PROJECT PHOENIX 2016 Bureau of Employment Services (BES – Art. 15).
[Trans
Labor Laws and Social Legislations
Atty. Cecilio D. Duka, Ed.D.
Labor Standards Laws
Labor standards refers to the minimum
requirements prescribed by existing laws, rules and
regulations relating to wages, hours of work, cost of
living allowance and other monetary and welfare
benefits, including occupational, safety and health
standards (BatongBuhay Gold Mines, Inc., vs. Dela
Serna, et. al., G.R. No. 86963, August 6, 1999)They are
covered by Books I to IV of the Labor Code.
Labor Relations Law
Labor relations laws are the laws, rules and
regulations which govern the relationship between
employees and their employers, promote the right of the
employees to self-organization and collective bargaining,
penalize unfair labor practice, and provide modes for the
settlement of labor disputes such as conciliation,
mediation, grievance machinery, voluntary arbitration
and compulsory arbitration. They are covered by Books
V – VII of the Labor Code.
Social Legislations
Social legislationsare laws, rules, and
regulations that promote welfare of all sectors of
society.Social Legislationincludes laws that provide
particular kinds of protection or benefits to the society, in
furtherance of social justice. Not all social legislations
are labor laws. Labor lawsdirectly affect employment
they directly govern effects of employment. All labor laws
are social legislations. But not all social legislations are
labor laws.
Construction in favor of labor
All doubts in the implementation and
interpretation of the provisions of this Code, including its
implementing rules and regulations, shall be resolved in
favor of labor.
The liberality of law in favor of the working man
and woman still prevails and the official agency charged
by law to implement the constitutional guarantee of
social justice should adopt a liberal attitude in favor of
the employee in deciding claims for compensability,
especially in light of compassionate policy towards labor
which the 1987 Constitution vivifies and enhances.
(Employees’ Compensation Commission vs. Court of
Appeals, G.R. No. 121545, 14 November 1996, 264
SCRA 248)
Corporate Officers are not covered by the Labor
Code
Section 25 of the Corporation Code plainly
states that the corporate officers are the President,
Secretary, Treasurer and such other officers as may be
provided for in the By-Laws.Whoever are the corporate
officers enumerated in the by-laws are the exclusive
Officers of the corporation and the Board has no power
to create other Offices without amending first the
corporate By-laws.(Matling Industrial Corporation vs.
Coros, October 13, 2010)
POEA
Under Executive Order No. 797 (May 1, 1982)
and Executive Order No. 247 (E.O. No. 247), the POEA
was established and mandated to assume the functions
of the Overseas Employment Development Board
(OEDB – Art. 17), the National Seamen Board (NSB –
Art. 20), and the overseas employment function of the
1
Action Overseas Corporation, vs. Secretary of Labor,
G.R. No. 109583, September 5, 1997]
Money Claims of OFW
We reiterate our finding in Serrano v. Gallant
Maritime that limiting wages that should be recovered by
an illegally dismissed overseas worker to three months
is both a violation of due process and the equal
protection clauses of the Constitution. (Sameer
Overseas Placement vs. Cabiles, August 5, 2014)
Rates of OFW Remittance
Seamen and mariners – 80% of the basic salary,
Construction companies and their workers – 70% of the
basic salary, Professional workers (e.g. doctors, nurses,
engineers, teachers) whose employment contracts
provide for free board and lodging – 70% of the basic
salary, Professionals without free board and lodging –
50% of the basic salary, Domestic and other service
workers – 50% of the basic salary, all other workers –
50% of the basic salary(Section 2, of Executive Order
857)
License and authority
A license is a document issued by the
Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE)
authorizing a person or entity to operate a private
employment agency, while an authorityis a document
issued by the DOLE authorizing a person or association
to engage in recruitment and placement activities as a
private recruitment entity.
Illegal Recruitment
Illegal recruitment is committed when two elements
concur, namely; (1) the offender has no valid license or
authority required by law to enable one to lawfully
engage in recruitment and placement of workers; and (2)
he undertakes either any activity within the meaning of
“recruitment and placement” defined under Article 13(b),
or any of the prohibited practices enumerated under
Article 34 of the Labor Code. (People vs. Gutierrez, 422
SCRA 32)
Economic sabotage
Illegal recruitment when committed by a
syndicate or in large scale shall be considered as
offense involving economic sabotage.
Illegal recruitment is deemed committed in large
scale if committed against three or more persons
individually or as a group. In this case, five
complainants testified against appellant’s acts of illegal
recruitment, thereby rendering his acts tantamount to
economic sabotage.
Syndicated Illegal Recruitment
Illegal recruitment is deemed committed by a
syndicate when carried out by a group of three (3) or
more persons conspiring or confederating with one
another. (Section 6, Republic Act No. 8042)
Large Scale Illegal Recruitment
It is deemed committed in large scale if
committed against three (3) or more persons individually
or as a group.(Section 6, Republic Act No. 8042)
Illegal recruitment in large scale is committed
when a person "(a) undertakes any recruitment activity
defined under Article 13 (b) or any prohibited practice
enumerated under Article 34 of the Labor Code; (b) does
not have a license or authority to lawfully engage in the
recruitment and placement of workers; and (c) commits
the same against three or more persons, individually or
as a group.(People of the Philippines vs. Calonzo, G.R.
Nos. 115150-55, September 27, 1996)
Penalties for Illegal Recruitment
The penalties for illegal recruitment today are the
ones provided by Section 6, Republic Act No. 10022
which amended Republic Act No. 8042 which provided
for higher penalties on illegal recruitment than what are
provided by Article 39 of the Labor Code. Thus:
Simple illegal recruitment - imprisonment of 12 years
and 1 day to 20 years and a fine of1 million to
2 million pesos.
Illegal recruitment deemed as economic sabotage-
life imprisonment and a fine of2 million to 5
Million pesos.
The maximum penalty shall be imposed if the
person illegally recruited is less than eighteen (18) years
of age or committed by a non-licensee or non-holder of
authority
Consequences of Conviction for Illegal Recruitment
1. automatic revocation of the license or
authority (Art. 39[e]);
2. forfeiture of the cash and surety bonds (Art.
39[e]);
3. conviction for the crime of estafa, if found
guilty therefor. (People of the Philippines vs.
Calonzo, G.R. Nos. 115150-55, September
27, 1996)
Prescription of action for illegal recruitment
Illegal recruitment cases under this Act shall
prescribe in five (5) years: Provided, however, That
illegal recruitment cases involving economic sabotage as
defined herein shall prescribe in twenty (20) years.
(Section 12, Republic Act 8042)
Doctrine of Imputed Knowledge
The theory of imputed knowledge ascribes
the knowledge of the agent, to the principal,
employer not the other way around.The
knowledge of the principal-foreign employer cannot,
therefore, be imputed to its agent.(Sunace
International Management Inc. vs. NLRC, G.R. No.
161757, January 25, 2006)
Apprentice
An apprentice is a worker who is undergoing
training for an approved apprenticeable occupation
covered by a written apprenticeship agreement with an
individual employer.
Apprenticeable Occupation
An apprenticeable occupation means any trade,
form of employment or occupation which requires more
than three (3) months of practical training on the job
supplemented by related theoretical instruction.
Requirements for an apprentice
1. Must at least be 15 years old as Section 12 –
A of Republic Act No. 9231 prohibits the employment of
minor below 15 years old, except those employed in
entertainment business where a necessary permit is
issued by the Department of Labor and Employment.
2. Must have the vocational aptitude and
capacity for appropriate tests;
2
3. Must possess the ability to comprehend or
follow oral and written instructions.
Features of Apprenticeship Training
1. The apprentice must be paid not less than
75% of the prescribed minimum salary
2. There must be approval from DOLE Secretary
for an apprenticeship program (without such one shall be
deemed a regular employee)
3. The employer is not compelled to continue
one’s employment
4.One-half (1/2) of the value of labor training
expenses incurred for developing the productivity and
efficiency of apprentices of the training cost is deducted
from the employer’s income tax but it shall not exceed
ten percent (10%) of direct labor wage.
5. If the apprenticeship training is part of the
school curriculum, a requirement for graduation, or
board examination, the employer may not pay any wage.
Working scholars
There is no employer-employee relationship
between students on one hand, and schools, colleges or
universities on the other, where there is written
agreement between them under which the former agree
to work for the latter in exchange for the privilege to
study free of charge, provided the students are given
real opportunities, including such facilities as may be
reasonable and necessary to finish their chosen courses
under such agreement.(Section 14, Rule X,
Implementing Rules and Regulations of Book III, The
Labor Code)
Learners
Learners refers to persons hired as trainees in
semi-skilled and other industrial occupations which are
non-apprenticeable. Learnership programs must be
approved by the Technical Education and Skills
Development Authority based on the provisions of
Republic Act No. 7796.
Features of Learnership
1. The duration of the learnership period, which
shall not exceed three (3) months;
2. If the learnership of 3 months is completed,
the employer can be compelled to continue with the
services of the learner as a regular employee
3. There is a commitment from the employer to
employ the learners if they so desire, as regular
employees upon completion of the learnership
4. If the learner is dismissed from the service
without just and valid cause and without due process
after 2 months of service, he will be deemed as regular
employee
5. The wages or salary rates of the learners
which shall begin at not less than seventy- five percent
(75%) of the applicable minimum wage; and
Disabled persons
Disabled persons are those suffering from
restriction or different abilities, as result of a mental,
physical or sensory impairment, to perform an activity in
the manner or within the range considered normal for a
human being.
