Labor Law

Regulations for Private Schools. The terms and conditions of her engagement were defined under her renewable yearly contract. For reasons of its own, BM Institute nolonger wanted to continue with Aleta's teaching services. Thus, after the contract for her second year expired, BM Institute advised Aleta that her contract would no longer be renewed. This advice prompted Aleta to file a complaint for illegal dismissal against BM Institute. Will the complaint prosper?

(A) Yes, because no just or authorized cause existed for the termination of her probationary employment.

For ten (10) separate but consecutive yearly contracts, Cesar has been deployed as an able-bodied seaman by Meritt Shipping, through its local agent, Ace Maritime Services (agency), in accordance with the 2000Philippine Overseas Employment Administration Standard Employment Contract (2000 POEA-SEC). Cesar's employment was also covered by a CBA between the union, AMOSl.JP, and Meritt Shipping. Both the 2000 POEA-SEC and the CBA commonly provide the same mode and procedures for claiming disability benefits. Cesar's last contract (for nine months) expired on July 15, 2013. Cesar disembarked from the vessel M/V Seven Seas on July 16, 2013as a seaman on "finished contract". He immediately reported to the agency and complained that he had been experiencing spells of dizziness, nausea, general weakness, and difficulty in breathing. The agency referred him to Dr. Sales, a cardio-pulmonary specialist, who examined and treated him; advised him to take a complete rest for a while; gave him medications; and declared him fit to resume work as a seaman. After a month, Cesar went back to the agency to ask for re-deployment. The agency rejected his application. Cesar responded by demanding total disability benefits based on the ailments that he developed and suffered while on board Meritt Shipping vessels. The claim was based on the certification of his physician (internist Dr. Reyes) that he could no longer undertake sea duties because of the hypertension and diabetes that afflicted him while serving on Meritt Shipping vessels in the last 10 years. Rejected once again, Cesar filed a complaint for illegal dismissal and the payment of total permanent disability benefits against the agency and its principal. Assume that you are the Labor Arbiter deciding the case. Identify the facts and issues you would consider material in resolving the illegal dismissal and disability complaint. Explain your choices and their materiality, and resolve the case.

(1) Does the Labor Arbiter have jurisdiction to decide the case? (2) Did Cesar submit to a postemployment examination within 3 days upon his return? This is mandatory requirement; otherwise, Cesar will forfeit his right to claim benefits. (3) Is Dr. Sales the company-designated physician? The company-designated physician is the one who initially determines compensability. (4) Was Cesar assisted by Dr. Sales (if he is the company physician) within 120 days? (5) If the 120 days was exceeded and no declaration was made as to Cesar's disability, was this extended to 240 days because Cesar required further medical treatment? (6) Was the 240 days exceeded and still no final decision was reached as to Cesar's disability? If so, Cesar is deemed entitled to permanent total disability benefits. (7) If the company's physician and Cesar's physician cannot agree, was a third physician designated to determine the true nature and extent of the disability. The third physician's finding under the law is final and conclusive. (8) In the matter of the complaint for illegal dismissal: There is none because Cesar disembarked on a ―finished contract.‖ (9) Seafarers are contractual employees, for a fixed terms, governed by the contract they sign; an exception to Article 280 (now Article 286) of the Labor Code. Hence, the complaint for illegal dismissal will not prosper.

What is the financial incentive, if any, granted by law to SPQ Garments whose cutters and sewers in its garments-forexport operations are80% staffed by deaf and deaf-mute workers?

(A) Additional deduction from its gross income equivalent to 25% of amount paid as salaries to persons with disability, Magna Carta for Disabled Persons.

Constant Builders, an independent contractor, was charged with illegal dismissal and non-payment of wages and benefits of ten dismissed employees. The complainants impleaded as co-respondent Able Company, Constant Builder's principal in the construction of Able's office building. The complaint demanded that Constant and Able be held solidarily liable for the payment of their backwages, separation pay, and all their unpaid wages and benefits. If the Labor Arbiter rules in favor of the complainants, choose the statement that best describes the extent of the liabilities of Constant and Able.

(A) Constant and Able should be held solidarily liable for the unpaid wages and benefits, as well as backwages and separation pay, based on Article 109 of the Labor Code which provides that "every employer or indirect employer shall be held responsible with his contractor or subcontractor for any violation of any provision of this Code."

