LABOR STANDARDS-ATTY.

SONNY MATULA
MIDTERM EXAM

a. Section 3, Article XIII of the 1987 Philippine Constitution states

that the State 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.

The right to self-organization implies not only the right to join a

labor union, but also the privilege of not joining one, of selecting
which union to join, and of disaffiliating from a union. This
protection is rooted upon the fact that workers and their employer
are placed not upon a position of equality but upon a position of
the quality. It is only with a well-organized, high-minded labor
union speaking with a single, yet potent, voice can hope to deal
with a powerful employer with some semblance of equality.

Jurisprudence states that the right to collective bargaining and

negotiation infers the existence of a labor organization, and
indicates its role in fostering industrial peace. Without this
companion right, a labor union will have no voice or power to
represent the workers’ interests before their employee and it would
be inutile. With it, workers are enabled to negotiate with the
employer on the same level and with more persuasiveness than if
they were to bargain individually and independently for the
improvement of their respective conditions.

Lastly,the right to strike is a constitutional and legal right of the

workers as employers have the right to lockout, all within the
context of labor relations and collective bargaining.

b. In a case decided by the Supreme Court, every employer, under

the doctrine of management prerogative, has the inherent right to
regulate, according to his own discretion and judgment, all aspects
of employment, including hiring, work assignments, working
methods, the time, place and manner of work, work supervision,
transfer of employees, lay-off of workers, and discipline, dismissal,
and recall of employees. The only limitations to the exercise of this
prerogative are those imposed by labor laws and the principles of
equity and substantial justice.

c. The principle of codetermination is based on Paragraph 3, Section

3 of Art XIII of the Constitution which states, in part, that the
State shall promote the principle of shared responsibility between
workers and employers.This means that it is a joint responsibility
of the employer and the employee to establish terms and
conditions of employment, taking into consideration existing laws
and regulations.
 On other hand, tripartism has been declared by the Labor Code in
Article 290 thereof as a State Policy. It refers to the representation
of workers and employer sectors in decision and policy-making
bodies of the government. Through tripartism, workers and
employers on one hand, representing their respective interests,
and the government on the other hand, representing the interest
of the public, help shape labor, social and economic policies and
programs of the government.

d. In line with the principle of incorporation, which is clearly

enshrined in Article II, Section 2 of the 1987 Constitution,
declaring that the Philippines adopts generally accepted principles
as part of the law of the Land, courts and quasi-judicial bodies
should treat International Labor Conventions in the same way it
treats local laws.

II

a. Star, Bituin, and Estrella should file a complaint of illegal

recruitment. The two essential elements of this offense are the
following, to wit: a) the offender is a licensee/non-licensee or
holder/non-holder of authority engaged in the recruitment of and
placement of workers; and b) the offender undertakes either any
recruitment activities defined under Article 13 (b), or any prohibited
practices under Article i34 of the Labor Code.

In this case, whether Sol is a licensee/nonlicensee or holder/non-

holder of authority to engage in recruitment and placement is of no
moment. Article 34 (a) of the Labor Code states that it shall be
unlawfulto charge or accept, directly or indirectly, any amount
greater than that specified in the schedule of allowable fees
prescribed by the Secretary of Labor, or to make a worker any
amount greater than that actually received by him as a loan or
advance. In this connection, the law specifies that placement fees
cannot be collected from a hired worker until after he has signed
the employment contract and shall be covered by receipts clearly
showing the amounts paid. Hence, Sol’s collection of placement fees
prior to obtaining employment is tantamount to illegal recruitment.

b. Yes. The law provides that a criminal action arising from illegal
recruitment shall be filed with the Regional Trial Court of the
province or city where the offense or committed or where the
offended party actually resides at the time of the commission of the
offense. Considering that the three job applicants are from Laguna,
they can file the complaint before the Office of the City Prosecutor
thereat.

c. No. Aside from the fact that the RTC has jurisdiction over cases of
Illegal Recruitment, there was no employer-employee relationship
that was created since the four-fold test is not satisfied herein. In
this case, the following are absent between Sol and the applicants:
(a) power to select or hire employees; (b) power to fire; (c) to
control; and (d) payment of wages. Therefore, it cannot be said
that the case is work-related.
d. Five (5) years and twenty (20) years respectively. Section 12 of
R.A. 8042 states that simple illegal recruitment prescribes in 5
years while that constituting economic sabotage prescribes in
twenty (20) years.