Supervisory Employees are deemed managerial
employees in view of Article 82
Officers or members of a managerial staff if they
perform the following duties and responsibilities:
(1) The primary duty consists of the performance
of work directly related to management policies of their
employer; (2) Customarily and regularly exercise
discretion and independent judgment; and (3) (i)
Regularly and directly assist a proprietor or a managerial
employee whose primary duty consists of the
management of the establishment in which he is
employed or subdivision thereof; or (ii) execute under
general supervision work along specialized or technical
lines requiring special training, experience, or
knowledge; or (iii) execute, under general supervision,
special assignments and tasks; and (4) Who do not
devote more than 20 percent of their hours worked in a
work week to activities which are not directly and closely
related to the performance of the work described in
paragraphs (1), (2) and (3) above. (Rule I, Section 2(c),
Labor Code Implementing Rules and Regulation, Book
III)
Bus Drivers and Conductors are not Field Personnel
The driver is under constant supervision while in
the performance of this work. He cannot be considered
field personnel. (Auto Bus Transport Systems, Inc. vs.
Bautista, G.R. No. 156367, May 16, 2005)
Hours worked
The following shall be considered as
compensable hours worked:
(a) All time during which an employee is required
to be on duty or to be at the employer's premises or to
be at a prescribed work place; and
(b) All time during which an employee is suffered
or permitted to work. (Section 3, Rule I, Labor Code
Implementing Rules and Regulation, Book III)
Working while sleeping
Sleepingwhile on duty is compensable if the
nature of the employee’s work allows sleeping without
interrupting or prejudicing work or when there is an
agreement between the employee and his employer to
that effect. For example, a truck helper may sleep after
performing his task and while his truck is traveling on its
way to its assignment. But of course, the same may not
be done by the driver.
Working while on calliscompensable if the
employee is required to remain on call in the employer’s
premises or so close thereto that he cannot use the time
effectively and gainfully for his own purpose.
Rules on meal periods
Rest periods or coffee breaks running from five
(5) to twenty (20) minutes shall be considered as
compensable working time.Thus, the eight-hour work
period does not include the meal break. Nowhere in the
law may it be inferred that employees must take their
meals within the company premises. Employees are not
prohibited from going out of the premises as long as they
return to their posts on time. Private respondent's act,
therefore, of going home to take his dinner does not
constitute abandonment.(Philippine Air Lines, Inc. vs.
National Labor Relations Commission, G.R. No. 132805,
February 2, 1999)
Night shift differential
Night shift differential is the amount which every
employee is entitled to receive which is equivalent to ten
percent (10%) of his regular wage for every hour he has
worked between 10 pm to 6 am. (Section 2 Rule II,
Implementing Rules and Regulation, Book III)
Those who are assigned to work on the so –
called graveyard shift are entitled to night shift
differential pay.
Overtime pay
3
Overtime pay means the additional
compensation for work performed beyond 8 hours.
Premium pay means the additional
compensation required by law for work performed within
8 hours on non-working days, such as rest days and
special days.
Entitlement to overtime pay must be proven
Notwithstanding the foregoing discussion,
petitioner failed to show his entitlement to overtime and
rest day pay due, to the lack of sufficient evidence as to
the number of days and hours when he rendered
overtime and rest day work. Entitlement to overtime pay
must first be established by proof that said overtime
work was actually performed, before an employee may
avail of said benefit. To support his allegations, petitioner
submitted in evidence minutes of meetings wherein he
was assigned to work on weekends and holidays at
Cityland’s housing projects. Suffice it to say that said
minutes do not prove that petitioner actually worked on
said dates. It is a basic rule in evidence that each party
must prove his affirmative allegations.(Lagatic vs.
National Labor Relations Commission, G.R. No. 121004,
January 28, 1998)
Overtime pay of seamen
The correct criterion in determining whether or
not sailors are entitled to overtime pay is not, therefore,
whether they were on board and can not leave ship
beyond the regular eight working hours a day, but
whether they actually rendered service in excess of said
number of hours. (Emphasis supplied) (Legahi vs.
National Labor Relations Commission,G.R. No. 122240,
November 18, 1999) attycdduka
To be entitled to two (2) days successive holidays:
1. One must be present on the day
immediately preceding the first holiday; or
2. One is on leave with pay
Two Regular Holidays Falling on the Same Day
When Araw ng Kagitingan falls on the same day
as Maundy Thursday or Good Friday, a covered
employee is entitled to at least two hundred percent
(200%) of his/her basic wage even if said day is
unworked. Where the employee is required to work on
that day, he/she is entitled to an additional 100% of the
basic wage.(2012 Handbook on Workers’ Statutory
Monetary BenefitsDole Bureau of Working Conditions)
Monthly paid employees are not entitled to holiday
pay
Monthly paid employees are not entitled to the
holiday pay if their total annual income is divided by
365 days resulting in a wage which is beyond the
minimum wage per day because they are considered
paid every day of the year including holidays, rest days
and other non-working days.
Requisites for the Enjoyment of Service Incentive
Leave
1. A total of 5 days leave in one year with pay
2. The employee must have been in the service
for at least 1 year whether broken or continuous
3. If unused the 5 days are paid their cash
equivalent at the end of the year
4. It covers all employees except the general
exceptions and establishments already giving sick
leaves/vacation leaves with pay for at least 5 days.
Service charge
 If the establishments like hotel, motels,
restaurants and the likes collect service charges and/or
the customers give tips for their services the following
rules must be observed:
1. Services-charges or compensation for service
rendered
2. Tips are for the recognition for satisfactory or
efficient service
3. The service charges must be pooled
4. The amount collected is divided between the
company (15%) and employees (85%)
5. It shall be given twice a month with intervals
of not more than 15 days
6. If discontinued, removed, or stopped, the
average, share of the employees of their service charge
or tips shall be integrated with their basic wage
Facilities are deductible from wages
Facilities are items of expense necessary for the
laborer's and his family's existence and subsistence so
that by express provision of law they form part of the
wage and when furnished by the employer are
deductible therefrom, since if they are not so furnished,
the laborer would spend and pay for them just the same.
They shall include all articles or services for the benefit
of the employee or his family but shall not include tools
of the trade or articles or services, primarily for the
benefit of the employer or necessary to the conduct of
the employer’s business. They form part of the wage and
deductible from the wage.(Mabeza vs. National Labor
Relations Commission, G.R. No. 118506, April 18, 1997
(271 SCRA 670)
Supplements are not deductible from wages
Supplements constitute extra remuneration or
special privileges or benefits given to or received by the
laborers over and above their ordinary earnings or
wages. They are independent of the wage and not wage
deductible. More significantly, the food and lodging, or
the electricity and water consumed by the petitioner
were not facilities but supplements. A benefit or privilege
granted to an employee for the convenience of the
employer is not a facility. (Mabeza vs. National Labor
Relations Commission, G.R. No. 118506, April 18, 1997)
A company practice favoring employees cannot be
withheld unilaterally by the employer
A company practice favorable to the employees
had indeed been established and the payments made
pursuant thereto, ripened into benefits enjoyed by them.
And any benefit and supplement being enjoyed by the
employees cannot be reduced, diminished, discontinued
or eliminated by the employer, by virtue of Sec. 10 of the
Rules and Regulations Implementing P.D. No. 851, and
Art. 100 of the Labor Code of the Philippines which
prohibit the diminution or elimination by the employer of
the employees’ existing benefits. (Sevilla Trading Co. vs.
Semana, G.R. No. 152456, April 28, 2004)
Time of payment of wages
(a) Wages shall be paid not less than once every
two (2) weeks or twice a month at intervals not
exceeding sixteen (16) days, unless payment cannot be
made with such regularity due to force majeure or
circumstances beyond the employer's control in which
case the employer shall pay the wages immediately after
such force majeure or circumstances have ceased. (b) In
case of payment of wages by results involving work
which cannot be finished in two (2) weeks, payment shall
be made at intervals not exceeding sixteen days in
proportion to the amount of work completed. Final
settlement shall be made immediately upon completion
4
of the work. (Section 3, Rule VIII, Implementing Rules
and Regulations of Book III of the Labor Code)
Job contracting
There is "job contracting" where (a) The
contractor carries on a distinct and independent
business and undertakes the contract work on his
account under his own responsibility according to his
own manner and method, free from the control and
direction of his employer or principal in all matters
connected with the performance of his work except as to
the results thereof; (b) The contractor has substantial
capital or investment; and (c) The agreement between
the principal and the contractor or subcontractor assures
the contractual employees' entitlement to all labor and
occupational safety and health standards, free exercise
of the right to self-organization, security of tenure, and
social welfare benefits.(Babas vs. Lorenzo Shipping,
December 15, 2010)
Department Order No. 18-A, November 14, 2011
Substantial capital refers to paid – up capital
stocks/shares of at least three million pesos (Php
3,000,000.00) in the case of corporations, partnerships
and cooperatives; in the case of single proprietorship, a
net worth of at least three million pesos (Php
3,000,000.00)
Elements of labor – only contracting
Under the Labor Code, two (2) elements must
exist for a finding of labor-only contracting: (a) the
person supplying workers to an employer does not have
substantial capital or investment in the form of tools,
equipment, machineries, work premises, among others,
and (b) the workers recruited and placed by such
persons are performing activities directly related to the
principal business of such employer. (Filipinas Synthetic
Fiber Corporation (FILSYN) vs. National Labor Relations
Commission, G.R. No. 113347, June 14, 1996)
College Professors are not independent contractors
This Court takes judicial notice that a university
controls the work of the members of its faculty; that a
university prescribes the courses or subjects that
professors teach, and when and where to teach; that the
professors' work is characterized by regularity and
continuity for a fixed duration; that professors are
compensated for their services by wages and salaries,
rather than by profits; that the professors and/or
instructors cannot substitute others to do their work
without the consent of the university; and that the
professors can be laid off if their work is found not
satisfactory. All these indicate that the university has
control over their work; and professors are, therefore,
employees and not independent contractors. There are
authorities in support of this view. (FEATI University vs.
