LABOR LAW 2019 BAR QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS undertaking for which the employee is hired; and (2)
he employee is hired; and (2) clear
Do you know that the following are the suggested answers to
the PART I of the 2019 Bar Examinations in Labor Law:
A.1.
Define, explain or distinguish the following terms:
(a) Just and authorized causes (2%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
In Libcap Marketing Corp. v. Baquial, G.R. No. 192011, June
30, 2014, the Supreme Court discussed the two causes for a
valid dismissal as differentiated in the case of Jaka Food
Processing Corporation v. Pacot, as follows:
A dismissal for just cause under Article 282 implies that the
employee concerned has committed, or is guilty of, some
violation against the employer, i.e. the employee has
committed some serious misconduct, is guilty of some fraud
against the employer, or, as in Agabon, he has neglected his
duties. Thus, it can be said that the employee himself initiated
the dismissal process.
On another breath, a dismissal for an authorized cause under
Article 283 does not necessarily imply delinquency or
culpability on the part of the employee. Instead, the dismissal
process is initiated by the employer’s exercise of his
management prerogative, i.e. when the employer opts to install
labor saving devices, when he decides to cease business
operations or when, as in this case, he undertakes to
implement a retrenchment program.
Accordingly, it is wise to hold that: (1) if the dismissal is based
on a just cause under Article 282 but the employer failed to
comply with the notice requirement, the sanction to be imposed
upon him should be tempered because the dismissal process
was, in effect, initiated by an act imputable to the employee;
and (2) if the dismissal is based on an authorized cause under
Article 283 but the employer failed to comply with the notice
requirement, the sanction should be stiffer because the
dismissal process was initiated by the employer’s exercise of
his management prerogative.
NOTE: The foregoing answer can be found in page 755 of the
book entitled Principles and Cases Labor Relations, Second
Edition 2018, by Atty. Voltaire T. Duano. Questions involving
the same subject matter were given during the 2017 [see BQ
No. X (B)] and 2000 Bar [see BQ No. VI] Examinations.
(b) Seasonal and project employees (2%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
In Universal Robina Sugar Milling Corporation v. Acibo, G.R.
No. 186439, January 15, 2014, the Honorable Supreme Court
elucidated the distinction between seasonal employment and
project employment as follows:
A project employment, on the other hand, contemplates on
arrangement whereby “the employment has been fixed for a
specific project or undertaking whose completion or
termination has been determined at the time of the
engagement of the employee[.]” (LABOR CODE, Article 280)
Two requirements, therefore, clearly need to be satisfied to
remove the engagement from the presumption of regularity of
employment, namely: (1) designation of a specific project or
determination of the completion or termination of the project at
the time of the employee’s engagement. (See Violeta v. NLRC,
345 Phil. 762, 771 [1997])
Seasonal employment operates much in the same way as
project employment, albeit it involves work or service that is
seasonal in nature or lasting for the duration of the season.
(Ibid) As with project employment, although the seasonal
employment arrangement involves work that is seasonal or
periodic in nature, the employment itself is not automatically
considered seasonal so as to prevent the employee from
attaining regular status. To exclude the asserted “seasonal”
employee from those classified as regular employees, the
employer must show that: (1) the employee must be
performing work or services that are seasonal in nature; and
(2) he had been employed for the duration of the season. (See
Hacienda Bino/Hortencia Starke, Inc. v. Cuenca., supra, at
209; and Hda. Fatima v. Nat’l Fed. of Sugarcane Workers–
Food and Gen. Trade, supra at 596)
NOTE: The foregoing answer can be found in pages 681 and
700-702 of the book entitled Principles and Cases Labor
Relations, Second Edition 2018, by Atty. Voltaire T. Duano.
Historically, the question about project employment is always
being distinguished with casual/contractual worker (see 2005
BQ No. II [2b]) or regular employee (see 1996 BQ No. 3) and
the question about seasonal employee is about illegal
termination (see 2010 PART II, BQ No. XVII).
(c) Strikes and lockouts (2%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
“Strike” means any temporary stoppage of work by the
concerted action of employees as a result of an industrial or
labor dispute while “Lockout” means any temporary refusal of
an employer to furnish work as a result of an industrial or labor
dispute.
NOTE: The foregoing answer can be found in page 12 of the
book entitled Principles and Cases Labor Relations, Second
Edition 2018, by Atty. Voltaire T. Duano.
(d) Bona fide occupational qualifications (2%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Bona fide occupational qualifications (BFOQ) are employment
qualifications that employers are allowed to consider while
making decisions about hiring and retention of employees. The
qualification should relate to an essential job duty and is
considered necessary for operation of the particular business.
This test was discussed by the High Court in Star Paper
Corporation v. Simbol, G.R. No. 164774, April 12, 2006, as
follows: We note that since the finding of a bona fide
occupational qualification justifies an employer’s no-spouse
rule, the exception is interpreted strictly and narrowly by these
state courts. There must be a compelling business necessity
for which no alternative exists other than the discriminatory
practice. (See note 117, A. Giattina, supra) To justify a bona
fide occupational qualification, the employer must prove two
factors: (1) that the employment qualification is reasonably
related to the essential operation of the job involved; and, (2)
that there is a factual basis for believing that all or substantially
all persons meeting the qualification would be unable to
properly perform the duties of the job. (Richard G. Flood and
Kelly A. Cahill, The River Bend Decision and How It Affects
Municipalities’ Personnel Rule and Regulations, Illinois
Municipal Review, June 1993, p. 7)
NOTE: The foregoing answer can be found in page 48 of the
book entitled Principles and Cases Labor Standards and Social
Legislation, Second Edition 2018, by Atty. Voltaire T. Duano.