Aleta Quiros was a faculty member at BM Institute, a private educational institution. She was hired on a year-to-year basis under the probationary employment period provision of the Manual of Regulations for Private Schools. The terms and conditions of her engagement were defined under her renewable yearly contract. For reasons of its own, BM Institute no longer wanted to continue with Aleta's teaching services. Thus, after the contract for her second year expired, BM Institute advised Aleta that her contract would no longer be renewed. This advice prompted Aleta to file a complaint for illegal dismissal against BM Institute. Will the complaint prosper?

(A) Yes, because no just or authorized cause existed for the termination of her probationary employment.

Don Luis, a widower, lived alone in a house with a large garden. One day, he noticed that the plants in his garden needed trimming. He remembered that Lando, a 17-year old out-of-school youth, had contacted him in church the other day looking for work. He contacted Lando who immediately attended to Don Luis's garden and finished the job in three days. (A) Is there an employer-employee relationship between Don Luis and Lando? (B) Does Don Luis need to register Lando with the Social Security System (SSS)

(A) Yes. All the elements of employer-employee relationship are present, viz: 1. the selection and engagement of the employee; 2. the power of dismissal; 3. the payment of wages; and 4. the power to control the employee's conduct. There was also no showing that Lando has his own tools, or equipment so as to qualify him as an independent contractor. (B) Yes. Coverage in the SSS shall be compulsory upon all employees not over sixty (60) years of age.

Hector, a topnotch Human Resource Specialist who had worked in multinational firms both in the Philippines and overseas, was recruited by ABC Corp., because of his impressive credentials. In the course of Hector's employment, the company management frequently did not follow his recommendations and he felt offended by this constant rebuff. Thus, he toyed with the idea of resigning and of asking for the same separation pay that ABC earlier granted to two (2) department heads when they left the company. To obtain a legal opinion regarding his options, Hector sent an email to ABC's retained counsel, requesting for advice on whether the grant by the company of separation pay to his resigned colleagues has already ripened into a company practice, and whether he can similarly avail of this benefit if he resigns from his job. As the company's retained legal counsel, how will you respond to Hector?

(A) or (D) (A) I would advise him to write management directly and inquire about the benefits he can expect if he resigns. (D) I would not give him any legal advice because he is not my client.

The minimum wage prescribed by law for persons with disability is __________.

(B) 75% of the applicable minimum wage, this is the general rule. As an exception, if the employee is qualified to work and the disability has nothing to do with the work, the employee is entitled to 100%.

Lolong Law Firm (LLF), which employs around fifty (50) lawyers and one hundred (100) regular staff, suffered losses for the first time in its history. The management informed its employees that it could no longer afford to provide them free lunch. Consequently, it announced that a nominal fee would henceforth be charged. Was LLF justified in withdrawing this benefit which it had unilaterally been providing to its employees?

(C) No, because this amounts to a diminution of benefits which is prohibited by the Labor Code.

At age 65 and after 20 years of sewing work at home on a piece rate basis for PQR Garments, a manufacturer-exporter to Hongkong, Aling Nena decided it was time to retire and to just take it easy. Is she entitled to retirement pay from PQR?

(C) Yes, at the same rate as regular employees.

Mr. Ortanez has been in the building construction business for several years. He asks you, as his new labor counsel, for the rules he must observe in considering regular employment in the construction industry. You clarify that an employee, project or non-project, will acquire regular status if __________.

(C) he performs work necessary and desirable to the business, without a fixed period and without reference to any specific project or undertaking

The jurisdiction of the National Labor Relations Commission does not include: (A) exclusive appellate jurisdiction over all cases decided by the Labor Arbiter (B) exclusive appellate jurisdiction over all cases decided by Regional Directors or hearing officers involving the recovery of wages and other monetary claims and benefits arising from employer-employee relations where the aggregate money claim of each does not exceed five thousand pesos (P5,000) (C) original jurisdiction to act as a compulsory arbitration body over labor disputes certified to it by the Regional Directors (D) power to issue a labor injunction

(C) original jurisdiction to act as a compulsory arbitration body over labor disputes certified to it by the Regional Directors

Ricardo operated a successful Makati seafood restaurant patronized by a large clientele base for its superb cuisine and impeccable service. Ricardo charged its clients a 10% service charge and distributed 85% of the collection equally among its rank-and-file employees, 10%among managerial employees, and 5% as reserve for losses and break ages. Because of the huge volume of sales, the employees received sizeable shares in the collected service charges. As part of his business development efforts, Ricardo opened a branch in Cebu where he maintained the same practice in the collection and distribution of service charges. The Cebu branch, however, did not attract the forecasted clientele; hence, the Cebu employees received lesser service charge benefits than those enjoyed by the Makati-based employees. As a result, the Cebu branch employees demanded equalization of benefits and filed a case with the NLRC for discrimination when Ricardo refused their demand. (l) Will the case prosper?