Hon. Jose Bautista, G.R. No. L-21278, December 27,
1966)
Wage Distortion
The term "wage distortion", under the Rules
Implementing Republic Act 6727, is defined, thus:
Wage Distortion means a situation where an
increase in prescribed wage rates results in the
elimination or severe contradiction 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 differentiation. (Metropolitan Bank
& Trust Company Employees Union-ALU – TUCP, vs.
National Labor Relations Commission, G.R. No. 102636,
September 10, 1993)
Wage Distortion is a non - strikable issue
The solution to the problem of wage distortions
shall be sought by voluntary negotiation or arbitration,
and not by strikes, lockouts, or other concerted activities
of the employees or management. "Any issue involving
wage distortion shall not be a ground for a strike/lockout.
(IlawAtBuklod Ng Manggagawa (IBM) vs. National Labor
Relations Commission, G.R. No. 91980, June 27, 1991)
Appeal from the orders of DOLE Regional Director
under Art 128
The order of the Regional Director shall be final
and executory unless appealed to the Secretary of Labor
and Employment within ten (10) calendar days from
receipt thereof.(Section 1, Rule IV, Rules on the
Disposition of Labor Standards Cases in the Regional
Offices)
Jurisdiction of the DOLE Regional Director under
Art. 129
Under Article 129, the Regional Director or any
of the duly authorized hearing officers of DOLE has
jurisdiction over claims for recovery of wages, simple
money claims and other benefits, provided that the claim
is filed by an employee or person employed in domestic
or household service or househelper and the following
must concur:
1. the claim must arise from employer-employee
relationship;
2. the claimant is no longer employed and does
not seek reinstatement;
3. the aggregate money claim of each employee
does not exceed P5,000.00.
In the absence of any of the three (3) requisites,
the Labor Arbiters have exclusive original jurisdiction
over all claims arising from employer-employee
relations, other than claims for employee's
compensation, social security, medicare and maternity
benefits. (Brokenshire Memorial Hospital, Inc., vs.
Minister of Labor and Employment, et. al., G.R. No.
74621, February 7, 1990)
Jurisdiction of DOLERegional Director if the amount
exceeds P5000
But even if the amount of the claim exceeds
P5,000.00, the claim is not on that account necessary
removed from the Regional Director's competence. In
respect thereof, he may still exercise the visitorial and
enforcement powers vested in him by Article 128 of the
Labor Code, as amended, supra; that is to say, he may
still direct his labor regulations officers or industrial
safety engineers to inspect the employer's premises and
examine his records. (Brokenshire Memorial Hospital,
Inc., vs. Minister of Labor and Employment, et. al., G.R.
No. 74621, February 7, 1990)
Jurisdiction of DOLERegional Director if the
employer contests the order
The adjudicatory power provided by Article 129
to the DOLE Regional Director may not be exercised by
him where the employer contests the labor regulation
officers' findings and raises issues which cannot be
resolved without considering evidentiary matters not
verifiable in the normal course of inspection. In such an
event, the case will have to be referred to the
corresponding Labor Arbiter for adjudication, since it falls
within the latter's exclusive original jurisdiction.
(Brokenshire Memorial Hospital, Inc., vs. Minister of
5
Labor and Employment, et. al., G.R. No. 74621,
February 7, 1990)
Batas Kasambahay - R.A. 10361
SEC. 37. Mechanism for Settlement of Disputes.
– All labor-related disputes shall be elevated to the
DOLE Regional Office having jurisdiction over the
workplace without prejudice to the filing of a civil or
criminal action in appropriate cases. The DOLE Regional
Office shall exhaust all conciliation and mediation efforts
before a decision shall be rendered.
Ordinary crimes or offenses committed under
the Revised Penal Code and other special penal laws by
either party shall be filed with the regular courts.
Period to file the claims
All money claims arising from employer-
employee relations accruing during the effectivity of this
Code shall be filed within three (3) years from the time
the cause of action accrued; otherwise they shall be
forever barred. (Article 306, Labor Code)
The Anti – Sexual Harassment Law
Sexual harassment abounds in all sick societies.
It is reprehensible enough but more so when inflicted by
those with moral ascendancy over their victims. We rule
that it is a valid cause for separation from service.
(Villarama vs. National Labor Relations Commission,
G.R. No. 106341, September 2, 1994 [Puno])
Mere casual buss on the cheek is not a sexual
conduct or favor
We have reviewed carefully the records of this
case and found no convincing evidence to sustain
complainant’s charges. What we perceive to have been
committed by respondent judge are casual gestures of
friendship and camaraderie, nothing more, nothing less.
In kissing complainant, we find no indication that
respondent was motivated by malice or lewd design.
Evidently, she misunderstood his actuations and
construed them as work-related sexual harassment
under R.A. 7877. (Atty. Susan M. Aquino vs. Hon.
Ernesto D. Acosta, Presiding Judge, Court of Tax
Appeals, A. M. No. CTA-01-1, April 2, 2002)
Maternity Leave under Republic Act No. 8282 (SSS
Law)
A female member who has paid at least three
(3) monthly contributions in the twelve-month period
immediately preceding the semester of her childbirth or
miscarriage shall be paid a daily maternity benefit
equivalent to one hundred percent (100%) of her
average daily salary credit for sixty (60) days or
seventy-eight (78) days in case of caesarean
delivery.
Paternity Benefit (R.A. 8187)
This benefit shall apply to the first four deliveries
or miscarriage of the employee’s lawful wife with whom
he is cohabiting. For this purpose, cohabiting refers to
the obligation of the husband and wife to live together.
Where the spouses are not physically living together
because of the work station or occupation, the male
employee is still entitled to the paternity leave benefit.
The leave shall be for seven (7) days, with full
pay, consisting of basic salary and mandatory
allowances fixed by the Regional Wage Board, if any,
provided that his pay shall not be less than the
mandated minimum wage.
Availment of the paternity leave may be after the
delivery, without prejudice to an employer’s policy of
allowing the employee to avail of the benefit before or
during the delivery, provided that the total number of
days shall not be more than seven (7) days for each
covered delivery. (Handbook on Workers’ Statutory
Monetary Benefits, p.38)
A policy prohibiting an employee from having a
relationship with an employee of a competitor
company is a valid exercise of management
prerogative
Glaxo has a right to guard its trade secrets,
manufacturing formulas, marketing strategies and other
confidential programs and information from competitors,
especially so that it and Astra are rival companies in the
highly competitive pharmaceutical industry.
The prohibition against personal or marital
relationships with employees of competitor companies
upon Glaxo’s employees is reasonable under the
circumstances because relationships of that nature
might compromise the interests of the company. In
laying down the assailed company policy, Glaxo only
aims to protect its interests against the possibility that a
competitor company will gain access to its secrets and
procedures. (Duncan Association of Detailman-PTGWO
vs. Glaxo Wellcome Philippines, Inc., G.R. No. 162994,
September 17, 2004)
Republic Act 9710 – Magna Carta of Women
Expulsion and non-readmission of women
faculty, due to pregnancy outside of marriage shall be
outlawed.
No school shall turn out or refuse admission to a
female student, solely on the account of her having
contracted pregnancy outside of marriage during her
term in school. [Section 13 (c)]
A woman employee having rendered continuous
aggregate employment service of at least six (6) months
for the last twelve (12) months shall be entitled to a
special leave benefit of two (2) months with full pay
based on her gross monthly compensation following
surgery caused by gynecological disorders. (Section 18)
Republic Act No. 10028 – Promotion of
Breastfeeding
It is hereby mandated that all health and non-health
facilities, establishments or institutions shall establish
lactation stations. The lactation stations shall be
adequately provided with the necessary equipment and
facilities.The lactation station shall not be located in the
toilet.
Employment of Children
Children below fifteen (15) years of age shall not
be employed except when a child works directly under
the sole responsibility of his/her parents or legal
guardian and where only members of his/her family are
employed provided that his/her employment neither
endangers his/her life, safety, health, and morals, nor
impairs his/her normal development, providedfurther that
the parent or legal guardian shall provide the said child
with the prescribed primary and/or secondary education.
For purposes of this Article, the term "child" shall apply
to all persons under eighteen (18) years of age. (Section
2, Republic Act No. 9231)
Hours of Work of a Working Child
(1) A child below fifteen (15) years of age may
be allowed to work for not more than twenty (20) hours a
week provided that the work shall not be more than four
(4) hours at any given day;(2) A child fifteen (15) years of
age but below eighteen (18) shall not be allowed to work
for more than eight (8) hours a day, and in no case
beyond forty (40) hours a week;(3) No child below fifteen
6
(15) years of age shall be allowed to work between eight
o'clock in the evening and six o'clock in the morning of
the following day and no child fifteen (15) years of age
but below eighteen (18) shall be allowed to work
between ten o'clock in the evening and six o'clock in the
morning of the following day.(Section 3, Republic Act
No. 9231)
Republic Act No. 10361 – Batas Kasambahay
January 18, 2013. All articles or provisions of
Chapter III of Presidential Decree No. 442, as amended
and renumbered by Republic Act No. 10151 are hereby
expressly repealed. (Sec. 44). This law governs the
working conditions of all kasambahay.