(e) Grievance machinery (2%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Grievance machinery a machinery for the adjustment and
resolution of grievances arising from the interpretation or
implementation of their Collective Bargaining Agreement and
those arising from the interpretation or enforcement of
company personnel policies. (Article 273 [260], Labor Code)
NOTE: The foregoing answer can be found in page 434 of the
book entitled Principles and Cases Labor Relations, Second
Edition 2018, by Atty. Voltaire T. Duano. This is the first time
that the term was asked to be defined.
A.2.
X is a member of the Social Security System (SSS). In 2015,
he died without any spouse or children. Prior to the semester of
his death, X had paid 36 monthly contributions. His mother, M,
who had previously been receiving regular support from X, filed
a claim for the latter’s death benefits.
(a) Is M entitled to claim death benefits from the SSS? Explain.
(2.5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes, M is entitled to claim the death benefits. According to
Section 8 (k) of the SSS Law (RA 8282) in the absence of the
dependent spouse and children the dependent parents who
shall be the secondary beneficiaries of the member. In this
case X died without any spouse or children his mother M can
therefore claim the death benefits.
NOTE: The foregoing answer can be found in page 955 of the
book entitled Principles and Cases Labor Standards and Social
Legislation, Second Edition 2018, by Atty. Voltaire T. Duano. A
similar question was asked on the subject last 2017 (see 2017
BQ No. XII [b]).
(b) Assuming that X got married to his girlfriend a few days
before his death, is M entitled to claim death benefits from the
SSS? Explain. (2.5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, M is not entitled to claim death benefits of X. According to
Section 8 (k) of the SSS Law (RA 8282) one of the primary
beneficiaries is the dependent spouse while dependent
parents are only secondary beneficiaries of the member. M can
is only entitled in the absence of primary beneficiaries such as
the dependent spouse and children. On the assumption that X
got married to his girlfriend a few days before his death, M not
entitled to claim her son’s death benefits from the SSS.
NOTE: The foregoing answer can be found in page 955 of the
book entitled Principles and Cases Labor Standards and Social
Legislation, Second Edition 2018, by Atty. Voltaire T. Duano.
A.3.
A, B, and C were hired as resident-doctors by MM Medical
Center, Inc. In the course of their engagement, A, B, and C
maintained specific work schedules as determined by the
Medical Director. The hospital also monitored their work
through supervisors who gave them specific instructions on
how they should perform their respective tasks, including
diagnosis, treatment, and management of their patients.
One day, A, B, and C approached the Medical Director and
inquired about the non-payment of their employment benefits.
In response, the Medical Director told them that they are not
entitled to any because they are mere “independent
contractors” as expressly stipulated in the contracts which they
admittedly signed. As such, no employer-employee relationship
exists between them and the hospital.
(a) What is the control test in determining the existence of an
employer-employee relationship? (2%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
In Royale Homes Marketing Corporation v. Alcantara, G. R.
No. 195190, July 28, 2014, it was held: Among the four, the
most determinative factor in ascertaining the existence of
employer-employee relationship is the "right of control test". "It
is deemed to be such an important factor that the other
requisites may even be disregarded." (Sandigan Savings and
Loan Bank, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission, 324
Phil. 348, 358 [1996]) This holds true where the issues to be
resolved iswhether a person who performs work for another is
the latter’s employee or is an independent contractor,
(Cosmopolitan Funeral Homes, Inc. v. Maalat, G.R. No. 86693,
July 2, 1990, 187 SCRA 108, 112) as in this case. For where
the person for whom the services are performed reserves the
right to control not only the end to be achieved, but also the
means by which such end is reached, employer-employee
relationship is deemed to exist (Id. at 112-113).
NOTE: The foregoing answer can be found in page 366 of the
book entitled Principles and Cases Labor Standards and Social
Legislation, Second Edition 2018, by Atty. Voltaire T. Duano.
Questions involving the same subject matter were given
during the 2017, 2016, 2015, 2014, 2012, 2003, 2002, 1996,
1999 and 1991 Bar Examinations.
(b) Is the Medical Director’s reliance on the contracts signed by
A, B, and C to refute the existence of an employer-employee
relationship correct? If not, are A, B, and C employees of MM
Medical Center, Inc.? Explain. (3%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, Medical Director’s reliance on the contracts is not correct.
In Calamba Medical Center, Inc. v. NLRC, G.R. No. 176484,
November 25, 2008, applying the “control test”, the Supreme
Court ruled that an employment relationship exists between a
physician and a hospital if the hospital controls both the means
and the details of the process by which the physician is to
accomplish his task. (Nogales v. Capitol Medical Center, G.R.
No. 142625, December 19, 2006, 511 SCRA 204, 221 citing
Diggs v. Novant Health, Inc., 628 S.E.2d 851 [2006])
In this case, the element of control is very clear in the given
facts. This is because the resident-doctors in the course of
their engagement maintained specific work schedules as
determined by the Medical Director and the hospital also
monitored their work through supervisors who gave them
specific instructions on how they should perform their
respective tasks, including diagnosis, treatment, and
management of their patients.
