedom to stipulate is a civil law doctrine which is available in all forms of contract; freedom to stipulate is a right provided it is not contrary to law, moral, good custom, public order or public policy; freedom to stipulate does not apply in labor contract/CBA because it is governed by the labor laws; freedom to contract can not be availed of. Employment is government by law and not subject to stipulations. 50. Working conditions provided under the Labor laws covered all working class, excluding : a. government employees; b. employees of GOCC created by charter; c. managerial position; d. domestic servants or in personal service of another; e. workers paid by result; f. field personnel. g. all of the above. 51. the minimum wage in the region is P300.00/day. Last week pakyawero Lucas received P3,000.00 for 5 days work. But for this week, he received only P1,000.00 for 6 days work. And he complaint before the Bureau of Labor that his earnings is below the minimum wage. Decide whether the employer would be required to pay the balance to complete his daily minimum wage ? a. NO. under the concept of pakyaw, he deserved what he has worked; b. NO. pakyao is the contract that governs them. Accordingly, obligations arising from contract shall have the force of the law between the parties and shall be complied with in good faith; c. YES. due to compassionate society. Those who have less in life shall have more in law; d. YES. labor contract shall be interpreted in favor of the working class. 52. The management announced that those who wanted to attend the management seminar shall be allowed to have a leave of absence with pay. Atty. Magtangol manifested his intention to attend the 7 days (1 week) seminar. As an in house counsel,

he works only for 5 days a week at the rate of P1,000.00/day. Is he entitled to the Saturdays and Sundays works credit ? he is entitle for the 2 days work credit being a part of the seminar which is with pay; he is entitle for the 2 days work credit. It is an exercise of freedom of expression and education on the part of the participant and for their employer also; he is not entitle. His work is only good for 5 days. To allows him would be a gross disregard to the principle of fair days pay for a fair days work; he is not entitle, otherwise, it would constitute an unjust enrichment. 53, Boboy, the personal body guard of Congressman Magtibay and receiving P15,000.00 monthly salary, was dismissed when he hide himself inside the car when an ambushed was made against the Congressman. Hence, he filed a complaint for illegal dismissal with prayer for reinstatement and recovery of unpaid 1 month salary before the Labor Arbiter. Decide. the LA has no jurisdiction over the case. There is no employer-employee relationship; the LA has no jurisdiction over the case. The complainant is rendering personal service to Congressman. And therefore, any complaint should be lodged before the DOLE; the LA has jurisdiction over the case. The complaint involves recovery of P15,000.00 with reinstatement ; the LA has jurisdiction over the case. Being a case of illegal dismissal. Is the dismissal valid ? yes. employees serving for the personal benefits of the employer is based on trust and confidence. The loss of such trust/confidence is a valid ground for dismissal; yes. employees serving for the personal benefits of the employer is personal in nature which could only be determined by the employer the employer can not just dismissed an employee. Otherwise, it would infringed the security of tenure of the employee concer; no. employees could not be dismissed without a valid cause. As the Labor Arbiter, how would you rule on the said complaint ? there is an illegal dismissal. The ground cited for dismissal is not valid. Loss of trust and confidence, as the ground apply only to managerial employees; there is an illegal dismissal. The act of the body is proper. It is but natural for a person to preserve his life; the dismissal is valid. Hiding during the ambush is equivalent to abandonment of work; the dismissal is valid. Persons rendering personal service/comfort of the employer is subject to trust and confidence. Employer can not be compelled to employ person whom he can not trust. 54. Teban, a car wash boy of Malines car washing, and without the consent of the employer, surreptitiously drive the vehicle entrusted by the owner for washing. Unfortunately, the said car crash into a Davao light post resulting to damage to the vehicle and the electric post. The Davao light file a civil action against Teban and impleading the employer. Will the employer be civilly liable ? yes. the employer is subsidiarily liable ; yes. the employer is liable due to the presence of employer-employee relationship; no. the employer is not liable. the act of Teban was not within his assigned task; no. the employer is not liable. the act being unknown to the employer. 55. Three groups of labor unions were filing for certification election to attain the right to bargain with the management. The 1 st group consist of the retire employees. The 2 nd group consist of present employees and the 3 rd groups consist of the affiliate union members and it was the 1st that won in the certification election but the management refuses to bargain with them. the refusal is valid. Because the group are no longer employees of the management; the refusal is valid. The group having retired from service terminates the employer employee relationship and there is no obligation to bargain collectively with them; the refusal is unreasonable. The management have to bargain with the 1 st group considering it won in the certification election, therefore, it attain the right to represent the employees;