The term "house helper" as used herein is
synonymous to the term "domestic servant" and shall
refer to any person, whether male or female, who
renders services in and about the employer's home and
which services are usually necessary or desirable for the
maintenance and enjoyment thereof, and ministers
exclusively to the personal comfort and enjoyment of the
employer's family. (Section 1, Rule XIII, Implementing
Rules and Regulation of Book III, of the Labor Code)
While ahomeworkeris one who performs in or
about his home any processing of goods or materials, in
whole or in part which have been furnished directly or
indirectly by an employer and thereafter to be returned to
the latter.
Republic Act No. 10151 – the night workers law
It repealed Articles 130 and 131 of the Labor Code
The new provisions in the Labor Code covering Articles
154 to 161 are brought about by Republic Act No. 10151
which was approved on June 21, 2011.
This law also repealed Articles 130 and 131 of the Labor
Code and abolished the provisions of law which prohibits
night work for women.
Coverage of Night Work
This chapter shall apply to all persons, who shall
be employed or permitted or suffered to work at night
except those employed in agriculture, stock raising,
fishing, maritime transport and inland navigation, during
a period of not less than seven (7) consecutive hours,
including the interval from midnight to five o’clock in the
morning.
Health Assessment (Article 155)
At their request, workers shall have the right to
undergo a health assessment without charge and to
receive advice on how to reduce or avoid health
problems associated with their work:
(a) Before taking up an assignment as a night
worker;
(b) At regular intervals during such an
assignment; and
(c) If they experience health problems during
such an assignment which are not caused by factors
other than the performance of night work.
Labor Relations Law
Labor relations laws are the laws, rules and
regulations which govern the relationship between
employees and their employers, promote the right of the
employees to self-organization and collective bargaining,
penalize unfair labor practice, and provide modes for the
settlement of labor disputes such as conciliation,
mediation, grievance machinery, voluntary arbitration
and compulsory arbitration. They are covered by Books
V – VII of the Labor Code.

Composition of the NLRC based on R. A. 9347
The National Labor Relations Commission shall
be composed of eight (8) divisions with three members
which shall be chosen only from among the nominees of
the workers and employers organizations, respectively.
The Chairman and the seven (7) members shall
come from the public sector, with the latter to be chosen
preferably from among the incumbent labor arbiters.
The Commission may sit en banc or in eight (8)
divisions, each composed of three (3)members.
The Commission shall sit en banc only for
purposes of promulgating rules and regulations
governing the hearing and disposition of cases before
any of its divisions and regional branches and
formulating policies affecting its administration and
operations.
Of the eight (8) divisions, the first, second, third,
fourth, fifth and sixth divisions shall handle cases coming
from the National Capital Regionand other parts of
Luzon, the seventh and eighth divisions, cases from
Visayas and Mindanao, respectively
The divisions of the Commission shall have
exclusive appellate jurisdiction over cases within their
respective territorial jurisdiction.
Appointees to NLRC not subject to confirmation of
the Commission on Appointments
Deciding on what laws to pass is a legislative
prerogative. Determining their constitutionality is a
judicial function. The Court respects the laudable
intention of the legislature. Regretfully, however, the
constitutional infirmity of Sec. 13 of RA 6715 amending
Art. 215 of the Labor Code, insofar as it requires
confirmation of the Commission on Appointments over
appointments of the Chairman and Member of the
National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) is, as we
see it, beyond redemption if we are to render fealty to
the mandate of the Constitution in Sec. 16, Art. VII
thereof. (Calderon vs. Carale, G.R. No. 91636, April 23,
1992)
Jurisdiction of the Labor Arbiters
1. Unfair labor practice cases;
2. Termination disputes;
3. If accompanied with a claim for reinstatement,
those cases that workers may file involving wages, rates
of pay, hours of work and other terms and conditions of
employment;
4. Claims for actual, moral, exemplary and other
forms of damages arising from the employer-employee
relations;
5. Cases arising from any violation of Article 264
of this Code, including questions involving the legality of
strikes and lockouts; and
6. Except claims for Employees Compensation,
Social Security, Medicare and maternity benefits, all
other claims arising from employer-employee relations,
including those of persons in domestic or household
service, involving an amount exceeding five thousand
pesos (P5,000.00) regardless of whether accompanied
with a claim for reinstatement.(Except those of the
kasambahay, Section 37, RA 10361)
7. Cases arising from the interpretation or
implementation of collective bargaining agreements and
those arising from the interpretation or enforcement of
company personnel policies
JurisdictionoverOverseas Filipino Workers
The Labor Arbiter has original and exclusive
jurisdiction over claims arising out of an employer-
employee relationship or by virtue of any law or contract
7
involving Filipino workers for overseas employment
including claims for actual, moral, exemplary and other
forms of damages.
Venue
The venue is the Regional Arbitration Branch
where the complainant resides or where the principal
office of the respondent(s) employer is situated, at the
option of the complainant (Sec. 1[e], The 2005 Revised
Rules of Procedure of the National Labor Relations
Commission)
Money Claims of OFW’s
100% reimbursement of placement fees plus
12% interest per annum plus the salaries for the
unexpired portion of the contract. (Sameer Overseas
Placement Agency vs. Cabiles, Aug. 5, 2014,Serrano vs.
Gallant Maritime Services, Inc., March 24, 2009)
Jurisdiction of the BLR
1. “Inter-union disputes” or “representation
disputes” which refer to cases involving petition for
certification election filed by a duly registered labor
organization which is seeking to be recognized as the
sole and exclusive bargaining agent of the rank-and-file
employees in the appropriate bargaining unit of a
company, firm or establishment.
2. “Intra-union disputes” or “internal union
disputes” which refer to disputes or grievances arising
from any violation of or disagreement over any provision
of the constitution and by-laws of the union, including
any violation of the rights and conditions of union
membership provided for in the Labor Code.
The NCMB
The Conciliation, mediation and voluntary
arbitration functions of the Bureau of Labor Relations
(BLR) shall be absorbed by NCMB. It is an attached
agency under the administrative supervision of the
Secretary of Labor and Employment. It is headed by an
Administrator and 2 Deputy Administrators. The NCMB
has jurisdiction over conciliation, mediation and
voluntary arbitration cases.
Personality of Labor Union not subject to collateral
attack
We rule, however, that such legal personality
may not be subject to a collateral attack but only through
a separate action instituted particularly for the purpose of
assailing it. This is categorically prescribed by Section 5,
Rule V of the Implementing Rules of Book V. (Laguna
Autoparts Manufacturing Corporation vs. Office of the
Secretary, Department of Labor and Employment G.R.
No. 157146. April 29, 2005)
Once a labor union attains the status of a
legitimate labor organization, it continues as such until
its certificate of registration is cancelled or revoked in an
independent action for cancellation. In addition, the legal
personality of a labor organization cannot be collaterally
attacked. (Coastal Subic Bay Terminal Inc. vs.
Department of Labor and Employment – Office of the
Secretary, G.R. No. 157117, November 20, 2006)
Republic Act No. 10396
"ART. 228. Mandatory Conciliation and
Endorsement of Cases. –
(a) Except as provided in Title VII-A, Book V of
this Code, as amended, or as may be excepted by the
Secretary of Labor and Employment, all issues arising
from labor and employment shall be subject to
mandatory conciliation-mediation. The labor arbiter or
the appropriate DOLE agency or office that has
jurisdiction over the dispute shall entertain only endorsed
or referred cases by the duly authorized officer.
"(b) Any or both parties involved in the dispute
may pre-terminate the conciliation-mediation
proceedings and request referral or endorsement to the
appropriate DOLE agency or office which has jurisdiction
over the dispute, or if both parties so agree, refer the
unresolved issues to voluntary arbitration."
Grounds for cancellation of union registration
(a) Misrepresentation, false statement or fraud in
connection with the adoption or ratification of the
constitution and by-laws or amendments thereto, the
minutes of ratification, and the list of members who took
part in the ratification;
(b) Misrepresentation, false statements or fraud
in connection with the election of officers, minutes of the
election of officers, and the list of voters;
(c) Voluntary dissolution by the members
(Republic Act No. 9481, May 25, 2007)
Republic Act No. 9481which lapsed into law on
May 25, 2007 has effectively reduced to just three (3)
the grounds for the cancellation of registration of a
legitimate labor organization. Under the old provisions of
Article 239, there were ten grounds for the cancellation
of union registration.
Mixture of employees in one union is not a ground
for cancellation of its registration
Clearly then, for the purpose of de-certifying a
union, it is not enough to establish that the rank-and-file
union includes ineligible employees in its membership.
Pursuant to Article 239 (a) and (c) of the Labor Code, it
must be shown that there was misrepresentation, false
statement or fraud in connection with the adoption or
ratification of the constitution and by-laws or
amendments thereto, the minutes of ratification, or in
connection with the election of officers, minutes of the
election of officers, the list of voters, or failure to submit
these documents together with the list of the newly
elected-appointed officers and their postal addresses to
the BLR. (Air Philippines Corporation vs. Bureau of
Labor Relations, G.R. No. 155395 June 22, 2006)
Requisites for the validity of the special assessment
1) authorization by a written resolution of the
majority of all the members at the general membership
meeting called for the purpose;
2) secretary's record of the minutes of the
meeting; and
3) individual written authorization for check off
duly signed by the employees concerned. (Gabriel vs.