NOTE: The foregoing answer can be found in page 385 of the
book entitled Principles and Cases Labor Standards and Social
Legislation, Second Edition 2018, by Atty. Voltaire T. Duano.
Although control test is a favorite question in the bar, however,
this is the first time that the subject matter of control involves
resident-doctors.
A.4.
Mrs. B, the personal cook in the household of X, filed a
monetary claim against her employer, X, for denying her
service incentive leave pay. X argued that Mrs. B did not avail
of any service incentive leave at the end of her one (1) year of
service and hence, not entitled to the said monetary claim.
(a) Is the contention of X tenable? Explain. (2.5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes, X’s contention is tenable. While under Kasambahay Law
(RA 10361) A domestic worker who has rendered at least one
(1) year of service shall be entitled to an annual service
incentive leave of five (5) days with pay any unused portion of
said annual leave shall not be cumulative or carried over to the
succeeding years. Unused leaves shall not be convertible to
cash. (Section 29, Article IV, Republic Act No. 10361)
NOTE: The foregoing answer can be found in page 783 of the
book entitled Principles and Cases Labor Standards and Social
Legislation, Second Edition 2018, by Atty. Voltaire T. Duano.
(b) Assuming that Mrs. B is instead a clerk in X’s company with
at least 30 regular employees, will her monetary claim
prosper? Explain. (2.5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes, Mrs. B monetary claim will prosper. The Rules to
Implement the Labor Code is very clear that the service
incentive leave shall be commutable to its money equivalent if
not used or exhausted at the end of the year. This is the
distinction with respect to the service incentive leave of a
domestic worker under RA 10361.
NOTE: The foregoing answer can be found in page 467 of the
book entitled Principles and Cases Labor Standards and Social
Legislation, Second Edition 2018, by Atty. Voltaire T. Duano.
A.5.
Ms. F, a sales assistant, is one of the eight (8) workers
regularly employed by ABC Convenience Store. She was
required to report on December 25 and 30. Should ABC
Convenience Store pay her holiday pay? Explain. (2.5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
ABC Convenience Store is excluded from paying F her holiday
pay. Under the Rules to Implement the Labor Code the retail
and service establishments regularly employing less than ten
(10) workers is excluded from the coverage of holidays with
pay Section 1, Rule IV, Book III, Rules to Implement the Labor
Code).
NOTE: The foregoing answer can be found in page 467 of the
book entitled Principles and Cases Labor Standards and Social
Legislation, Second Edition 2018, by Atty. Voltaire T. Duano. A
similar question was asked in 2012 [see BQ No. 6]Bar
Examinations.
A.6.
D, one of the sales representatives of OP, Inc., was receiving a
basic pay of P50,000.00 a month, plus a 1% overriding
commission on his actual sales transactions. In addition,
beginning three (3) months ago, or in August 2019, D was able
to receive a monthly gas and transportation allowance of
P5,000.00 despite the lack of any company policy therefor.
In November 2019, D approached his manager and asked for
his gas and transportation allowance for the month. The
manager declined his request, saying that the company had
decided to discontinue the aforementioned allowance
considering the increased costs of its overhead expenses. In
response, D argued that OP, Inc.’s removal of the gas and
transportation allowance amounted to a violation of the rule on
non-diminution of benefits.
Is the argument of D tenable? Explain. (2.5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The argument of D is not tenable. The case of Wesleyan
University-Philippines v. Wesleyan University-Philippines
Faculty and Staff Association, G.R. No. 181806, March 12,
2014 laid down the rule as to when to apply the Non-
Diminution Rule. This rule, however, applies only if the benefit
is based on an express policy, a written contract, or has
ripened into a practice. (Central Azucarera De Tarlac v. Central
Azucarera De Tarlac Labor Union-NLU, G.R. No. 188949, July
26, 2010, 625 SCRA 622, 630-631) While in as held in
Vergara, Jr. v. Coca-Cola Bottlers Philippines, Inc., G.R. No.
176985, April 1, 2013, “To be considered as a regular company
practice, the employee must prove by substantial evidence that
the giving of the benefit is done over a long period of time, and
that it has been made consistently and deliberately.” (See
Eastern Telecommunications Philippines, Inc. v. Eastern
Telecoms Employees Union, supra note 15, at 532; Supreme
Steel Corporation v. NagkakaisangManggagawa ng Supreme
Independent Union (NMS-IND-APL), supra, at 528; and
Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company v. National Labor
Relations Commission, G.R. No. 152928, June 18, 2009, 589
SCRA 376, 384)
In the given facts, it was clearly stated the absence of company
policy. Moreover, the grnat of the subject gas and
transportation is not a regular company practice in the absence
of substantial evidence that the giving of the subejct benefit is
done over a long period of time, and that it has been made
consistently and deliberately.
Applying the above decision, the discontinuance is not a
violation of non-diminution rule.
NOTE: The foregoing answer can be found in pages 517 and
519 of the book entitled Principles and Cases Labor Standards
and Social Legislation, Second Edition 2018, by Atty. Voltaire
T. Duano. A similar question was asked in 2013 [see BQ No.
XIII]Bar Examinations.
A.7.