the refusal is unreasonable. For failure to bargain, the management is liable for ULP. 56. X Corporation operates a fastcraft plying Davao City Lupon, Davao Oriental. The arrangement between the management and the crew is that the crew shall received 50% of whatever income derived from its operations after deducting the necessary expenses incurred. For the month of December, the crews were asking whether they are entitled for a 13th month salary. Decide. a. yes. workers paid by result is entitled to 13 th month pay based on the average income for the 12 months; b. yes. all workers are entitled to a 13th month pay; c. no. because the arrangement between the management and the crew partook of a joint venture or partnership; d. no. the 13th month pay is beyond their arrangement. 57. Mario drive the taxi cab owned by Maligaya Transport from 7am to 7pm daily and upon car barn he have to pay P700.00. to the owner. The practice goes on for years. Mario is now asking whether he is entitled to an overtime pay ? a. no. the agreement is based on boundery system; b. no. the owner has no control over the driver, Mario; c. yes. there exist an employer-employee relationship with them. Hence, all workers are entitled to overtime pay; d. yes. in case of doubt, the doubt should be resolve in favor of the working class. 58. Johnny purchased a house and have it renovated by Engr. Matibay for P1,000,000.00. Engr. Matibay will provide for labor and materials. Unfortunately, laborer Juan, while fixing the ceiling was scared when he saw Ping Samson hiding inside the ceiling and fell on the floor resulting to his physical injuries. Who would be liable for the medication of Jose ? a. Johnny b. Engr. Matibay c. Jose himself d. Ping Samson.

59. Every day Batoto, a 12 years old bilaan boy, would ask for food from spouses Samson and Delilah, they always share him with their left-over. One day, out of pity, the spouses agreed to hire Batoto as sweeper of their office which makes Batoto so glad. Batoto was given free accommodation, free meals plus P100.00 daily. If you will be ask, is there any violation committed by the spouses ? a. no. the act of hiring is due to pity and the works assigned is simple which needs no skill; b. no. the intention is noble on the part of the spouses; c. yes. for hiring a person below 15 years old, unless under the control of his parents; d. yes. hiring a minor would disrupt his studies. 60. The supervisory employees form a union and filed a petition for certification election while the union of the rank and file is still the recognized bargaining unit. Hence, the management moved for the dismissal of the said petition. Rule on the motion. the motion should be granted. Otherwise, it would violates the 1 union I company policy; the motion should be granted. It would creates competition between the2 unions as bargaining units; the motion should be denied. The management has no business in the certification of election, except to determine the legitimate employees whether they belongs to the rank-in-file or to the managerial or supervisory levels; the motion should be denied. Filing of certification for employment is an exercise of the employees freedom of expression. And accordingly, the rule of the management is similar to the bystander who shall not interfere with the process.