Secretary of Labor and Employment, G.R. No. 115949
March 16, 2000).
Employees who do not have the right to self-
organization
The following are the groups of people whose
right to self-organization is restricted by the labor laws:
high ranking government employees, employees of
international organizations enjoying immunity form suits,
managerial employees, members of the AFP, PNP,
firemen, jail guards, confidential employees and
employees of the cooperative who are members of that
same cooperative.
Security Guards’ Right to Self Organization
The security guards and other personnel
employed by the security service contractor shall have
the right to form, join or assist in the formation of a labor
organization of their own choosing for purposes of
collective bargaining and to engage in concerted
activities which are not contrary to law including the right
8
to strike.(Section 10, Department Order N0. 14 Series of
2001, December 18, 2001)
Government employees do not have the right to
strike
The Court can concede hypothetically that the
protest rally and gathering in question did not involve
some specific material demand. But then the absence of
such economic-related demand, even if true, did not,
under the premises, make such mass action less of a
prohibited concerted activity. For, as articulated earlier,
any collective activity undertaken by government
employees with the intent of effecting work stoppage or
service disruption in order to realize their demands or
force concessions, economic or otherwise,is a prohibited
concerted mass action and doubtless actionable
administratively. xxx“[i]n the absence of statute, public
employees do not have the right to engage in concerted
work stoppages for any purpose (Government Service
Insurance System vs. Kapisanan ng
mgaManggagawasa GSIS, G.R. No. 170132, December
6, 2006)
Unfair labor practice
Unfair labor practice refers to acts that violate
the workers’ right to organize. The prohibited acts are
related to the workers’ right to self-organization and to
the observance of a Collective Bargaining Agreement.
Without that element, the acts, no matter how unfair, are
not unfair labor practices. (Philcom Employees Union vs.
Philippine Global Communications, G.R. No. 144315,
July 17, 2006)
Dismissal due to union security clause
It has been the jurisprudential rule for quite
sometime that the employer is not considered guilty of
unfair labor practice if it merely complied in good faith
with the request of the certified union for the dismissal of
employees expelled from the union pursuant to the union
security clause in the CBA (Soriano v. Atienza, G.R. No.
68619, March 16, 1989, 171 SCRA 284,289-290).
Hence, the company may not be ordered to grant either
backwages or financial assistance in the form of
separation pay as a form of penalty. Thus, where
reinstatement is adjudged, the award of backwages and
other benefits continues beyond the date of the Labor
Arbiter’s decision ordering reinstatement and extends up
to the time said order of reinstatement is actually carried
out. (Olvido, et. al. vs. Court of Appeals, G. R. Nos.
141166 – 67, October 15, 2007)
Union Security Clause
Union Security Clause - is a stipulation
contained in the Collective Bargaining Agreement
whereby the employer undertakes to recognize the right
of the union who negotiated the CBA to maintain and
protect its membership by imposing certain terms and
conditions in hiring employees and retention of
employment.
Common Types of Union Security Clauses
Closed shop, Union shop, Maintenance of
membership clause, agency shop, preferential shop
agreement.
Jurisdictional preconditions in bargaining
(1)Possession of the status of majority
representation by the employees' representative in
accordance with any of the means of selection and/or
designation provided for by the Labor Code; (2) proof of
majority representation; and (3) a demand to bargain
under Article 251, paragraph (a), of the New Labor
Code. (Associated Labor Unions (ALU) vs. Ferrer –
Calleja, G.R. No. L-77282, May 5, 1989)
Boulwarism
In negotiation, Boulwarism is an offer or counter-
offer that is not meant to be negotiated. This is a "take it
or leave it" strategy named after LemuelBoulware a
former vice president of General Electric.
Contract Bar Rule
When there is an existing CBA, neither the
employer nor the union may terminate nor modify the
Collective Bargaining Agreement during its lifetime. The
parties are mandated by law to keep the status quo and
to continue with full force and effect the terms and
conditions of the existing CBA. This is known as the
contract bar rule – the existence of the CBA (a contract
between the employer and the union) bars the
modification or termination of the CBA except during the
freedom period.
Freedom Period
The freedom period refers to the sixty (60) days
span prior to the expiration of the CBA. It is the time
when the parties may terminate or modify the terms and
conditions of the CBA.
Automatic Renewal Clause
Article 264 provides that the CBA shall remain
effective and enforceable even after the expiration of the
period fixed by the parties as long as no new agreement
is reached by them and no petition for certification
election is filed.
Lifetime of the CBA
The representation issueor the status of the
union who entered into the Collective Bargaining
Agreement has a lifetime of five (5) years from the time
of its effectivity. While the other provisions (economic)
shall be effective for a period of three (3) years from its
execution.
CBA extended to ten years - valid
We also do not agree that the agreement
violates the five-year representation limit mandated by
Article 265. Under said article, the representation limit
for the exclusive bargaining agent applies only when
there is an extant CBA in full force and effect. In the
instant case, the parties agreed to suspend the CBA and
put in abeyance the limit on the representation period. In
sum, we are of the view that the PAL-PALEA agreement
dated September 27, 1998, is a valid exercise of the
freedom to contract. Under the principle of inviolability of
contracts guaranteed by the Constitution, the contract
must be upheld. (Rivera, et. al. vs. Espiritu, G.R. No.
135547, January 23, 2002)
The Exclusive Bargaining Status Cannot Go Beyond
Five Years
In the event however, that the parties, by mutual
agreement, enter into a renegotiated contract with a term
of three (3) years or one which does not coincide with
the said five-year term and said agreement is ratified by
majority of the members in the bargaining unit, the
subject contract is valid and legal and therefore, binds
the contracting parties. The same will however not
adversely affect the right of another union to challenge
the majority status of the incumbent bargaining agent
within sixty (60) days before the lapse of the original five
(5) year term of the CBA. (FVC Labor Union-Philippine
Transport and General Workers Organization vs. Sama-
SamangNagkakaisangManggagawa Sa FVC-Solidarity
9
Of Independent and General Labor Organizations, G.R.
No. 176249, November 27, 2009)
Substitutionary doctrine
Stated otherwise, the "substitutionary" doctrine
only provides that the employees cannot revoke the
validly executed collective bargaining contract with their
employer by the simple expedient of changing their
bargaining agent. And it is in the light of this that the
phrase "said new agent would have to respect said
contract" must be understood. It only means that the
employees, thru their new bargaining agent, cannot
renege on their collective bargaining contract, except of
course to negotiate with management for the shortening
thereof.
Bargaining Unit
A bargaining unit is "a group of employees of a
given employer, comprised of all or less than all of the
entire body of employees, consistent with equity to the
employer, indicate to be the best suited to serve the
reciprocal rights and duties of the parties under the
collective bargaining provisions of the law.” (International
School Alliance of Educators vs. Quisumbing, G.R. No.
128845, June 1, 2000)
Test in determining the appropriate bargaining unit
In order to determine the appropriate bargaining
unit the Supreme Court has time and again applied the
four tests to wit:
(1) will of the employees (Globe Doctrine);
(2) affinity and unit of employees’ interest, such
as substantial similarity of work and duties, or similarity
of compensation and working conditions;
(3) prior collective bargaining history; and
(4) employment status, such as temporary,
seasonal and probationary employees. (University of the
Philippines vs. Hon. Pura Ferrer-Calleja, G.R. No. 96189
July 14, 1992)
Certification election
Certification election refers to the process of
determining through secret ballot the sole and exclusive
representative of the employees in an appropriate
bargaining unit for purposes of collective bargaining or
negotiation. A certification election is ordered by the
Department of Labor and Employment (Department
Order 40 – 03, Rule I, Section 1 [h])
Members of religious groups who do not want to
join unions may vote in a certification election
That the INC employees, as employees in the
same bargaining unit in the true sense of the term, do
have the right of self-organization, is also in truth beyond
question, as well as the fact that when they voted that
the employees in their bargaining unit should be
represented by "NO UNION," they were simply
exercising that right of self-organization, albeit in its
negative aspect. No law, administrative rule or precedent
prescribes forfeiture of the right to vote by reason of
neglect to exercise the right in past certification
elections. In denying the petitioners' right to vote upon
these egregiously fallacious grounds, the public
respondents exercised their discretion whimsically,
capriciously and oppressively and gravely abused the
same. (Reyes vs. Trajano, G.R. No. 84433, June 2,
1992)
Deadlock bar rule
The Deadlock Bar Rule simply provides that a
petition for certification election can only be entertained if
there is no pending bargaining deadlock submitted to
conciliation or arbitration or had become the subject of a
valid notice of strike or lockout. The principal purpose is
to ensure stability in the relationship of the workers and
the management (National Congress of Unions in the
Sugar Industry of the Philippines (NACUSIP) – TUCP
vs. Trajano, G.R. No. L-67485, April 10, 1992)
One – year bar rule / Election year bar
A certification election cannot be held within one
(1) year from the date of issuance of declaration of a
final certification election result. The one year bar rule
also applies in cases of consent election, run – off
election and voluntary recognition. (R. Transport
Corporation vs. Laguesma, G.R. No. 106830, November
16, 1993)
Negotiation Bar Rule
Once the negotiation for a new CBA has been
commenced pursuant to Article 250, a petition for
certification election may no longer be validly entertained
by the Department of Labor and Employment.