W Gas Corp. is engaged in the manufacture and distribution to
the general public of various petroleum products. On January
1, 2010, W Gas Corp. entered into a Service Agreement with Q
Manpower Co., whereby the latter undertook to provide utility
workers for the maintenance of the former’s manufacturing
plant. Although the workers were hired by Q Manpower Co.,
they used the equipment owned by W Gas Corp. in performing
their tasks, and were likewise subject to constant checking |
based on W Gas Corp.’s procedures.
On February 1, 2010, Mr. R, one of the utility workers, was
dismissed from employment in line with the termination of the
Service Agreement between W Gas Corp. and Q Manpower
Co. Thus, Mr. R filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against W
Gas Corp., claiming that Q Manpower Co. is only a labor-only
contractor. In the course of the proceedings, W Gas Corp.
presented no evidence to prove Q Manpower Co.’s
capitalization.
(a) Is Q Manpower Co. a labor-only contractor? Explain. (2.5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Q Manpower Co. is a labor-only contractor. In Valencia v.
Classique Vinyl products Corporation, G. R. No. 206390,
January 30, 2017 it was ruled that generally, the presumption
is that the contractor is a labor-only [contractor] unless such
contractor overcomes the burden of proving that it has the
substantial capital, investment, tools and the like. W Gas Corp.
and Q Manpower Co. failed to overcome this presumption.
NOTE: The foregoing answer can be found in page 556 of the
book entitled Principles and Cases Labor Standards and Social
Legislation, Second Edition 2018, by Atty. Voltaire T. Duano.
(b) Will Mr. R’s complaint for illegal dismissal against W Gas
Corp. prosper? Explain. (2.5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes, Mr. R’s complaint for illegal dismissal against W Gas
Corp. will prosper. In this case, since the arrangement between
W Gas Corp. and Q Manpower Co. is labor-only contracting
due to their failure to overcome the presumption the latter shall
be considered merely as an agent of the former who shall be
responsible to the workers in the same manner and extent as if
the latter were directly employed by him. The liability of W Gas
Corp. for illegal dismissal is based on Article 109 of the Labor
Code which say that every employer shall be held responsible
with his contractor or subcontractor for any violation of any
provision of this Code.
NOTE: The foregoing answer can be found in pages 551 and
557 of the book entitled Principles and Cases Labor Relations,
Second Edition 2018, by Atty. Voltaire T. Duano. This question
is a favorite topic in the Bar Examinations.
A.8.
Ms. T was caught in the act of stealing the company property
of her employer. When Ms. T admitted to the commission of
the said act to her manager, the latter advised her to just
tender her resignation; otherwise, she would face an
investigation which would likely lead to the termination of her
employment and the filing of criminal charges in court.
Acting on her manager’s advice, Ms. T submitted a letter of
resignation. Later on, Ms. T filed a case for constructive
dismissal against her employer. While Ms. T conceded that her
manager spoke to her in a calm and unforceful manner, she
claimed that her resignation was not completely voluntary
because she was told that should she not resign, she could be
terminated from work for just cause, and worse, criminal
charges could be filed against her.
(a) What is the difference between resignation and constructive
dismissal? (2%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
In Doble, Jr. v. ABB, Inc. G.R. No. 215627, June 5, 2017 it was
ruled: The concepts of constructive dismissal and resignation
are discussed in Gan v. Galderma Philippines, Inc.,701 Phil.
612 (2013) thus:
To begin with, constructive dismissal is defined as quitting or
cessation of work because continued employment is rendered
impossible, unreasonable or unlikely; when there is a demotion
in rank or a diminution of pay and other benefits. It exists if an
act of clear discrimination, insensibility, or disdain by an
employer becomes so unbearable on the part of the employee
that it could foreclose any choice by him except to forego his
continued employment. There is involuntary resignation due to
the harsh, hostile, and unfavorable conditions set by the
employer. The test of constructive dismissal is whether a
reasonable person in the employee’s position would have felt
compelled to give up his employment/position under the
circumstances.
On the other hand, “[r]esignation is the voluntary act of an
employee who is in a situation where one believes that
personal reasons cannot be sacrificed in favor of the exigency
of the service, and one has no other choice but to dissociate
oneself from employment. It is a formal pronouncement or
relinquishment of an office, with the intention of relinquishing
the office accompanied by the act of relinquishment. As the
intent to relinquish must concur with the overt act of
relinquishment, the acts of the employee before and after the
alleged resignation must be considered in determining whether
he or she, in fact, intended to sever his or her employment.”
(Gan v. Galderma Philippines, Inc., et al., supra, at 638-639.
[Citations omitted])
NOTE: The foregoing answer can be found in page 750 of the
book entitled Principles and Cases Labor Relations, Second
Edition 2018, by Atty. Voltaire T. Duano. This is the first time
that the subject terms was asked to be distinguished from each
other.
(b)Will Ms. T’s claim for constructive dismissal prosper.
Explain?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Ms. T’s claim for constructive dismissal will not prosper. It is
settled that there is nothing reprehensible or illegal when the
employer grants the employee a chance to resign and save
face rather than smear the latter's employment record, as in
this case.
The facts belie Ms. T’s argument that her employer
constructively dismissed her. These circumstances show that
she was given the option to voluntarily resign from the
company instead of dealing with an investigation which might
result in her dismissal. Verily, the manager’s decision to give
Ms. T a graceful exit rather than to file an action for redress is
perfectly within the discretion of the former; as it is not
uncommon that an employee is permitted to resign to avoid the
humiliation and embarrassment of being terminated for just
cause after the exposure of her malfeasance.