61. Is the agreement to have a fixed period of employment violative to the security of tenure : yes. because upon arrival of the period, with or cause, the employee ceases from service; yes. because the labor code provides that termination from service can not be done without just or valid cause; no. the agreement becomes the law of the parties. Its deficiency will be supplemented by the labor code, provided such fixing of the period for employment was not for the purpose of circumventing the law; no. the agreement is valid. Provided it is made known to the party prior to the star of his employment. 62. Juan Tamban gives a P1,000,000.00 each to his 3 sons, Tiburcio, Toto and Tata. Each son organized a machine shop corporation headed by them but under the supervision of their father. Having the same set of officers, using the same machineries and building. Manny and Pacquito works at Tiburcio Corporation. However, due to their expertise, they are requested to assist the other 2 corporation for a fee. There are times that the workers of Tiburcio were called for an errand by the other 2 corporations. Unfortunately, Tiburcio corporation became insolvent and the workers were asking whether they could demand from the other 2 corporations their unpaid salaries ? Decide. yes. their employer are the 3 corporation; yes. for they also served the other 2 corporations; no. their employer is the Tiburcio corporation. and that they have separate and distinct personality from one another. no. for them to demand their unpaid salaries from the other 2 corporations, they must first pierce the corporate veil. The home owners of Maligaya subdivision organized a homeowners association which was registered before the SEC. and appointed Pablo, a member of the homeowners association, as the subdivision manager, receiving P8,000.00 monthly salary. Pablo was untimely dismissed from service due to tsismis. Hence, Pablo consulted you whether such dismissal constitute illegal dismissal under the labor law ? Whether there is an employer-employee relationship between the association (employer) and Pablo ?

Balladares vs. Peak Ventures GR# 161794 June 16, 2009 Labor Law Facts : Balladares, et. Al, were employed as security guards of Peak Ventures and deployed at YMOAA. They filed a complaint of underpayment before the DOLE and discovered that the underpayment totaled to P1.1M. Each employee has a claim of more than P5,000.00 underpayment. Issue : whether the DOLE has jurisdiction to adjudicate where the claim is more than P5,000.00 ? Held : YES, pursuant to its visitorial power. Issue : whether the YMOAA is jointly and solidarily liable for the underpayment ? YES V.L. Enterprises vs. CA 518 SCRA 174 March 12, 2007 Facts : A complaint involving underpayment of wages and other benefits was filed before the DOLE. In order to verify the allegations in the complaint, DOLE conducted an inspection, which yielded proof of violations of labor standards. Issue : whether the DOLE has jurisdiction to decide the issue ? YES Held : RA 7730, amending Labor Code, Art. 128 (b). The Secretary of Labor is now empowered to hear and decide, in a summary proceeding, any matter involving the recovery of any amount of wages and other monetary claims arising out of employer-

employee relations at the time of the inspection, even if the amount of the money claim exceeds P5,000.00. By the nature of the complaint and from the result of the inspection, the authority of the DOLE, under Article 128, came into play regardless of the monetary value of the claims involved. ART. 128. Visitorial and enforcement power. (a) The Secretary of Labor or his duly authorized representatives, including labor regulation officers, shall have access to employers records and premises at any time of the day or night whenever work is being undertaken therein, and the right to copy therefrom, to question any employee and investigate any fact, condition or matter which may be necessary to determine violations or which may aid in the enforcement of this Code and of any labor law, wage order or rules and regulations issued pursuant thereto. (b) Notwithstanding the provisions of Articles 129 and 217 of this Code to the contrary, and in cases where the relationship of employer-employee still exists, the Secretary of Labor and Employment or his duly authorized representatives shall have the power to issue compliance orders to give effect to the labor standards provisions of this Code and other labor legislation based on the findings of labor employment and enforcement officers or industrial safety engineers made in the course of inspection. The Secretary or his duly authorized representatives shall issue writs of execution to the appropriate authority for the enforcement of their orders, except in cases where the employer contests the finding of the labor employment and enforcement officer and raises issues supported by documentary proofs which were not considered in the course of inspection. An order issued by the duly authorized representative of the Secretary of Labor and Employment under this article may be appealed to the latter. In case said order involves a monetary award, an appeal by the employer may be perfected only upon the posting of a cash or surety bond in the amount equivalent to the monetary award in the order appealed from. Issue : whether appeal by the employer to the Secretary of labor form the DOLE requires appeal bond ? YES Cordova v. Keysas Boutique 470 SCRA 144 September 16, 2005 The purpose of an appeal bond is to ensure, during the period of appeal, against any occurrence that would defeat or diminish recovery by the aggrieved employees under the judgment if subsequently affirmed. Ex-Bataan Veterans Security Agency, Inc. v. Laguesma 537 SCRA 651 November 20, 2007 While it is true that under Articles 129 and 217 of the Labor Code, the Labor Arbiter has jurisdiction to hear and decide cases where the aggregate money claims of each employee exceeds P5,000.00, said provisions of law do not cover the visitorial and enforcement powers of the Secretary of Labor. Rather, said powers are defined and set forth in Article 128 of the Labor Code (as amended by RA 7730) Cirineo Bowling Plaza, Inc. v. Sensing The visitorial and enforcement powers of the DOLE Regional director to order and enforce compliance with labor standard laws can be exercised even where the individual claim exceeds P5,000. Provided there is an employer-employee relationship that still existed. However, if the labor standards case is covered by the exception clause in Article 128 (b) of the Labor Code, then the Regional Director will have to endorse the case to the appropriate Arbitration Branch of the NLRC. In order to divest the Regional Director of jurisdiction, the following elements must be present: (a) that the employer contests the findings of the labor regulations officer and raises issues thereon;