Appeal bar rule
The filing of the memorandum of appeal from
the order or decision of the Med-Arbiter stays the holding
of any certification election (Department Order No. 40 –
03, Rule VIII, Section 21)
Run – Off election
Run-off Election refers to an election between
the labor unions receiving the two (2) highest number of
votes in a certification or consent election with three (3)
or more choices, where such a certified or consent
results in none of the three (3) or more choices receiving
the majority of the valid votes cast; provided that the
total number of votes for all contending unions is at least
fifty percent (50%) of the number of votes cast. (Section
1(ss), Rule I, Department Order 40 – 03)
Voluntary Recognition
Voluntary Recognition refers to the process by
which a legitimate labor union is recognized by the
employer as the exclusive bargaining representative or
agent in a bargaining unit, reported with the Regional
Office in accordance with Rule VII, Section 2,
Department Order 40 – 03 (Department Order 40 – 03,
Rule I, Section 1 [bbb])
Grievance
Grievancerefers to any question by either the
employer or the union regarding the interpretation or
implementation of any provision of the collective
bargaining agreement or interpretation or enforcement of
company personnel policies.(Department Order No. 40 –
03, Rule I, Section 1[u])
Voluntary arbitration
Voluntary arbitration refers to the mode of
settling labor-management disputes by which the parties
select a competent, trained and impartial third person
who shall decide on the merits of the case and whose
decision is final and executory. (NCMB Revised
Procedural Guidelines in the Conduct of Voluntary
Arbitration Proceedings, Section 1 [d], Rule II [Oct. 15,
2004])
Gross Violations of Collective Bargaining Agreement
is ULP
Gross violations of Collective Bargaining
Agreement under Article 261 means flagrant and/or
malicious refusal to comply with the economic provisions
of such agreement. Such gross violations do not fall
10
within the jurisdiction of the Voluntary Arbitrator or panel
of Voluntary Arbitrators because they are considered as
unfair labor practice (ULP) under Article 248 thus,
cognizable by the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC. (Isalama
Machine Works Corporation vs. National Labor
Relations Commission, G.R. No. 100167, March 2,
1995)
Appeals from the Decisions of Voluntary Arbitrator
or Panel of Voluntary Arbitrators – Court of Appeals
The decisions of a voluntary arbitrator fall within
the exclusive appellate jurisdiction of the Court of
Appeals. Indeed, this Court took this decision into
consideration in approving the 1997 Rules of Civil
Procedure.(Nippon Paint Employees Union – Olalia vs.
Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 159010. November 19,
2004)
Strike
Strikeis any temporary stoppage of work by the
concerted action of the employees as a result of
industrial or labor dispute. A labor dispute includes any
controversy or matter concerning terms or conditions of
employment or the association or representation of
persons in negotiating, fixing, maintaining, changing or
arranging the terms and conditions of employment,
regardless of whether the disputants stand in the
proximate relation of employer and the employee.
(Bukluran ng ManggagawasaClothman Knitting Corp. –
Solidarity Unions of the Philippines for Empowerment
and Reform vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 158158,
January 17, 2005)
The requisites of a valid strike are mandatory
The requisites for a valid strike are as follows:
(a) a notice of strike filed with the DOLE thirty days
before the intended date thereof or fifteen days in case
of unfair labor practice; (b) strike vote approved by a
majority of the total union membership in the bargaining
unit concerned obtained by secret ballot in a meeting
called for that purpose; (c) notice given to the DOLE of
the results of the voting at least seven days before the
intended strike. These requirements are mandatory and
failure of a union to comply therewith renders the strike
illegal (Piñero vs. National Labor Relations Commission,
August 20, 2004)
We explained in National Federation of Labor
vs. NLRC (G.R. No. 113466, December 15, 1997, 283
SCRA 275, 287-288)that “with the enactment of Republic
Act No. 6715 which took effect on March 21, 1989, the
rule now is that such requirements as the filing of a
notice of strike, strike vote, and notice given to the
Department of Labor are mandatory in nature. Thus,
even if the union acted in good faith in the belief that the
company was committing an unfair labor practice, if no
notice of strike and a strike vote were conducted, the
said strike is illegal.”
(SamahangManggagawasaSulpicio Lines, Inc. – NAFLU
vs. Sulpicio Lines, Inc. G.R. No. 140992, March 25,
2004)
Assumption of jurisdiction is discretionary
The powers granted to the Secretary under
Article 263(g) of the Labor Code have been
characterized as an exercise of the police power of the
State, with the aim of promoting public good. When the
Secretary exercises these powers, he is granted “great
breadth of discretion” in order to find a solution to a labor
dispute. The most obvious of these powers is the
automatic enjoining of an impending strike or lockout or
its lifting if one has already taken place. The authority of
the Secretary to assume jurisdiction over a labor dispute
causing or likely to cause a strike or lockout in an
industry indispensable to national interest includes and
extends to all questions and controversies arising from
such labor dispute. The power is plenary and
discretionary in nature to enable him to effectively and
efficiently dispose of the dispute.(Philcom Employees
Union vs. Philippine Global communications, G.R. No.
144315, July 17, 2006 [495 SCRA 214[) attycdduka
Strike in violation of arbitration – illegal
This Court has held that strikes staged in
violation of agreements providing for arbitration are
illegal, since these agreements must be strictly adhered
to and respected if their ends are to be achieved. The
rationale of the prohibition under Article 264 is that once
jurisdiction over the labor dispute has been properly
acquired by competent authority, that jurisdiction should
not be interfered with by the application of the coercive
processes of a strike. Indeed it is among the chief
policies of the State to promote and emphasize the
primacy of free collective bargaining and negotiations,
including voluntary arbitration, mediation, and
conciliation, as modes of settling labor, or industrial
disputes. In Alliance of Government Workers v. Minister
of Labor, Chief Justice Fernando declared that the
principle behind labor unionism in private industry is that
industrial peace cannot be secured through compulsion
by law. Relations between private employers and their
employees rest on an essentially voluntary basis, subject
to the minimum requirements of wage laws and other
labor and welfare legislation.( Sukhothai Cuisine and
Restaurant vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 150437, Ju ly
1 7, 20 06 )
Mere participation of a worker in a lawful strike
shall not constitute sufficient ground for termination
of his employment, even if a replacement had been
hired by the employer during such lawful strike.
In SamahangManggagawasaSulpicio Lines,
Inc.-NAFLU v. Sulpicio Lines, Inc. this Court explained
that the effects of such illegal strikes, outlined in Article
264, make a distinction between workers and union
officers who participate therein: an ordinary striking
worker cannot be terminated for mere participation in an
illegal strike. There must be proof that he or she
committed illegal acts during a strike. In all cases, the
striker must be identified. But proof beyond reasonable
doubt is not required. Substantial evidence available
under the attendant circumstances, which may justify the
imposition of the penalty of dismissal, may suffice.
Liability for prohibited acts is to be determined on an
individual basis. ( Sukhothai Cuisine and Restaurant vs.
Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 150437, Ju ly 17 , 20 06 )
Elements of employer – employee relationship
The elements to determine the existence of an
employment relationship are: (a) the selection and
engagement of the employee (b) the payment of wages (c)
the power of dismissal, and (d) the employer’s power to
control. The most important element is the employer’s
control of the employee’s conduct, not only as to the result
of the work to be done, but also as to the means and
methods to accomplish it. (Murillo vs. Court of Appeals
and Associated Broadcasting Corporation, et. el., G.R.
No. 164652, June 8, 2007)
Full backwages
Finally came our ruling in Bustamante which
superseded Pines City Educational Center and allowed
full recovery of backwages without deduction and
without qualification pursuant to the express provisions
of Article 279 (now Art 294) of the Labor Code, as
11
amended by Rep. Act No. 6715, i.e., without any
deduction of income the employee may have derived
from employment elsewhere from the date of his
dismissal up to his reinstatement, that is, covering the
entirety of the period of the dismissal.(Equitable Banking
Corporation vs. Sadac, G.R. No. 164772, June 8,
2006)
Salary increase not included in the computation of
backwages
There was no lawful decree or order supporting
his claim, such that his salary increases can be made a
component in the computation of backwages. What is
evident is that salary increases are a mere expectancy.
They are, by its nature volatile and are dependent on
numerous variables, including the company’s fiscal
situation and even the employee’s future performance
on the job, or the employee’s continued stay in a position
subject to management prerogative to transfer him to
another position where his services are needed. In
short, there is no vested right to salary increases. That
respondent Sadac may have received salary increases
in the past only proves fact of receipt but does not
establish a degree of assuredness that is inherent in
backwages. From the foregoing, the plain conclusion is
that respondent Sadac’s computation of his full
backwages which includes his prospective salary
increases cannot be permitted.(Equitable Banking
Corporation vs. Sadac, G.R. No. 164772, June 8,
2006)
Separation pay in lieu of reinstatement
Under the law, an illegally dismissed employee
is entitled to reinstatement and backwages, and if
reinstatement is no longer possible, he may be given
separation pay in lieu of reinstatement. (Bunagan vs.
Sentinel Watchman & Protective Agency, Inc., G.R. No.