In sum, the company did not constructively dismiss Ms. T; but
rather, the latter voluntarily resigned from her job in order to
avoid a full-blown administrative trial regarding her misdeeds
which could potentially result in her termination for just cause.
While it may be said that she did not tender her resignation
wholeheartedly, circumstances of her own making did not give
her any other option but to voluntarily do so.
The foregoing is based on the ponencia of Justice Perlas
Bernabe in Central Azucarera de Bais, Inc. v. Siason, G.R. No.
215555, July 29, 2015.
A.9.
After due proceedings, the Labor Arbiter (LA) declared Mr. K to
have been illegally dismissed by his former employer, ABC,
Inc. As a consequence, the LA directed ABC, Inc. to pay Mr. K
separation pay in lieu of reinstatement as well as his full
backwages.
While ABC, Inc. accepted the finding of illegal dismissal, it
nevertheless filed a motion for reconsideration, claiming that
the LA erred in awarding both separation pay and full
backwages, and instead, should have ordered Mr. K’s
reinstatement to his former position without loss of seniority
rights and other privileges, but without payment of backwages.
In this regard, ABC, Inc. pointed out that the LA’s ruling did not
contain any finding of strained relations or that reinstatement
was no longer feasible. In any case, it appears that no
evidence was presented on this score.
(a)Is ABC, Inc.’s contention to delete the separation pay, and
instead, order reinstatement without backwages correct?
Explain. (3%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes, ABC Inc.’s contention is correct. It is a established
doctrinal rule that even in cases of illegal dismissal, the
doctrine of strained relations is not applied indiscriminately as
to bar reinstatement, especially when the employee has not
indicated an aversion to returning to work (Coca-Cola Bottlers
Phils., Inc. v. Daniel, G.R. No. 156893, June 21, 2005) or does
not occupy a position of trust and confidence in (Globe-Mackay
Cable and Radio Corporation v. NLRC, G.R. No. 82511, 3
March 1992, 206 SCRA 701, 712) or has no say in the
operation of the employer’s business. (Abalos v. Philex Mining
Corporation, G.R. No. 140374, November 27, 2002) Although
litigation may also engender a certain degree of hostility, it has
likewise been ruled that the understandable strain in the
parties’ relations would not necessarily rule out reinstatement
which would, otherwise, become the rule rather than the
exception in illegal dismissal cases. (Procter and Gamble
Philippines v. Bondesto, G.R. No. 139847, March 5, 2004)
NOTE: The foregoing answer can be found in page 649 of the
book entitled Principles and Cases Labor Relations, Second
Edition 2018, by Atty. Voltaire T. Duano. This is the first time
that the subject was asked.
(b)Assuming that on appeal, the National Labor Relations
Commission (NLRC) upholds the decision of the LA, where,
how, and within what time frame should ABC, Inc. assail the
NLRC ruling? (2%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The decision of the NLRC can be assailed to the Court of
Appeals by petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of
Court and within sixty (60) days from receipt of the resolution
denying the motion for reconsideration.
NOTE: The foregoing answer can be found in pages 154 to
158 of the book entitled Principles and Cases Labor Relations,
Second Edition 2018, by Atty. Voltaire T. Duano. This is the
first time that the subject was asked.
A.10.
For purposes of prescription, within what periods from the time
the cause of action accrued should the following cases be filed:
(a) Money claims arising from employer-employee relations
(1%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
All money claims and benefits arising from employer relations
shall be filed within three (3) years from the time the cause of
action accrued; otherwise, they shall be forever barred.
(Section 1, Rule II, Book VII, Rules to Implement the Labor
Code, Article 306. [291], Labor Code)
NOTE: The foregoing answer can be found in page 935 of the
book entitled Principles and Cases Labor Relations, Second
Edition 2018, by Atty. Voltaire T. Duano. Question involving the
same subject matter was given during the 2013 [see BQ No. IV
(2)] Bar Examinations.
(b) Illegal dismissal (1%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Teekay Shipping Philippines, Inc. v. Concha, G.R. No. 185463,
February 22, 2012 ruled: In Callanta v. Carnation Philippines,
Inc., 229 Phil. 279, 288 (1986), this Court ruled that actions
based on injury to rights prescribe in four (4) years under
Article 1146 of the Civil Code rather than three (3) years as
provided for the Labor Code. An action for damages involving a
plaintiff separated from his employment for alleged unjustifiable
causes is one for injury to the rights of the plaintiff, and must be
brought within four (4) years. (Valencia v. Cebu Portland
Cement, et al., 106 Phils. 732, 735 [1959])
NOTE: The foregoing answer can be found in page 948 of the
book entitled Principles and Cases Labor Relations, Second
Edition 2018, by Atty. Voltaire T. Duano. Questions involving
the same subject matter were given during the 2013 [see BQ
No. IV], 2002 [see BQ No. I (A and B)], 1997 [see BQ No. XII]
and 1994 [see BQ No. XI] Bar Examinations.
(c) Unfair labor practice (1%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
All unfair labor practice arising from Book V shall be filed with
the appropriate agency within one (1) year from accrual of such
unfair labor practice; otherwise, they shall be forever barred.
(Article 305 [290], Labor Code)
NOTE: The foregoing answer can be found in page 934 of the
book entitled Principles and Cases Labor Relations, Second
Edition 2018, by Atty. Voltaire T. Duano. This is the first time
that the prescription of ULP was asked.