(b) that in order to resolve such issues, there is a need to examine evidentiary matters; and (c) that such matters are not verifiable in the normal course of inspection. (d) The employer shall raise such objections during the hearing of the case or at any time after receipt of the notice of inspection results. Underlying reason for granting the DOLE visitorial power The worker need not litigate to get what legally belongs to him, for the whole enforcement machinery of the DOLE exists to insure its expeditious delivery to him free of charge.

Bombo Radio vs. Sec. of Labor GR#17965 May 8, 2009 Labor Law Facts : Drama talent Juezan filed a complaint before the DOLE against Bombo Radyo for non-payment of incentive leaves, 13th month pay, holiday/rest day and illegal deduction, non-coverage of SSS. Upon inspection of the DOLE, the DOLE assess the deficiency amounting to P203,726.30. which the company opposessed on the ground that there is no employer-employee relationship between them. Issue : whether the Secretary of labor has the power to determine the existence of employer-emplyee relationship ? NO Held : The determination of employer-employee relationship could not be done thru inspection of papers. It requires evidenciary matters which could be proper determined by the NLRC. Issue : when does the visitorial and enforcement power of the DOLE may be exercise ? Held : The visitorial and enforcement power of the DOLE comes into play only in cases when the relationship of employer-employee still exists. In line with the granting of power to the DOLE which is to give effect to the labor standard provision of labor Code and other labor legislation. The clause in cases where the relationship of employer-employee still exists signifies that the employer-employee relationship must have existed even before the emergence of the controversy. Necessarily, the DOLEs power does not apply in two instances, namely: (a) where the employer-employee relationship has ceased ; and (b) where no such relationship has ever existed. Sec. 3, Rule 11 of the Rules on the Disposition of Labor Standards Cases Rule II MONEY CLAIMS ARISING FROM COMPLAINT/ROUTINE INSPECTION Sec. 3. Complaints where no employer-employee relationship actually exists. Where employer-employee relationship no longer exists by reason of the fact that it has already been severed, claims for payment of monetary benefits fall within the exclusive and original jurisdiction of the labor arbiters. Accordingly, if on the face of the complaint, it can be ascertained that employer-employee relationship no longer exists, the case, whether accompanied by an allegation of illegal dismissal, shall immediately be endorsed by the Regional Director to the appropriate branch of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC). Issue : whether the assumption by the DOLE over the complaint give rise to a conclusion that there is an employeremployee relationship that exist ? Held : It can be assumed that the DOLE in the exercise of its visitorial and enforcement power somehow has to make a determination of the existence of an employeremployee relationship. Such prerogatival determination, however, cannot be coextensive with the visitorial and enforcement power itself. Indeed, such determination is merely preliminary, incidental and collateral to the DOLEs primary function of enforcing labor standards provisions.