(D) I would advise them to accept their Cebu training assignment as an exercise of the company's management prerogative.

Lizzy and five other sales associates due to financial losses. Aside from a basic monthly salary, Lizzy and her colleagues receive commissions on the sales they make as well as cost of living and representation allowances. In computing Lizzy's separation pay, Luna Properties should consider her: (A) monthly salary only (B) monthly salary plus sales commissions (C) monthly salary plus sales commissions, plus cost of living allowance (D) monthly salary plus sales commissions, plus cost of living allowance and representation allowance

(D) monthly salary plus sales commissions, plus cost of living allowance and representation allowance

Despite a reinstatement order, an employer may choose not to reinstate an employee if: (A) there is a strained employer-employee relationship (B) the position of the employee no longer exists (C) the employer's business has been closed (D) the employee does not wish to be reinstated.

(D) the employee does not wish to be reinstated.

After vainly struggling to stay financially afloat for a year, LMN Corp. finally gave up and closed down its operations after its major creditors filed a petition for LMN's insolvency and liquidation. In this situation, LMN's employees are entitled to _________ as separation pay.

(E) no separation pay at all, Article 283 (now Article 289) of the Labor Code. (North Davao Mining Corp. v. NLRC, G.R. No. 112546 [1996]).

Ador is a student working on his master's degree in horticulture. To make ends meet, he takes on jobs to come up with flower arrangements for friends. His neighbor, Nico, is about to get married to Lucia and needs a floral arranger. Ador offers his services and Nico agrees. They shake hands on it, agreeing that Nico will pay Ador l20,000.00 for his services but that Ador will take care of everything. As Ador sets about to decorate the venue, Nico changes all of Ador's plans and ends up designing the arrangements himself with Ador simply executing Nico's instructions. (a) Is there an employer-employee relationship between Nico and Ador? (b) Will Nico need to register Ador with the Social Security System (SSS)?

(a) Ador is a worker paid on task basis; hence, there is employer employee relationship between him and Nico. When the latter assumed the control of both result and manner of performance from Ador, all vestiges of independent contractorship disappeared. What replaced it was employer employee relationship. (b) Ador is a purely casual employee; hence, Nico need not report him for SSS coverage.

Mario comes from a family of coffee bean growers. Deciding to incorporate his fledgling coffee venture, he invites his best friend, Carlo, to join him. Carlo is hesitant because he does not have money to invest but Mario suggests a scheme where Carlo can be the Chief Marketing Agent of the company, earning a salary and commissions. Carlo agrees and the venture is formed. After one year, the business is so successful that they were able to declare dividends. Mario is so happy with Carlo's work that he assigns 100 shares of stock to Carlo as part of the latter's bonus. Much later on, it is discovered that Carlo had engaged in unethical conduct which caused embarrassment to the company. Mario is forced to terminate Carlo but he does so without giving Carlo the opportunity to explain. Carlo filed a case against Mario and the company for illegal dismissal. Mario objected on the ground that the Labor Arbiter had no jurisdiction over the case as it would properly be considered as an intra-corporate controversy cognizable by the RTC. Further, Mario claimed that because Carlo's dismissal was a corporate act, he cannot be held personally liable. (a) As the Labor Arbiter assigned to this case, how would you resolve the jurisdiction question. (b) What is the rule on personal liability of corporate officers for a corporate act declared to be unlawful?

(a) Carlo is an employee. Hence, as LA, I have the power to hear and resolve his complaint. Carlo is not a corporate officer of the business organization involved, which is a corporation based on the fact that it was incorporated, declared dividends and issued shares of stock. Being the Chief Marketing Agent only, and not the corporate president, treasurer or secretary, he is a corporate employee. In fact, he was paid salaries and commissions, plus bonuses, for his personal services. (b) Corporate officers are personally accountable only as provided by Sec. 31 of the Corporation Code and not solely because they act in the interest of the company (Carag v. NLRC, G.R. No. 147590, 2 April 2007). Hence, they have to personally commit the illegality, or ratify it, or be guilty of bad faith or gross neglect in order to be personally liable.