(d) Offenses under the Labor Code (1%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Offenses penalized under this Code and the rules and
regulations issued pursuant thereto shall prescribe in three (3)
years. (Article 305 [290], Labor Code)
NOTE: The foregoing answer can be found in page 934 of the
book entitled Principles and Cases Labor Relations, Second
Edition 2018, by Atty. Voltaire T. Duano. Question involving the
same subject matter was given during the 2012 [see BQ No.
71] Bar Examinations.
(e) Illegal recruitment (1%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
For illegal recruitment under RA 8042, Migrant Workers and
Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995, the prescription for (simple)
illegal recruitment is five (5) years. (Section 12 of RA 8042,
Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995) And in
case it involves economic sabotage the prescription is twenty
(20) years. (Section 12 of RA 8042, Migrant Workers and
Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995) while illegal recruitment under,
considered offenses penalized under this Code and the rules
and regulations issued pursuant thereto shall prescribe in three
(3) years. (Article 305 [290], Labor Code)
NOTE: The foregoing answer can be found in pages 276-277
and 290 of the book entitled Principles and Cases Labor
Standards and Social Legislation, Second Edition 2018, by
Atty. Voltaire T. Duano. This is the first time that this type of
question was asked in the Bar Examinations.
B.11.
Briefly discuss the powers and responsibilities of the following
in the scheme of the Labor Code:
(a) Secretary of Labor (2%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The following are the Secretary of Labor’s powers and
responsibilities of the following in the scheme of the Labor
Code:
1. Article 35 concurrent jurisdiction to suspend and/cancellation
of license or authority to recruit;
2. Article 36 Regulatory power to restrict and regulate the
recruitment and placement activities of all agencies;
3. Article 37 Visitorial power to inspect the premises, books of
accounts and records of any person or entity under the tile of
recruitment and placement, to require the submission of
reports and act on violation of the title on recruitment and
placement;
4. Article 66 Appeal of the decision of the authorized agency of
DOLE for violation of apprenticeship agreement;
5. Article 128 Visitorial and enforcement power;
6. Article 231 Contempt powers;
7. Article 278 (g) Assumption of jurisdiction over disputes
involving industries indi475, spensable to national interest;
8. Article 289 Visitorial power
9. Article 292 (b) Power to suspend the effects of termination
NOTE: The foregoing answer can be found in pages 178,237,
240, 336, 644-647 of the book entitled Principles and Cases
Labor Standards and Social Legislation, Second Edition 2018,
by Atty. Voltaire T. Duano and pages 167, 475, 562 and 572 of
the book entitled Principles and Cases Labor Relations,
Second Edition 2018. Similar questions were asked during the
2012 on Art. 35, 2011 on Art. 36, 2011, 2008 and 1993 on Art.
128, 2015, 2010 and 2008 on Art. 278 (g) Bar Exams, 2001
and 1999 on Art. 289, and 2010, 1998 and 1994 on Art. 292 (b)
Bar Examinations.
(b) Bureau of Labor Relations (2%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The Bureau of Labor Relations and the Labor Relations
Divisions in the regional offices of the Department of Labor,
shall have original and exclusive authority to act, at their own
initiative or upon request of either or both parties, on:
a. All inter-union and intra-union conflicts; and
b. All disputes, grievances or problems arising from or affecting
labor-management relations in all workplaces, whether
agricultural or non-agricultural. (Article 232 [226], Labor Code)
The jurisdiction of the Bureau of Labor Relations, in so far as
inter/intra union and registration related cases, are as follows:
1. Inter/intra union disputes included under Section 1 (A), Rule
XI, Book V, Rules to Implement the Labor Code — Complaints
or petitions involving federations, national or industry unions,
trade union centers and their chartered locals, affiliates or
members organizations shall be filed either with the Regional
Office or the Bureau. The complaint or petition shall be heard
and resolved by the Bureau (Fourth paragraph, Section 4, Rule
XI, Book V, Rules to Implement the Labor Code);
2. Disputes over conduct of election of officers — In the case of
federations, national or industry unions, trade union centers,
the petition shall be filed with the Bureau or the Regional Office
but shall be heard by the Bureau (Second paragraph, Section
2, Rule XII, Book V, Rules to Implement the Labor Code);
3. Visitorial power under Article 289 of the Labor Code — A
request for examination of books of accounts of federations or
national and trade union centers pursuant to Article 289 [274]
shall be filed with the Bureau. Such request or complaint, in the
absence of allegations pertaining to a violation of Article 250
[241] shall not be treated as an intra-union dispute and the
appointment of an Audit Examination by the Regional or
Bureau Director shall not be appealable (Second paragraph,
Section 3, Rule XIII, Book V, Rules to Implement the Labor
Code).