The determination of the existence of employer-employee relationship is still primarily lodged with the NLRC. This is the meaning of the clause in cases where the relationship of employer-employee still exists in Art. 128 (b). Note : Before the DOLE may exercise its powers under Article 128, two important questions must be resolved: 1. Does the employer-employee relationship still exist or was there ever an employeremployee relationship to speak of; 2. Are there violations of the Labor Code or of any labor law ? Issue : what is the Underlying reason of the requirement that there must be an employer-employee relationship that exist before the DOLE may assume jurisdiction over claim beyond P5,000.00 thru its visitorial and enforcement power. Held : The existence of an employer-employee relationship is a statutory prerequisite to and a limitation on the power of the Secretary of Labor, one which the legislative branch is entitled to impose. The rationale underlying this limitation is to eliminate the prospect of competing conclusions of the Secretary of Labor and the NLRC, on a matter fraught with questions of fact and law, which is best resolved by the quasi-judicial body, which is the NRLC, rather than an administrative official of the executive branch of the government. If the Secretary of Labor proceeds to exercise his visitorial and enforcement powers absent the first requisite, his office confers jurisdiction on itself which it cannot otherwise acquire. Note : The approach suggested by the dissent is frowned upon by common law and not recognize under the Philippine jurisprudence. Preliminary or collateral question view (American doctrine) It is a general rule, that no court of limited jurisdiction can give itself jurisdiction by a wrong decision on a point collateral to the merits of the case upon which the limit to its jurisdiction depends; and however its decision may be final on all particulars, making up together that subject matter which, if true, is within its jurisdiction, and however necessary in many cases it may be for it to make a preliminary inquiry, whether some collateral matter be or be not within the limits, yet, upon this preliminary question, its decision must always be open to inquiry in the superior court. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Labor Law : Max was a family driver of the Akino family, after 20 years of service, he was no longer allowed to drive due to poor sight and designated him as labandero. Sensing that the same is a demotion and bad reputation of his macho image, he filed a complaint before the DOLE for constructive dismissal and non-payment of wages amounting to P50,000.00. 1. whether the DOLE has jurisdiction to entertain the complaint ? 2. In the event that the DOLEs decision is unfavorable to the employer, may the employer appeal the same ? 2. 1 does it requires appeal bond ? 3. Supposing Max filed his complaint 1 year after he stop working with the Akino family, May DOLE continue to exercise jurisdiction over it ?

SSS vs. Delos Santos GR#164790 August 29, 2008 Labor Law Guiding principle An estranged wife who was not dependent upon her deceased husband for support is not qualified to be his beneficiary. Facts : Antonio married Gloria, both Filipino. A year later, Gloria left Antonio and married Domingo. But come back to

Antonio and had 3 children. However, thereafter, Gloria went to USA and after obtaining a divorce, Gloria married Thomas, an American citizen, in USA. While Antonio married Cirila. Thereafter, Antonio changed his beneficiaries records at the SSS. Making Cirila as his lawful wife and cancel Gloria. When Antonio died, Both Cirila & Gloria filed a claim for death benefits. Issue : whether the marriage of Gloria to Domingo and Thomas be valid ? NO. Held : The marriage of Gloria to Domingo and Thomas is bigamous and therefore void. Any subsequent marriage while the first marriage is still subsisting is void. The marriage to Thomas is void despite of the divorce decree because the applicant is a Filipino citizen. Hence, such decree of divorce is inapplicable under the Philippine Law. Issue : who is the legal wife of Antonio for purposes of claiming the SSS benefits ? Held : The legal wife is Gloria. All the subsequent marriages were null and void for without having dissolve the first marriage. Issue : whether the legal wife Gloria is entitled to death benefits of Antonio ? NO Held : RA 8282, which is the law in force at the time of retiree Antonios death on May 15, 1999, provides : Section 12-B. Retirement Benefits. (d) Upon the death of the retired member, his primary beneficiaries as of the date of his retirement shall be entitled to receive the monthly pension. Provided, That if he has no primary beneficiaries and he dies within sixty (60) months from the start of his monthly pension, his secondary beneficiaries shall be entitled to a lump sum benefit equivalent to the total monthly pensions corresponding to the balance of the five-year guaranteed period, excluding the dependents pension. (k) Beneficiaries. The dependent spouse until he remarries and dependent children who shall be the primary beneficiaries. In their absence, the dependent parents, and subject to the restrictions imposed on dependent children, the legitimate descendants and illegitimate children who shall be the secondary beneficiaries. In the absence of any of the foregoing, any other person designed by the covered employee as secondary beneficiary. (e) Dependents The dependents shall be the following:

(1) The legal spouse entitled by law to receive support from the member; (2) The legitimate, legitimated or legally adopted, and illegitimate child who is unmarried, not gainfully employed and has not reached twenty-one years (21) of age, or if over twenty-one (21) years of age, he is congenitally or while still a minor has been permanently incapacitated and incapable of self-support, physically or mentally; and (3) The parent who is receiving regular support from the member. (k) Beneficiaries The dependent spouse until he or she remarries, the dependent legitimate, legitimated or legally adopted, and illegitimate children, who shall be the primary beneficiaries of the member: Provided, That the dependent illegitimate children shall be entitled to fifty percent (50%) of the share of the legitimate, legitimated or legally adopted children: Provided, further, That in the absence of the dependent legitimate, legitimated or legally adopted children of the member, his/her dependent illegitimate children shall be entitled to one hundred percent (100%) of the benefits. In their absence, the dependent parents who shall be the secondary beneficiaries of the member. In the absence of all of the foregoing, any other person designated by the member as his/her secondary beneficiary.

However, although respondent was the legal spouse of the deceased, she is still disqualified to be his primary beneficiary under the SSS Law. She fails to fulfill the requirement of dependency upon her deceased husband Antonio. SSS v. Aguas dependency under the SSS Law. Although a husband and wife are obliged to support each other, whether one is actually dependent for support upon the other cannot be presumed from the fact of marriage alone. Aguas pointed out that a wife who left her family until her husband died and lived with other men, was not dependent upon her husband for support, financial or otherwise, during the entire period. Okol vs. Slimmers World Inc. GR# 160146 December 11, 2009 Labor Law Facts : Okol was the vice president of the Slimmers World when suspended by the management. Such suspension was questioned by Okol before the labor Arbiter whose decision was reinstatement. Issue : whether the Labor Arbiter has jurisdiction over such suspension which amounts to illegal dismissal ? NO Held : The determination of the rights of a director and corporate officer dismissed from his employment as well as the corresponding liability of a corporation, if any, is an intracorporate dispute subject to the jurisdiction of the regular courts. four-fold test, (1) the power to hire, (2) the payment of wages, (3) the power to dismiss, and (4) the power to control, which must be applied. Estrada vs. NLRC GR#106722 October 4, 1996 a corporate officers dismissal is always a corporate act, or an intra-corporate controversy which arises between a stockholder and a corporation. The question of remuneration involving a stockholder and officer, not a mere employee, is not a simple labor problem but a matter that comes within the area of corporate affairs and management and is a corporate controversy in contemplation of the Corporation Code. Casino Labor Ass. vs. CA GR#141020 June 12, 2008 Labor Law Issue : whether the NLRC has jurisdiction over employer-employee relations in PAGCOR, PCOC and PSSC. Held : Pagcor, PCOC and PSSC are corporations created by an original charter. And in accordance with the Constitution and jurisprudence, corporations with original charter fall under the jurisdiction of the Civil Service Commission and not the Labor Department. PD 1869 exempts casino employees from the coverage of Labor Code provisions and although the employees are empowered by the Constitution to form unions, these are subject to the laws passed to regulate unions in offices and corporations governed by the Civil Service Law. Thus, it is the Civil Service Commission, and not the NLRC, that has jurisdiction over the employer-employee problems in PAGCOR, PCOC and PSSC. Yrasuegui vs. PAL GR#168081 October 17, 2008 Labor Law Facts : Flight steward Yrasuegui was dismissed from service because of his failure to adhere to the weight standards of the airline company due to obesity. Issue : whether the dismissal based on overweight due to obesity is valid ? YES Held : The weight standards of PAL are meant to be a continuing qualification for an employees position. The failure to adhere to the weight standards is an analogous cause for the dismissal of an employee under Article 282(e) of the Labor Code in relation to Article 282(a).