Blank Garments, Inc. (BLANK), a clothing manufacturer, employs more than 200 employees in its manufacturing business. Because of its high overhead, BLANK decided to sell its manufacturing business to Bleach Garments,Inc. (BLEACH) lock, stock and barrel which included goodwill, equipment, and personnel. After taking on BLANK's business, BLEACH reduces the workforce by not hiring half the workers specifically the ones with seniority. BLANK and BLEACH are still discerned to be sister companies with identical incorporators. The laid-off employees sue both BLANK and BLEACH for unlawful termination. (a) How would you decide this case? (b) What is the "successor employer" doctrine

(a) I will resolve the case by applying the Principle of Total Insulation. Under this principle, BLANK and BLEACH have distinct and separate legal personalities regardless of the fact that they have common incorporators. Hence, unless BLEACH absorbs all the workers of BLANK then it does not succeed as employer. Since it has decided not to employ the complainants, BLEACH is totally insulated from whatever liabilities BLANK may have incurred by reason of its closure. There are no facts to justify imposition of unaltered responsibility on BLEACH since neither Principle of Piercing the Veil of Corporate Fiction nor Instrumentality Rule can be applied based on mere perception. (b) The Successor Employer Doctrine rests on the in personam character of employer-employee relationship. A third party that buys the business of the employer does not become the new employer of the employees of the latter. For this reason, it is totally insulated from the liabilities of the latter in relation to its displaced employees. By way of exception, when established facts justify the application of the Principle of Piercing the Veil of Corporate Fiction or Instrumentality Rule then the liability of the first corporation may be imposed on the second in its original form pursuant to the Principle of Unaltered Responsibility.

Victor was hired by a local manning agency as a seafarer cook on board a luxury vessel for an eight-month cruise. While on board, Victor complained of chronic coughing, intermittent fever, and joint pains. He was advised by the ship's doctor to take complete bed rest but was not given any other medication. His condition persisted but the degree varied from day to day. At the end of the cruise, Victor went home to Iloilo and there had himself examined. The examination revealed that he had tuberculosis. (a) Victor sued for medical reimbursement, damages and attorney's fees, claiming that tuberculosis was a compensable illness. Do you agree with Victor? Why or why not?(2%) (b) Due to his prolonged illness, Victor was unable to work for more than 120 days. Will this entitle him to claim total permanent disability benefits?

(a) TB is listed under Sec. 32-A of the POEA-SEC; hence, it is a work related disease. It was also either contracted or aggravated during the effectivity of Victor's contract. Having shown its manifestations on board, Victor should have been medically repatriated for further examination and treatment in the Philippines. This obligation was entirely omitted in bad faith by the company when it waited for his contract to expire on him before signing him off. On this basis, Victor is entitled to medical reimbursement, damages and attorney's fees. (b) No. Victor's TB may be work-related and it may have developed on board, thereby satisfying the twin-requisites of compensability. However, despite his knowledge of his medical condition, he failed to report to his manning agent within three days from his arrival as required by Sec. 20-B(3) of the POEA-SEC. Since he already felt the manifestations of TB before his sign-off, he should have submitted to post-employment medical examination (Jebsens Maritime Inc. v. Enrique Undag, G.R. No. 191491, 14 December 2011). The effect of his omission is forfeiture by him of disability benefits (Coastal Safety Marine Services, Inc. v. Elmer T. Esguerra, G.R. No. 185352, 10 August 2011). In effect, the120-day rule has no application at all.

Robert, an employee of ABC Company, is married to Wanda. One day, Wanda visited the company office with her three (3) emaciated minor children, and narrated to the Manager that Robert had been squandering his earnings on his mistress, leaving only a paltry sum for the support of their children. Wanda tearfully pleaded with the Manager to let her have one half of Robert's pay every payday to ensure that her children would at least have food on the table. To support her plea, Wanda presented a Kasulatan signed by Robert giving her one half of his salary, on the condition that she would not complain if he stayed with his mistress on weekends. If you were the Manager, would you release one half of Robert's salary to Wanda?

A or C (A) No, because an employer is prohibited from interfering with the freedom of its employees to dispose of heir wages. (C) No, because there is no written authorization for ABC Company to release Robert's salary to Wanda.

Discuss the differences between compulsory and voluntary/optional retirement as well as the minimum benefits provided under the Labor Code for retiring employees of private establishments.