4. Registration of labor organizations:
a. Application for registration — Applications for registration of
federations, national unions or workers’ association operating
in more than one region shall be filed with the Bureau of the
Regional Offices, but shall be processed by the Bureau in
accordance with Sections 2-B and 2-D of this Rule (Second
paragraph, Section 1, Rule III, Book V, Rules to Implement the
Labor Code);
b. Notice of Merger/Consolidation of Labor Organizations —
Notice of merger or consolidation of federations or national
unions shall be filed with and recorded by the Bureau (Second
sentence, Section 8, Rule III, Book V, Rules to Implement the
Labor Code);
c. Action on application either by approving or denying it
(Sections 4 and 5, Rule IV, Rules to Implement the Labor
Code);
d. Cancellation of Registration - Complaints or petitions
involving federations, national or industry unions, trade union
centers and their chartered locals, affiliates or member
organizations shall be filed either with the Regional Office or
the Bureau. The complaint or petition shall be heard and
resolved by the Bureau (Fourth paragraph, Section 4, Rule XI,
Book V, Rules to Implement the Labor Code). In case of
federations, national or industry unions and trade union
centers, the Bureau Director may cancel the registration upon
the filing of a petition for cancellation or application for
voluntary dissolution in the Bureau of Labor Relations. (Third
paragraph, Section 1, Rule XIV, Book V, Rules to Implement
the Labor Code).
5. Registration/deregistration of CBA
a. Registration of CBA for Multi-employer — Multi-employer
collective bargaining agreement shall be filed with the Bureau
(Second paragraph, Section 1, Rule XVII, Book V, Rules to
Implement the Labor Code);
b. Action on application either by approving or denying it
(Sections 4 and 5, Rule XVII, Book V, Rules to Implement the
Labor Code);
c. Deregistration of CBA for multi-employer under Section 4,
Rule XI, Book V, Rules to Implement the Labor Code where
the complaints or petitions involving federations, national or
industry unions, trade union centers and their chartered locals,
affiliates or member organizations shall be filed either with the
Regional Office or the Bureau. The complaint or petition shall
be heard and resolved by the Bureau.
NOTE: The foregoing answer can be found in pages 168 and
172 of the book entitled Principles and Cases Labor Relations,
Second Edition 2018. Similar questions were asked during the
2012 and 1996 Bar Examinations.
(c) Voluntary Arbitrators (2%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The voluntary arbitrator or panel of voluntary arbitrators shall
have exclusive and original jurisdiction to hear and decide all
unresolved grievances arising from:
1. The implementation or interpretation of the collective
bargaining agreements; (Article 274 [261], Labor Code, Section
4, Rule XIX, Book V, Rules to Implement the Labor Code)
2. The interpretation or enforcement of company personnel
policies which remain unresolved after exhaustion of the
grievance procedure; (Article 274 [261], Labor Code, Section 4,
Rule XIX, Book V, Rules to Implement the Labor Code)
3. Wage distortion issues arising from the application of any
wage orders in organized establishments; (par. 4, Article 124,
Labor Code, Section 4, Rule XIX, Book V, Rules to Implement
the Labor Code)
4. The interpretation and implementation of the productivity
incentive programs under RA 6971.
5. Upon agreement of the parties, shall also hear and decide
all other labor disputes including unfair labor practices and
bargaining deadlocks. (Article 275, [262], Labor Code, Section
4, Rule XIX, Book V, Rules to Implement the Labor Code)
6. Violations of a Collective Bargaining Agreement, except
those which are gross in character, shall no longer be treated
as unfair labor practice and shall be resolved as grievances
under the Collective Bargaining Agreement; (Article 274, [261],
Labor Code)
NOTE: The foregoing answer can be found in page 443 of the
book entitled Principles and Cases Labor Relations, Second
Edition 2018. Similar questions were asked during the 2017,
2010, 2008, 2001, 1997 and 1995 Bar Examinations.
Hear-ye Hear-ye
Do you know that hereunder is the suggested answer to
Question No. B.11 PART II of the 2019 Bar Examinations in
Labor Law :
PARTIAL SUGGESTED ANSWERS TO QUESTION NUMBER
B.11. The following is just a mere guide and no special claim.
B.11.
Briefly discuss the powers and responsibilities of the following
in the scheme of the Labor Code:
(a) Secretary of Labor (2%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The following are the Secretary of Labor’s powers and
responsibilities of the following in the scheme of the Labor
Code:
1. Article 35 concurrent jurisdiction to suspend and/cancellation
of license or authority to recruit;
2. Article 36 Regulatory power to restrict and regulate the
recruitment and placement activities of all agencies;
3. Article 37 Visitorial power to inspect the premises, books of
accounts and records of any person or entity under the tile of
recruitment and placement, to require the submission of
reports and act on violation of the title on recruitment and
placement;
4. Article 66 Appeal of the decision of the authorized agency of
DOLE for violation of apprenticeship agreement;
5. Article 128 Visitorial and enforcement power;
6. Article 231 Contempt powers;
7. Article 278 (g) Assumption of jurisdiction over disputes
involving industries indispensable to national interest;
8. Article 289 Visitorial power
9. Article 292 (b) Power to suspend the effects of termination
NOTE: The foregoing answer can be found in pages 178,237,
240, 336, 644-647 of the book entitled Principles and Cases
Labor Standards and Social Legislation, Second Edition 2018,
by Atty. Voltaire T. Duano and pages 167, 475, 562 and 572 of
the book entitled Principles and Cases Labor Relations,
Second Edition 2018. Similar questions were asked during the
2012 on Art. 35, 2011 on Art. 36, 2011, 2008 and 1993 on Art.
128, 2015, 2010 and 2008 on Art. 278 (g) Bar Exams, 2001
and 1999 on Art. 289, and 2010, 1998 and 1994 on Art. 292 (b)
Bar Examinations.