144376, September 13, 2006)attycdduka
Repeated rehiring of project employee
At this time, we wish to allay any fears that this
decision unduly burdens an employer by imposing a duty
to re-hire a project employee even after completion of
the project for which he was hired. The import of this
decision is not to impose a positive and sweeping
obligation upon the employer to re-hire project
employees. What this decision merely accomplishes is
a judicial recognition of the employment status of a
project or work pool employee in accordance with what
is fait accompli, i.e., the continuous re-hiring by the
employer of project or work pool employees who perform
tasks necessary or desirable to the employer’s usual
business or trade. (Maraguinot, Jr. vs. National Labor
Relations Commission, G.R. No. 120969, January 22,
1998)
Double probationary period - illegal
The Hotel's system of double probation a
transparent scheme to circumvent the plain mandate of
the law and make it easier for it to dismiss its employees
even after they shall have already passed probation. The
policy of the Constitution is to give the utmost protection
to the working class when subjected to such maneuvers
as the one attempted by the petitioners. This Court is
fully committed to that policy and has always been quick
to rise in defense of the rights of labor, as in this case.
(Holiday Inn Manila vs. National Labor Relations
Commission, G.R. No. 109114, September 14, 1993)
Probationary Period of Private School Teachers
Section 93 of the 1992 Manual of Regulations
for Private Schools, provides that full-time teachers who
have satisfactorily completed their probationary period
shall be considered regular or permanent. Furthermore,
the probationary period shall not be more than six
consecutive regular semesters of satisfactory service for
those in the tertiary level. Thus, the following requisites
must concur before a private school teacher acquires
permanent status: (1) the teacher is a full-time teacher;
(2) the teacher must have rendered three consecutive
years of service; and (3) such service must have been
satisfactory. (Saint Mary’s University vs. Court of
Appeals, G.R. No. 157788, March 08, 2005)
Distinction between a dismissal just cause and a
dismissal for authorized cause
The clear-cut distinction between a dismissal for
just cause under Article 282 and a dismissal for
authorized cause under Article 283 is further reinforced
by the fact that in the first, payment of separation pay, as
a rule, is not required, while in the second, the law
requires payment of separation pay. (Jaka Food
Processing Corporation vs. Pacot, et. al., G.R. No.
151378, March 28, 2005)
Serious Misconduct
In order to constitute serious misconduct which
will warrant the dismissal of an employee under
paragraph (a) of Article 282 (now Art. 297) of the Labor
Code, it is not sufficient that the act or conduct
complained of has violated some established rules or
policies. It is equally important and required that the act
or conduct must have been performed with wrongful
intent. (Moreno vs. San Sebastian College – Recoletos,
Manila, G.R. No. 175283, March 28, 2008)
Willful disobedience
However, willful disobedience of the employer’s
lawful orders, as a just cause for dismissal of an
employee, envisages the concurrence of at least two
requisites: (1) the employee's assailed conduct must
have been willful, that is, characterized by a wrongful
and perverse attitude; and (2) the order violated must
have been reasonable, lawful, made known to the
employee and must pertain to the duties which he had
been engaged to discharge. (Bascon vs. Court of
Appeals, G.R. No. 144899, February 5, 2004)
Abandonment
Abandonment is the deliberate and unjustified
refusal of an employee to resume his employment. It is a
form of neglect of duty, hence, a just cause for
termination of employment by the employer. For a valid
finding of abandonment, these two factors should be
present: (1) the failure to report for work or absence
without valid or justifiable reason; and (2) a clear
intention to sever employer-employee relationship, with
the second as the more determinative factor which is
manifested by overt acts from which it may be deduced
that the employees has no more intention to work. The
intent to discontinue the employment must be shown by
clear proof that it was deliberate and unjustified.
(Agabon vs. National Labor Relations Commission, G.R.
No. 158693 November 17, 2004)
Requisites for dismissal due to loss of trust and
confidence
Thus, in order to be a valid cause for dismissal,
loss of confidence should not be (a) simulated, (b) used
as a subterfuge for causes which are improper, illegal or
unjustified, (c) arbitrarily asserted in the face of
overwhelming evidence to the contrary, and (d) a mere
afterthought to justify earlier action taken in bad faith.
While in the termination of services of managerial
12
employees for loss of confidence, employers are given
wider latitude of discretion, there must, however, be
substantial proof thereof. The employer’s evidence must
clearly and convincingly establish the facts and incidents
upon which the loss of confidence may fairly be made to
rest.(Wah Yuen Restaurant, vs. Jayona, G.R. No.
159448, December 16, 2005)
Twin notice requirement
Procedural due process requires the employer
to give the employee two notices. The first is to apprise
him of the particular acts or omissions for which his
dismissal is sought, and the second is to inform him of
the decision to terminate him.Failure to comply with
these mandatory procedural requirements taints the
dismissal with illegality and any judgment rendered by
the employer without compliance therewith can be
considered void and inexistent. It should be emphasized
that due process must be observed in effecting an
employee’s dismissal because the dismissal of an
employee affects not only his position but also his
means of livelihood and his dependents’ sustenance.
Thus, strict adherence to the requirements set forth in
the Labor Code, as amended, is essential. (Wah Yuen
Restaurant, vs. Jayona, G.R. No. 159448, December
16, 2005)
Suspension beyond 30 days – constructive
dismissal
Clearly, constructive dismissal had already set in
when the suspension went beyond the maximum period
allowed by law. Section 4, Rule XIV, Book V of the
Omnibus Rules provides that preventive suspension
cannot be more than the maximum period of 30 days.
Hence, after the 30-day period of suspension, the
employee must be reinstated to his former position
because suspension beyond this maximum period
amounts to constructive dismissal. (Hyatt Taxi Services
Inc. vs. Catinoy, G.R. No. 143204, June 26, 2001)
If dismissal is too harsh suspension can be imposed
We cannot but agree that the extreme penalty of
dismissal was too harsh and manifestly disproportionate
to the infraction committed, which appears to have been
fully explained, and, in fact, to be not inexcusable under
the circumstances. There was no dishonesty, no
demonstration of such moral perverseness as would
have justified the claimed loss of confidence attendant to
the job. Perhaps, individual petitioner should first have
been given a mere warning, then a reprimand or even a
suspension, but certainly not outright dismissal from
employment. One must keep in mind that a worker’s
employment is property in the constitutional sense, and
he cannot be deprived thereof without due process and
unless it was commensurate to his acts and degree of
moral depravity. (Coca-Cola Bottlers, Phils., Inc. vs.
Kapisanan ng MalayangManggagawasa Coca- Cola -
FFW, G.R. No. 148205, February 28, 2005)
Valid termination due to retrenchment
For a valid termination due to retrenchment, the
law requires that written notices of the intended
retrenchment be served by the employer on the worker
and on the Department of Labor and Employment at
least one (1) month before the actual date of the
retrenchment. The purpose of this requirement is to give
employees some time to prepare for the eventual loss of
their jobs, as well as to give DOLE the opportunity to
ascertain the verity of the alleged cause of termination.
(EMCO Plywood Corporation vs. Abelgas et. al., G.R.
No. 148532, April 14, 2004)
Amount of separation pay
As to the amount of separation pay, this Court
has ruled that separation pay may be computed at one
(1) month pay, or one (1/2) month pay for every year of
service, whichever is higher. It is noteworthy that the
separation pay being awarded in the instant case is due
to illegal dismissal; hence, it is different from the amount
of separation pay provided for in Article 283 in case of
retrenchment to prevent losses or in case of closure or
cessation of the employer’s business, in either of which
the separation pay is equivalent to at least one (1) month
or one-half (1/2) month pay for every year of service,
whichever is higher. (F.F. Marine Corporation vs. The
Honorable Second Division National Labor Relations
Commission, G.R. No. 152039, April 08, 2005)
Disease as a ground for dismissal
The burden of proving the validity of the
dismissal rests on the employer. As such, the employer
must prove that the requisites for a valid dismissal due to
a disease have been complied with. In the absence of
the required certification by a competent public health
authority, this Court has ruled against the validity of the
employee’s dismissal. (Manly Express Inc. vs. Payong,
Jr., G.R. No. 167462, October 25, 2005)
No separation pay upon resignation – general rule
The general rule is that an employee who
voluntarily resigns from employment is not entitled to
separation pay unless, however, there is a stipulation for
payment of such in the employment contract or
Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA), or payment of
the amount is sanctioned by established employer
practice or policy.(Travelaire& Tours Corp. vs. National
Labor Relations Commission, G.R. No. 131523, August
20, 1998)
Retirement
Retirement is a different specie of termination of
employment from dismissal for just or authorized causes
under Articles 282 and 283 of the Labor Code. While in
all three cases, the employee to be terminated may be
unwilling to part from service; there are eminently higher
standards to be met by the employer validly exercising
the prerogative to dismiss for just or authorized causes.
In those two instances, it is indispensable that the
employer establishes the existence of just or authorized
causes for dismissal as spelled out in the Labor Code.
Retirement, on the other hand, is the result of a bilateral
act of the parties, a voluntary agreement between the
employer and the employee whereby the latter after
reaching a certain age agrees and/or consents to sever
his employment with the former.(Cainta Catholic School
vs. Cainta Catholic School Employees Union, G.R.
No.151021, May 4, 2006, 489 SCRA 468[2006])
Qualification for retirement
In case of retirement, the employee shall be
entitled to receive such retirement benefits as he may
have earned under existing laws and any collective
bargaining agreement and other agreements: Provided,
however, That an employee’s retirement benefits under
any collective bargaining and other agreements shall not
be less than those provided herein.
In the absence of a retirement plan or
agreement providing for retirement benefits of
employees in the establishment, an employee upon
reaching the age of sixty (60) years or more, but not
beyond sixty-five (65) years which is hereby declared the
compulsory retirement age, who has served at least five
(5) years in the said establishment, may retire and shall
be entitled to retirement pay equivalent to at least one-
13
half (1/2) month salary for every year of service, a
fraction of at least six (6) months being considered as
one whole year.