III

a. Yes. This is a valid exercise of police power. In JMM Promotion

Inc. vs CA, the Court said that the latin maxim salus suprema
lex embodies the character of the entire spectrum of public laws
aimed at promoting the general welfare of the people under the
State’s police power. Hence, banning of sending women
domestic workers to all countries in the Middle East is the
utmost protection that the State can provide to these women as
part of the

b. As mandated in Article 21 of the Labor Code, I have the power

and duty, even without prior instruction or advice from the
home office, to: (1) provide all Filipino workers within my
jurisdiction assistance on all matters arising out of employment;
(2) insure that Filipino workers are not exploited or
discriminated against; (3) verify and certify as requisite to
authentication that the terms and conditions of employment in
contracts involving Filipino workers are in accordance with the
Labor Code and rules and regulations of the Overseas
Employment Development Board and National Seamen Board;
(4) make continuing studies or researches and
recommendations on the various aspects of the employment
market within their jurisdiction; (5) gather and analyze
information on the employment situation and its probable
trends, and to make such information; and (6) perform such
other duties as may be required of them from time to time.

IV

a. The dismissal was illegal as to Isabel and Juliet but not as to

Tintin.

As to Isabel’s case. It was held in Star Paper Corp. vs Simbol

that the protection of labor in our jurisdiction is vast and
extensive that we cannot prudently draw inferences from the
legislature’s silence that married persons are not protected
under our Constitution and declare valid a policy based on a
prejudice or stereotype. In Isabel’s case, there being no
reasonable business necessity in the questioned policy, she is
deemed illegally dismissed.

As to Juliet, her dismissal was likewise illegal since her having

gotten pregnant by a married man is not in violation of the
subject policies.

As regards Tintin, her dismissal was valid. In the case of Duncan

vs GlaxoWelcome, the Court held that Glaxo’s prohibiting an
 employee from having a relationship with an employee of a
competitor company is a valid exercise of management
prerogative. In the case at bar, the right of Tingkuling
Pharmaceutical Company to protect its economic interest cannot
be denied. Tintin’s marriage to Thomas might compromise such
interests.
V

I will advise her to report to DOLE or to proper authorities in

order to compel her husband to remit a portion of his foreign
exchange earnings. Under Article 22 of the Labor Code, it shall
be mandatory for all Filipino workers abroad to remit a portion of
their foreign exchange earnings to their families, dependents
and/or beneficiaries in the country in accordance with rules and
regulations prescribed by the Secretary of Labor and
Employment. Further, I will inform her that her husband, being a
seaman, is supposed to remit 80% of his basic salary.

VI

My advice to Eve is to file a Motion for Reconsideration for the denial of

her claim for survivorship pension. The following would be my advisory letter
to her:

16 August 2017

MS. EVE
CLIENT

Dear Ms. Eve:

In connection with the denial of your claim for survivorship pension,

please be informed that you are entitled to said benefit. In a similar
case, particularly Dycaico vs. SSS, the Court held that the proviso “as
of the date of his retirement in Section 12-B (d) of RA 8282, which
qualifies the term primary beneficiaries, is unconstitutional for it
violates the due process and equal protection clauses of the
Constitution.

To elucidate on the matter, the Court in the above-entitled case said

that classification of dependent spouses of whether their respective
marriages to SSS member were contracted prior or after the latter’s
retirement for the purpose of entitlement to survivor’s pension does
not reston real and substantial distinctions. In addition, it bears no
relation to the achievement of the policy objective of the law which is
to provide meaningful protection and benefits to their members and its
beneficiaries. Further, it violates due process since it creates a
presumption that marriages contracted after the retirement date of
SSS members were entered into for the purpose of securing the
latter’s benefits.

In view of the foregoing, the undersigned encourages you to file a

motion praying that the SSS reconsider its earlier action on your claim.
Please feel free to come to my office in the event that you need further
clarification and assistance on the matter.

Sincerely yours,

MA. EIANNE GIRL L.VERDILLO

VII

a. An apprentice is a worker who is covered by a written

apprenticeship agreement with an individual employer or any of the
entities recognized under the Labor Code. On the other hand, a
learner is a person hired as a trainee in semi-skilled and other
industrial occupations which are non-apprenticeable and may be
learned through practical training on the job in a relatively short
period of time which shall not exceed three (3) months.

b. Under Article 59 of the Labor Code, to qualify as an apprentice, a

person shall: (1) be at least 14 years of age; (2) possess vocational
aptitude and capacity for appropriate tests; and (3) possess the
ability to comprehend and follow oral and written instructions.

c. A learner should be at least 15 to 18 years old.