A voluntary/optional retirement is atermination of employment based on a bilateral agreement to terminate employment at an agreed age regardless of years in service, or after a certain number of years in service regardless of age. It is a matter of contract. In contrast, acompulsory retirement is a termination of employment by operation of law. It is a matter of statute. Under Art. 302 of the Labor Code, retiring employees shall be paid retirement benefits computed as follows: (22.5 days x Daily Rate) x Length of Service. The 22.5 days consist of 15 days representing half-month salary, 5days as service incentive leave, and 2.5days representing 1/12 of 13th month pay. The full 22.5 days shall be used if the retiree is entitled to both service incentive leave and 13th month pay. Meantime, the 15 days must always be used.

Andrew Manning Agency (AMA) recruited Feliciano for employment by Invictus Shipping, its foreign principal. Meantime, AMA and Invictus Shipping terminated their agency agreement. Upon his repatriation following his premature termination, Feliciano claimed from AMA and Invictus Shipping the payment of his salaries and benefits for the unserved portion of the contract. AMA denied liability on the 3 ground that it no longer had an agency agreement with Invictus Shipping. Is AMA correct? Explain your answer.

AMA is not correct. Under Section 10 of RA No. 8042, the solidary liability of the principal and the recruitment agency exists for the whole duration of the employment contract and shall not be affected by any substitution, amendment or modification made locally or in a foreign country. Here, AMA recruited Feliciano for employment by Invictus Shipping. Hence, AMA remains solidary liable with Invictus for any breach of the Feliciano's employment contract, even if AMA and Invictus had already terminated their agency contract.

Don Don is hired as a contractual employee of CALLHELP, a call center. His contract is expressly for a term of 4 months. Don Don is hired for 3 straight contracts of 4 months each but at 2- week intervals between contracts. After the third contract ended, Don Don is told that he will no longer be given another contract because of "poor performance." Don Don files a suit for "regularization" and for illegal dismissal, claiming that he is a regular employee of CALLHELP and that he was dismissed without cause. You are the Labor Arbiter. How would you decide the case?

As Labor Arbiter, I will decide the case by applying the Contract of Adhesion rule. Given the nature of Don Don's work , which is usually necessary and desirable to the usual trade of HELPCALL, as well as the short intervals between his fixed-term contracts, there is no doubt that periods were resorted to for purposes of circumventing the law on tenure. Therefore, since it was the company that prepared the three contracts, with Don Don's participation being limited to affixing his signature thereto only, the 4-month periods must be taken against it. Having attained tenure, therefore, Don Don cannot be dismissed for poor performance because said ground is neither a just nor authorized cause.

Din Din is a single mother with one child. She is employed as a sales executive at a prominent supermarket. She and her child live in Quezon City and her residence and workplace area 15- minute drive apart. One day, Din Din is informed by her boss that she is being promoted to a managerial position but she is now being transferred to the Visayas. Din Din does not want to uproot her family and refuses the offer. Her boss is so humiliated by Din Din's refusal of the offer that she gives Din Din successive unsatisfactory evaluations that result in Din Din being removed from the supermarket. Din Din approaches you, as counsel, for legal advice. What would you advise her?

Din Din's transfer to the Visaya's is a scalar transfer because it is a promotion. As such, it can be refused by her especially because her compliance therewith will entail hardship on her part as a single parent. Performance by her of the lawful act of refusing a promotion, therefore, should not be punished with poor performance evaluations. As a sales executive, Din Din's office entails performance of work usually necessary and desirable to the usual trade of the company. On this basis, she is tenured. Hence, she cannot be dismissed on the ground of poor performance which is neither a just nor authorized cause. For this reason, she may file a complaint for illegal dismissal.

Hagibis Motors Corporation (Hagibis) has 500 regular employees in its car assembly plant. Due to the Asian financial crisis, Hagibis experienced very low car sales resulting to huge financial losses. It implemented several cost-cutting measures such as cost reduction on use of office supplies, employment hiring freeze, prohibition on representation and travel expenses, separation of casuals and reduced work week. As counsel of Hagibis, what are the measures the company . should undertake to implement a valid retrenchment? Explain.