(b) Bureau of Labor Relations (2%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The Bureau of Labor Relations and the Labor Relations
Divisions in the regional offices of the Department of Labor,
shall have original and exclusive authority to act, at their own
initiative or upon request of either or both parties, on:
a. All inter-union and intra-union conflicts; and
b. All disputes, grievances or problems arising from or affecting
labor-management relations in all workplaces, whether
agricultural or non-agricultural. (Article 232 [226], Labor Code)
The jurisdiction of the Bureau of Labor Relations, in so far as
inter/intra union and registration related cases, are as follows:
1. Inter/intra union disputes included under Section 1 (A), Rule
XI, Book V, Rules to Implement the Labor Code — Complaints
or petitions involving federations, national or industry unions,
trade union centers and their chartered locals, affiliates or
members organizations shall be filed either with the Regional
Office or the Bureau. The complaint or petition shall be heard
and resolved by the Bureau (Fourth paragraph, Section 4, Rule
XI, Book V, Rules to Implement the Labor Code);
2. Disputes over conduct of election of officers — In the case of
federations, national or industry unions, trade union centers,
the petition shall be filed with the Bureau or the Regional Office
but shall be heard by the Bureau (Second paragraph, Section
2, Rule XII, Book V, Rules to Implement the Labor Code);
3. Visitorial power under Article 289 of the Labor Code — A
request for examination of books of accounts of federations or
national and trade union centers pursuant to Article 289 [274]
shall be filed with the Bureau. Such request or complaint, in the
absence of allegations pertaining to a violation of Article 250
[241] shall not be treated as an intra-union dispute and the
appointment of an Audit Examination by the Regional or
Bureau Director shall not be appealable (Second paragraph,
Section 3, Rule XIII, Book V, Rules to Implement the Labor
Code).
4. Registration of labor organizations:
a. Application for registration — Applications for registration of
federations, national unions or workers’ association operating
in more than one region shall be filed with the Bureau of the
Regional Offices, but shall be processed by the Bureau in
accordance with Sections 2-B and 2-D of this Rule (Second
paragraph, Section 1, Rule III, Book V, Rules to Implement the
Labor Code);
b. Notice of Merger/Consolidation of Labor Organizations —
Notice of merger or consolidation of federations or national
unions shall be filed with and recorded by the Bureau (Second
sentence, Section 8, Rule III, Book V, Rules to Implement the
Labor Code);
c. Action on application either by approving or denying it
(Sections 4 and 5, Rule IV, Rules to Implement the Labor
Code);
d. Cancellation of Registration - Complaints or petitions
involving federations, national or industry unions, trade union
centers and their chartered locals, affiliates or member
organizations shall be filed either with the Regional Office or
the Bureau. The complaint or petition shall be heard and
resolved by the Bureau (Fourth paragraph, Section 4, Rule XI,
Book V, Rules to Implement the Labor Code). In case of
federations, national or industry unions and trade union
centers, the Bureau Director may cancel the registration upon
the filing of a petition for cancellation or application for
voluntary dissolution in the Bureau of Labor Relations. (Third
paragraph, Section 1, Rule XIV, Book V, Rules to Implement
the Labor Code).
5. Registration/deregistration of CBA
a. Registration of CBA for Multi-employer — Multi-employer
collective bargaining agreement shall be filed with the Bureau
(Second paragraph, Section 1, Rule XVII, Book V, Rules to
Implement the Labor Code);
b. Action on application either by approving or denying it
(Sections 4 and 5, Rule XVII, Book V, Rules to Implement the
Labor Code);
c. Deregistration of CBA for multi-employer under Section 4,
Rule XI, Book V, Rules to Implement the Labor Code where
the complaints or petitions involving federations, national or
industry unions, trade union centers and their chartered locals,
affiliates or member organizations shall be filed either with the
Regional Office or the Bureau. The complaint or petition shall
be heard and resolved by the Bureau.
NOTE: The foregoing answer can be found in pages 168 and
172 of the book entitled Principles and Cases Labor Relations,
Second Edition 2018. Similar questions were asked during the
2012 and 1996 Bar Examinations.
(c) Voluntary Arbitrators (2%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The voluntary arbitrator or panel of voluntary arbitrators shall
have exclusive and original jurisdiction to hear and decide all
unresolved grievances arising from:
1. The implementation or interpretation of the collective
bargaining agreements; (Article 274 [261], Labor Code, Section
4, Rule XIX, Book V, Rules to Implement the Labor Code)
2. The interpretation or enforcement of company personnel
policies which remain unresolved after exhaustion of the
grievance procedure; (Article 274 [261], Labor Code, Section 4,
Rule XIX, Book V, Rules to Implement the Labor Code)
3. Wage distortion issues arising from the application of any
wage orders in organized establishments; (par. 4, Article 124,
Labor Code, Section 4, Rule XIX, Book V, Rules to Implement
the Labor Code)
4. The interpretation and implementation of the productivity
incentive programs under RA 6971.
5. Upon agreement of the parties, shall also hear and decide
all other labor disputes including unfair labor practices and
bargaining deadlocks. (Article 275, [262], Labor Code, Section
4, Rule XIX, Book V, Rules to Implement the Labor Code)
6. Violations of a Collective Bargaining Agreement, except
those which are gross in character, shall no longer be treated
as unfair labor practice and shall be resolved as grievances
under the Collective Bargaining Agreement; (Article 274, [261],
Labor Code)