Unless the parties provide for broader
inclusions, the term one half (1/2) month salary shall
mean fifteen (15) days plus one-twelfth (1/12) of the 13 th
month pay and the cash equivalent of not more than five
(5) days of service incentive leaves. (Sta. Catalina
College vs. National Labor Relations Commission, G.R.
No. 144483, November 19, 2003)
Computation of retirement pay
For the purpose of determining the minimum
retirement pay due an employee under this Rule, the
term “one-half month salary” shall include all the
following: (a) Fifteen (15) days salary of the employee
based on his latest salary rate. (b) The cash equivalent
of not more than five (5) days of service incentive leave;
(c) One-twelfth of the 13th month pay due an employee;
(d) All other benefits that the employer and employee
may agree upon that should be included in the
computation of the employee’s retirement pay. The
foregoing rules are clear that the whole 5 days of SIL are
included in the computation of a retiring employees’ pay.
(Enriquez Security Services, Inc. vs. Cabotaje, G.R. No.
147993, July 21, 2006)
Compulsory Retirement
An employer is free to impose a retirement age
less than 65 for as long as it has the employees’
consent. Stated conversely, employees are free to
accept the employer’s offer to lower the retirement age if
they feel they can get a better deal with the retirement
plan presented by the employer. Thus, having
terminated petitioner solely on the basis of a provision of
a retirement plan which was not freely assented to by
her, respondent was guilty of illegal dismissal.(Jaculbe
vs. Silliman University, G. R. No. 156934, March 16,
2007,Cercado vs. Uniprom, Inc. October 13, 2010)
Employee’s contribution must be deducted first
Retirement benefits, on the other hand, are
intended to help the employee enjoy the remaining years
of his life, releasing him from the burden of worrying for
his financial support, and are a form of reward for his
loyalty to the employer.Since the computed amount of
her retirement pay is much lower than that provided
under the law, she is entitled to receive the difference
between the actual amount of her retirement benefits as
required by law and that provided for under the PERAA.
(Sta. Catalina College vs. National Labor Relations
Commission, G. R. No. 144483, November 19, 2003)
Retirement of underground miners
On February 26, 1998, Republic Act No. 8558
was signed into law and amended Article 287 of the
Labor Code and provided for the retirement benefits of
underground miners.Based on R.A. 8558, “n
underground mining employee upon reaching the age of
fifty (50) years or more, but not beyond sixty (60) years
which is hereby declared the compulsory retirement age
for underground mine workers, who has served at least
five (5) years as underground mine worker, may retire
and shall be entitled to all the retirement benefits
provided for in this Article.
Prescription
Article 305 Offenses penalized under this Code
and the rules and regulations issued pursuant thereto
shall prescribe in three (3) years.
The Labor Code, however, does not contain any
provisions on the mode of computation of the three-year
prescriptive period it established.Prescription shall begin
to run from the day of the commission of the violation of
the law, and if the same be not known at the time, from
the discovery thereof and institution of judicial
proceedings for its investigation and punishment.The
term of prescription shall not run when the offender is
absent from the Philippine Archipelago. (People of the
Philippines vs. Duque, G.R. No. 100285, August 13,
1992)
Prescription period for money claims
Article 291 (now Art. 306) of the Labor Code
which provides that all money claims arising from
employer-employee relationship shall be filed within
three (3) years from the time the cause of action
accrued. (Central Negros Electric Cooperative
(CENECO), Inc. vs. National Labor Relations
Commission, G.R. No. 106246, September 1, 1994)
Prescription for all money claims
What rules on prescription should apply in cases
like this one has long been decided by this Court. In
illegal dismissal, it is settled, that the ten-year
prescriptive period fixed in Article 1144 of the Civil Code
may not be invoked by petitioners, for the Civil Code is a
law of general application, while the prescriptive period
fixed in Article 292 of the Labor Code [now Article 291] is
a SPECIAL LAW applicable to claims arising from
employee-employer relations.The language of Art. 291 of
the Labor Code does not limit its application only to
"money claims specifically recoverable under said Code"
but covers all money claims arising from an employee-
employer relations" (Citing Cadalin vs. POEA
Administrator, 238 SCRA 721, 764 [1994]; and Uy vs.
National Labor Relations Commission, 261 SCRA 505,
515 [1996]). . . .
It should be noted further that Article 291 of the
Labor Code is a special law applicable to money claims
arising from employer-employee relations; thus, it
necessarily prevails over Article 1144 of the Civil Code, a
general law. Basic is the rule in statutory construction
that "where two statutes are of equal theoretical
application to a particular case, the one designed
therefore should prevail."
We base our conclusion not on Article 1144 of
the Civil Code but on which sets the prescription period
at three (3) years and which governs under this
jurisdiction. (Laureano vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No.
114776, February 2, 2000)
Prescription period for illegal dismissal
Verily, the dismissal without just cause of an
employee from his employment constitutes a violation of
the Labor Code and its implementing rules and
regulations. Such violation, however, does not amount to
an "offense" as understood under Article 291 of the
Labor Code. In its broad sense, an offense is an illegal
act which does not amount to a crime as defined in the
penal law, but which by statute carries with it a penalty
similar to those imposed by law for the punishment of a
crime.
Indeed there is, merit in the contention of
petitioner that the four [4]-year prescriptive period under
Article 1146 of the New Civil Code, applies by way of
supplement, in the instant case, to wit: Art. 1146. The
following actions must be instituted within four years. [1]
Upon an injury to the lights of the plaintiff.
14
Clearly then, when one is arbitrarily and unjustly
deprived of his job or means of livelihood, the action
instituted to contest the legality of one's dismissal from
employment constitutes, in essence, an action
predicated "upon an injury to the rights of the plaintiff,"
as contemplated under Art. 1146 of the New Civil Code,
which must be brought within four [4] years. (Callanta
vs. Carnation Philippines, Inc., G.R. No. 70615 October
28, 1986)
In illegal dismissal cases, the employee
concerned is given a period of four years from the time
of his dismissal within which to institute a complaint. This
is based on Article 1146 of the New Civil Code which
states that actions based upon an injury to the rights of
the plaintiff must be brought within four years. Thus, the
four-year prescriptive period shall be counted and
computed from the date of the employee's dismissal up
to the date of the filing of complaint for unlawful
termination of employment. (Victory Liner, Inc. vs. Race,
G.R. No. 164820, March 28, 2007)
13th month pay for certain types of employees
Presidential Decree No. 851 mandating all
employers to pay their rank and file employees
regardless of the nature of their employment and
irrespective of the method by which their wages are paid
provided they worked for at least one (1) month during a
calendar year. The 13th Month Pay must be given to the
employees not later than December 24 of every year.
The 13th Month Pay is computed by dividing the total
basic salary earned for the year exclusive of overtime,
holiday, and night shift differential pay divided by 12.
(a) Employees Paid by Results. — Employees
who are paid on piece work basis are by law entitled to
the 13th month pay.
Employees who are paid a fixed or guaranteed
wage plus commission are also entitled to the mandated
13th month pay, based on their total earnings during the
calendar year, i.e., on both their fixed or guaranteed
wage and commission.
(b) Those with Multiple Employers. —
Government employees working part time in a private
enterprise, including private educational institutions, as
well as employees working in two or more private firms,
whether on full or part time basis, are entitled to the
required 13th month pay from all their private employers
regardless of their total earnings from each or all their
employers.
(c) Private School Teachers. — Private school
teachers, including faculty members of universities and
colleges, are entitled to the required 13th month pay,
regardless of the number of months they teach or are
paid within a year, if they have rendered service for at
least one (1) month within a year.
Solo Parent Welfare Act (Republic Act No. 8972)
The employer shall provide for a flexible working
schedule for solo parents provided that the same shall
not affect individual and company productivity
No employer shall discriminate against any solo
parent employee with respect to terms and conditions of
employment on account of his/her status. In addition to
leave privileges under existing laws, parental leave of
not more than seven (7) working days every year shall
be granted to any solo parent employee who has
rendered service of at least one (1) year.
Books Authored by Atty. Duka
1. Labor Laws and Social Legislations: A
Barrister’s Companion (Rex Bookstore, 2016)
2. Constitutional Law: A Barrister’s
Companion (Rex Bookstore, 2010)
 3. Rizal, His Legacy to the Philippine
Society (Anvil Publishing House, 2010)
4. The Struggle for Freedom: A Textbook in
Philippine History (Rex Bookstore, 2008)
5. The Law and the Teaching Profession in
the Philippines (C and E Publishing, 2008)
6. Philosophy of Education (Rex Bookstore,
Inc., 2006, 1999)
7. Reviewer for the Civil Service
Examination (Manila Review Institute, Inc., 2001)
8. World Geography (Rex Bookstore, Inc.,
2006, 2001)
9. Introduction to Asia: History, Culture and
Civilization (Rex Bookstore, 2005)
10. Reviewer for the Licensure Examination
for Teachers (MRI, 2006, 1998)
11. Historical, Philosophical and Legal
Foundations of Education
(Phoenix Publishing House, 1997)
12. Introduction to Sociology (Anvil Publishing),
2014

Give and it will be given to you. A good

measure, pressed down, shaken together and
running over, will be poured into your lap. For with
the measure you use, it will be measured to you.
(Luke 6:38)
Those who are in possession of this review
material have the obligation to share it with others.
God bless you as you take the Bar Examinations –
Atty. Cecilio D. Duka

15