For a valid retrenchment, the following requisites must be complied with: (a) the retrenchment is necessary to prevent losses and such losses are proven; (b) written notice to the employees and to the DOLE at least one month prior to the intended date of retrenchment; and (c) payment of separation pay equivalent to one-month pay or at least one- half month pay for every year of service, whichever is higher. Jurisprudential standards for the losses which may justify retrenchment are: Firstly, the losses expected should be substantial and not merely de minimis inextent. If the loss purportedly sought to be forestalled by retrenchment is clearly shown to be insubstantial and inconsequential in character, the bona fide nature of the retrenchment would appear to be seriously in question; secondly, the substantial loss must be reasonably imminent, as such imminence can be perceived objectively and in good faith by the employer; x x x thirdly, because of the consequential nature of retrenchment, it must be reasonably necessary and is likely to be effective in preventing the expected losses x x x lastly; x x x alleged losses if already realized, and the expected imminent losses sought to be forestalled, must be proved by sufficient and convincing evidence (Manatad v. Philippine Telegraph and Telephone Corporation, G.R. No. 172363, March 7, 2008). Hagibis should exercise its prerogative to retrench employees in good faith. It must be for the advancement of its interest and not to defeat or circumvent the employees' right to security of tenure. Hagibis should use fair and reasonable criteria, such as status, efficiency, seniority, physical fitness, age, and financial hardship for certain workers in ascertaining who would be dismissed and who would be retained among the employees.

Far East Bank (FEB) is one of the leading banks in the country. Its compensation and bonus packages are top of the industry. For the last 6 years, FEB had been providing the following bonuses across-the-board to all its employees: (a) 13th month pay; (b) 14th to18th month pay; (c) Christmas basket worth : P6,000; (d) Gift check worth: P4,000;and (e) Productivity-based incentive ranging from a 20% to 40% increase in gross monthly salary for all employees who would receive an evaluation of "Excellent" for 3 straight quarters in the same year. Because of its poor performance over-all, FEB decided to cut back on the bonuses this year and limited itself to the following: (a) 13thmonth pay; (b) 14th month pay; (c) Christmas basket worth 4,000; and (d) Gift check worth P2,000 Katrina, an employee of FEB, who had gotten a rating of "Excellent" for the last 3 quarters was looking forward to the bonuses plus the productivity incentive bonus. After learning that FEB had modified the bonus scheme, she objected. Is Katrina's objection justified? Explain.

Having enjoyed the across-the-board bonuses for six years, Katrina's right to them has been vested already. Hence, none of them can be withheld or reduced without violating the Principle of Non-Diminution of Benefits. Benefits can be reduced when the company is in the red, i.e., its losses are substantial and duly established with financial statements duly certified to by an independent external auditor. In the problem, the company is in the black only because it has not proven its alleged losses to be substantial losses in accordance with law. Permitting reduction of pay at the slightest indication of losses is contrary to the policy of the State to afford full protection to labor and promote full employment ( Linton Commercial Co. v. Hellera, et al., 23 Feb. 2012 ). As to the withheld productivity-based bonuses, the basis of payment is not the company's performance but Katrina's. Therefore, Katrina is deemed to have earned them because of her excellent performance ratings for three quarters. On this basis, they cannot be withheld without violating Art. 116 of the Labor Code because they are wage-type.

After thirty (30) years of service, Beta Company compulsorily retired Albert at age 65 pursuant to the company's Retirement Plan. Albert was duly paid his full retirement benefits of one (1) month pay for every year of service under the Plan. Thereafter, out of compassion, the company allowed Albert to continue working and paid him his old monthly salary rate, but without the allowances that he used to enjoy. After five (5) years under this arrangement, the company finally severed all employment relations with Albert; he was declared fully retired in a fitting ceremony but the company did not give him any further retirement benefits. Albert thought this treatment unfair as he had rendered full service at his usual hours in the past five (5) years. Thus, he filed a complaint for the allowances that were not paid to him, and for retirement benefits for his additional five (5) working years, based either on the company's Retirement Plan or the Retirement Pay Law, whichever is applicable. (A) After Albert's retirement at age 65, should he be considered a regular employee entitled to all his previous salaries and benefits when the company allowed him to continue working? (B) Is he entitled to additional retirement benefits for the additional service he rendered after age 65?

He would be considered a contractual employee, not a regular employee. His salaries and benefits will be in accordance with the stipulation of the contract he signed with the company. The present case is similar in a case decided by the Supreme Court (Januaria Rivera v. United Laboratories, G.R. No. 155639 [2009]) where the Court held that the company, in employing a retired employee whose knowledge, experience and expertise the company recognized, as an employee or as a consultant, is not an illegality; on the contrary, it is a recognized practice in this country.