To be read by the examinee Employment in particular jobs may not be limited to persons of a particular sex, religion, or national origin unless the employer can show that sex, religion, or national origin is an actual qualification for performing the job. The qualification is called a bona fide occupational qualification (BFOQ). Issue : whether Philippne laws recognizes BFOQ ? YES Held : The constitution, Labor Code, RA 7277 - Magna Carta for Disabled Persons Constitution (1987), Art. XIII, Sec. 3. 1. The State shall afford full protection to labor, local and overseas, organized and unorganized, and promote full employment and equality of employment opportunities for all. 2. It shall guarantee the rights of all workers to self-organization, collective bargaining and negotiations, and peaceful concerted activities, including the right to strike in accordance with law. They shall be entitled to security of tenure, humane conditions of work, and a living wage. They shall also participate in policy and decision-making processes affecting their rights and benefits as may be provided by law. 3. The State shall promote the principle of shared responsibility between workers and employers and the preferential use of voluntary modes in settling disputes, including conciliation, and shall enforce their mutual compliance therewith to foster industrial peace. 4. The State shall regulate the relations between workers and employers, recognizing the right of labor to its just share in the fruits of production and the right of enterprises to reasonable returns to investments, and to expansion and growth. Art. 3. Declaration of Basic Policy. The State shall afford protection to labor, promote full employment, ensure equal work opportunities regardless of sex, race or creed, and regulate the relations between workers and employers. The State shall assure the rights of workers to self-organization, collective bargaining, security of tenure, and just and humane conditions of work. RA 7277 Magna Carta for disabled persons Sec. 32. Discrimination of Employment. No entity, whether public or private shall discriminate against a qualified disabled person by reason of disability in regard to job application procedures, the hiring, promotion, or discharge of employees compensation, job training and other terms, conditions and privileges of employment. The following constitute acts of discrimination: a) Limiting, segregating or classifying a disabled job applicant in such a manner that adversely affects his work opportunities; b) Using qualification standards, employment tests or other selection criteria that screen out or tend to screen out a disabled person unless such standards, tests or other selection criteria are shown to be related for the position in question and are consistent with business necessity; c) Utilizing standards, criteria, or methods of administration that: 1) have the effect of discrimination on the basis of disability; or 2) perpetuate the discrimination of others who are the subject to common administrative control. d) Providing less compensation, such as salary, wage or other forms of remuneration and fringe benefits, to qualified disabled employee, by reason of his disability, than the amount to which a non-disabled person performing the same work is entitled; e) Favoring a non-disabled employee over a qualified disabled employee with respect to promotion, training opportunities, study and scholarship grants, solely on account of the latters disability; f) Re-assigning or transferring a disabled employee to a job or position he cannot perform by reason of his disability;

g) Dismissing or terminating the services of a disabled employee by reason of his disability unless the employer can prove that he impairs the satisfactory performance of the work involved to the prejudice of the business entity; Provided, however, That the employer first sought to provide reasonable accommodations for the disabled persons; h) Failing to select or administer in the most effective manner employment tests which accurately reflect the skills, aptitude or other factor of the disabled applicant or employee that such test purports to measure, rather than the impaired sensory, manual or speaking skills of such applicant or employee, if any; and i) Excluding disabled persons from membership in labor unions or similar organizations. Second, in British Columbia Public Service Employee Commission (BSPSERC) v. The British Columbia Government and Service Employees Union (BCGSEU), the Supreme Court of Canada adopted the so-called Meiorin Test in determining whether an employment policy is justified. Under the Meiorin test, (1) the employer must show that it adopted the standard for a purpose rationally connected to the performance of the job; (2) the employer must establish that the standard is reasonably necessary to the accomplishment of that work-related purpose; and (3) the employer must establish that the standard is reasonably necessary in order to accomplish the legitimate workrelated purpose. Star Paper Corp. v. Simbol To justify a BFOQ, the employer must prove that : (1) the employment qualification is reasonably related to the essential operation of the job involved; and (2) that there is factual basis for believing that all or substantially all persons meeting the qualification would be unable to properly perform the duties of the job.