Sunteți pe pagina 1din 1

Zacarias, Bryan Clark B.

2015110484 Labor Law Review

8. No. The action will not prosper. The claim of the workers as regards preference of their
claims is not applicable in this case. The Labor Code guarantees that in case of bankruptcy or
liquidation of the employer’s business, the claims of the workers have preference over other
credits of the employer. However, in this case, Independence Bank of the Philippines is the one
being sued. There is no employer-employee relationship between them which makes the
workers’ preference inapplicable in this case.

17. The Arbiter was correct. The Civil Code provides that attorney’s fees may be awarded as
damages when the act or omission of the defendant has compelled the plaintiff to litigate or
incur expenses to protect his rights. In this case, even though A did not specifically prayed for
attorney’s fees, the same can be deemed as included in his prayer for damages.

19. The Labor Arbiter is incorrect in stating that the satisfaction of labor benefits is superior
to the right of the mortgagee. Jurisprudence provides that the workers’ preference under the
Labor Code is an ordinary preferred credit while a mortgage credit is a special mortgage credit.
The claims of workers have preference over other ordinary claims, but has no preference to
special preferred credits. Furthermore, the workers’ claims could not be paid if the employer’s
business did not undergo bankruptcy or liquidation. In this case, there was no bankruptcy or
liquidation as the property of the employer was foreclosed which places the case beyond the
workers’ preference provision of the Labor Code.

20. Yes, the dismissal can be successfully assailed by Leo. Based on the facts, Daisy
Department Store abolished the Checkers Section as a cost-cutting measure, a retrenchment-
based dismissal. However, the subsequent hiring of a different checker with a salary lower than
Leo’s shows that there was no retrenchment. Furthermore, Daisy Department Store failed to
show by sufficient and convincing evidence that there was substantial loss which is reasonably

22. No, it cannot be said that the individual violated the Anti-Sexual Harassment Act. Sexual
harassment is committed by a person having authority, influence or moral ascendancy over
another in a work, training, or education environment who requires any sexual favor from the
other. In this case, there is no authority, influence or moral ascendancy nor is the requirement
of any sexual favor. Discrimination against women is not a violation of the Anti-Sexual
Harassment Act. However, it is a violation of the prohibition of the Labor Code as regards
discrimination solely on account of sex.