Lionel, an American citizen whose parents migrated to the U.S. from the Philippines, was hired by JP Morgan in New York as a call center specialist. Hearing about the phenomenal growth of the call center industry in his parents' native land, Lionel sought and was granted a transfer as a call center manager for JP Morgan's operations in Taguig City. Lionel's employment contract did not specify a period for his stay in the Philippines. After three years of working in the Philippines, Lionel was advised that he was being recalled to New York and being promoted to the position of director of international call center operations. However, because of certain "family reasons," Lionel advised the company of his preference to stay in the Philippines. He was dismissed by the company. Lionel now seeks your legal advice on:

His chances of winning is nil because the objection to the transfer was grounded solely on personal "family reasons" that will be caused to him because of the transfer (OSS Security & Allied Services, Inc. v. NLRC, G.R. No. 112752, February 9, 2000, 325 SCRA 157); Phil. Industrial Security Agency Corp. v. Dapiton, G.R. No. 127421, December 8, 1999, 320 SCRA 124).

An accidental fire gutted the JKL factory in Caloocan. JKL decided to suspend operations and requested its employees to stop reporting for work. After six (6) months, JKL resumed operations but hired a new set of employees. The old set of employees filed a case for illegal dismissal. If you were the Labor Arbiter, how would you decide the case?

I will rule in favor of the employees. JKL factory merely suspended its operations as a result of the fire that gutted its factory. Art. 286 of the Labor Code states that an employer may bona fide suspend the operation of its business for a period not exceeding six (6) months. In such a case, there would be no termination of the employment of the employees, but only a temporary displacement. Since the suspension of work lasted more than six months, there is now constructive dismissal (Sebuguero v. NLRC, G.R. No. 115394, September 27, 1995, 245 SCRA 532).

Amaya was employed as a staff nurse by St. Francis Hospital (SFH) on July 8, 2014 on a probationary status for six (6) months. Her probationary contract required, among others, strict compliance with SFH's Code of Discipline. On October 16, 2014, Dr. Ligaya, filed a Complaint with the SFH Board of Trustees against Amaya for uttering slanderous remarks against the former. Attached to the complaint was a letter of Minda, mother of a patient, who confirmed the following remarks against Dr. Ligaya: "Bakit si Dr. Ligaya pa ang napili mong 'pedia' eh ang tandatanda na n'un? E makakalimutin na yun xx x Alam mo ba, kahit wala namang diperensya yung baby, ipinapa-iso/ate nya?" The SFH President asks you, being the hospital's counsel, which of these two (2) options is the legal and proper way of terminating Amaya: a) terminate her for a just cause under Article 288 of the Labor Code (Termination by Employer); or b) terminate her for violating her probationary contract. Explain.

I will advise the President of SFH to terminate Amaya for violating her probationary contract. Part and parcel of the standards of her employment is to strictly follow the Code of Conduct of SFH. The act of defaming Dr. Ligaya is certainly a misdemeanor that is usually not acceptable in any work environment. With such attitude Amaya displayed, she cannot pass the company standard of SFH. I will not suggest the dismissal of Amaya under Article 297. Though she displayed misconduct, the same is not work-related, as spreading a rumor against a Doctor does not go into the duties and responsibilities of a staff nurse.

Luisa Court is a popular chain of motels. It employs over thirty (30) chambermaids who, among others, help clean and maintain the rooms. These chambermaids are part of the union rank-and-file employees which has an existing collective bargaining agreement (CBA) with the company. While the CBA was in force, Luisa Court decided to abolish the position of chambermaids and outsource the cleaning of the rooms to Malinis Janitorial Services, a bona fide independent contractor which has invested in substantial equipment and sufficient manpower. The chambermaids filed a case of illegal dismissal against Luisa Court. In response, the company argued that the decision to outsource resulted from the new management's directive to streamline operations and save on costs. If you were the Labor Arbiter assigned to the case, how would you decide?

I will decide in favor of Luisa Court, provided that all the requisites for a valid retrenchment under the Labor Code are satisfied. It is management prerogative to farm out any of its activities (BPI Employees UnionDavao City-FUBU (BPIEU-Davao City-FUBU) v. Bank of the Philippine Islands, G.R. No. 174912, July 24, 2013).

Lincoln was in the business of trading broadcast equipment used by television and radio networks. He employed Lionel as his agent. Subsequently, Lincoln set up Liberty Communications to formally engage in the same business. He requested Lionel to be one of the incorporators and assigned to him 100 Liberty shares. Lionel was also given the title Assistant Vice-President for Sales and Head of Technical Coordination. After several months, there were allegations that Lionel was engaged in "under the table dealings" and received "confidential commissions" from Liberty's clients and suppliers. He was, therefore, charged with serious misconduct and willful breach of trust, and was given fortyeight (48) hours to present his explanation on the charges. Lionel was unable to comply with the 48-hour deadline and was subsequently barred from entering company premises. Lionel then filed a complaint with the Labor Arbiter claiming constructive dismissal. Among others, the company sought the dismissal of the complaint alleging that the case involved an intra-corporate controversy which was within the jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Court (RTC). If you were the Labor Arbiter assigned to the case, how would you rule on the company's motion to dismiss?