VIII

a. Yes, Loiue is a field personnel not entitled to overtime pay. The

Labor Code defines field personnel as those who regularly perform
their duties away from the principal place of business of the
employer whose actual hours of work in the field cannot be
determined with reasonable certainty. Further, in the case of
Autobus vs Bautista, the Court stated that to determine whether an
employee is a field employee, it is also necessary to ascertain if
actual hours of work in the field can be determined with reasonable
certainty by the employer. In so doing, an inquiry must be made as
to whether or not the employee’s time and performance are
constantly supervised by the employer. In the case at hand,
although the facts state that he works 11 hours a day, there is
nobody who supervises his time and performance. Hence, he is
should be classified as field personnel.

b. No, he will not anymore be a field personnel and he shall be entitled

to overtime pay. As above-stated, in the case of Autobus vs
Bautista, to determine whether an employee is a field employee, it
is also necessary to ascertain if actual hours of work in the field can
be determined with reasonable certainty by the employer. In so
doing, an inquiry must be made as to whether or not the
employee’s time and performance are constantly supervised by the
employer. In the present case, since Louie is assigned at the office
of the NGO in Quezon City, the principal place of business, the
employer is now able to supervise Louie’s time and performance
with reasonable certainty. Therefore, he is not anymore a field
employee.
c. Under the Labor Code, employees who are not entitled to overtime
pay are the following:

1. Government Employees
2. Managerial Employees
3. Officers and managerial staff
4. Field Personnel
5. Members of the family of the employer who are dependent on
him for support
6. Domestic Workers
7. Personal Services Employees
8. Work paid by result

IX

a. The right to holiday under Article 94 of the Labor Code

prescribes that every worker shall be paid his regular daily wage
during regular holidays except in retail and service
establishments regularly employing less than 10 workers.

b. Yes. Paragraph b of Article 94 of the Labor Code states that the

employer may require an employee to work on any holiday but
such employee shall be paid compensation equivalent to twice
his regular rate.

The following are the regular and special holidays in the

Philippines:

Regular Holidays

New Year’s Day – January 1

Maundy Thursday – Movable Date
Good Friday – Movable Date
Eidul Fitre – Movable Date
Araw ng Kagitingan – April 9
Labor Day – May 1
Independence Day – June 12
National Heroes Day – Last Monday of August
Bonifacio Day – Monday nearest November 30
Christmas Day – December 25
Rizal Day – December 30

Special Holidays:

Ninoy Aquino Day – Monday nearest August 21

All Saint’s Day – November 1
Last Day of the Year – December 31

c. No, the contention of the employer is incorrect. In the case of

San Miguel vs CA, the Court ordered San Miguel to pay its non-
Muslim employees based on the “Code of Muslim Personal Laws”
which is to be read in conjunction with Article 94 of the Labor
Code. This provides for the right of every worker to be paid
holiday pay, where there should be no distinction between
Muslims and Non-Muslims as regards benefits for Muslim
holidays. In the case at bar, the company failed to pay its non-
Muslim employees for worked rendered during Eidl Fitr and Eidl
Adha. If the contention of the company is to be upheld, Muslims
throughout the country, in the same token, would not also be
entitled to holiday pay during Christian holidays.

It depends. The Constitution provides that the State recognizes

the Filipino family as the foundation of the nation. Accordingly, it
shall strengthen its solidarity and actively promote its total
development. In the instant case, Mr. Mata’s desire to drive his
wife to the airport to send her off for an overseas work in Dubai
is an act that promotes family solidarity, especially so that Mr.
Mata’s wife will be away for a long time, hence, a valid reason to
invoke if there is another mechanic whom Ms. Corazon Ala can
send in lieu of Mr. Mata.

If there is none, however, the management has the prerogative

to dismiss Mr. Mata from employment for insubordination. Article
80 provides that Emergency Overtime Work which includes
urgent work to be performed on machines, installation, or
equipment, in order to prevent loss or damage to employer or
some other causes of similar nature. In the case at bar, the
mechanical problem encountered along EDSA by one of the
company’s buses bound for Naga is an emergency as it would
lead to serious traffic congestion which will be prejudicial to
motorists and commuters. This may also cause serious loss or
damage to the employer if the passengers complain or would not
patronize the company. Therefore, the situation requires a
compulsory overtime work and willful refusal on the part of the
employee may be a ground for dismissal.