I will deny the motion to dismiss. "Corporate officers" in the context of Presidential Decree No. 902-A are those officers of the corporation who are given that character by the Corporation Code or by the corporation's by-laws. Sec. 25 of the Corporation Code enumerates three specific officers that in law are considered as corporate officers - the president, secretary and the treasurer. Lincoln is not one of them. There is likewise no showing that his position as Assistant Vice-President is a corporate officer in the company's by-laws. The Labor Arbiter therefore, has jurisdiction over the case (Art. 217 (a) (2), Labor Code).

Luisa's first boss was a Japanese national whom she got along with. But after two years, the latter was replaced by an arrogant Indian national who did not believe her work output was in accordance with international standards. One day, Luisa submitted a draft report filled with typographical errors to her boss. The latter scolded her, but Luisa verbally fought back. The Indian boss decided to terminate her services right then and there. Luisa filed a case for illegal dismissal with the Labor Arbiter claiming arbitrariness and denial of due process. If you were the Labor Arbiter, how would you decide the case?

I will dismiss the case. ADB enjoys immunity from suit (DFA v. NLRC, G.R. No. 113191, September 18, 1996).

Dr. Crisostomo entered into a retainer agreement with AB Hotel and Resort whereby he would provide medical services to the guests and employees of AB Hoteland Resort, which, in turn, would provide the clinic premises and medical supplies. He received a monthly retainer fee of ₱60,000.00, plus a 70% share in the service charges from AB Hotel and Resort's guests availing themselves of the clinic's services. The clinic employed nurses and allied staff, whose salaries, SSS contributions and other benefits he undertook to pay. AB Hotel and Resort issued directives giving instructions to him on the replenishment of emergency kits and forbidding the clinic staff from receiving cash payments from the guests. In time, the nurses and the clinic staff claimed entitlement to rights as regular employees of AB Hoteland Resort, but the latter refused on the ground that Dr. Crisostomo, who was their employer, was an independent contractor. Rule, with reasons.

I will rule in favor of the employees. In labor contracting, the party with the power to control is considered the employer of the contracted employees. Here, AB Hoteland Resort exercises the power to control by requiring replenishment of emergency kits and forbidding the clinic staff from receiving cash payments from the guests. Hence, the employees are correct in arguing that they are regular employees of AB Hoteland Resort.

Lucy was one of approximately 500 call center agents at Hambergis, Inc. She was hired as a contractual employee four years ago. Her contracts would be for a duration of five (5) months at a time, usually after a one-month interval Her re-hiring was contingent on her performance for the immediately preceding contract. Six (6) months after the expiration of her last contract, Lucy went to Hambergis personnel department to inquire why she was not yet being recalled to work. She was told that her performance during her last contract was "below average." Lucy seeks your legal advice about her chances of getting her job back. What will your advice be?

Lucy cannot get her job back. She is a fixed-term employee and as such, her employment terminates upon the expiration of her contract (Rowell Industrial Corporation v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 167714, March 7, 2007, 517 SCRA 691).

Bona fide occupational qualifications

In bona fide occupational qualifications, the employer must prove that (1) the employment qualification is reasonably related to the essential operation of the job involved; and (2) that there is factual basis for believing that all or substantially all persons meeting the qualification would be able to properly perform the duties of the job. [Armando Yrasuegui v Philippine Airlines, Inc., G.R. No.168081, October 17,2008]

The law mandates that no petition for wage increase shall be entertained within a period of 12 months from the effectivity of the wage order. Under what circumstances may the Kilusang Walang Takot, a federation of labor organizations that publicly and openly assails the wage order as blatantly unjust, initiate the review of the wage increases under the wage order without waiting for the end of the 12-month period? Explain your answer.

Kilusang Walang Takot may initiate the review of wage order without waiting for the end of the 12-month period when there are supervening conditions that demand a review of the minimum wage rates. 5 These supervening conditions include: (i) extraordinary increase in prices of petroleum products; and (ii) extraordinary increase in the cost of basic goods and services.

Differentiate learnership from apprenticeship with respect to the period of training, type of work, salary and qualifications.

Learnership and apprenticeship are similar because they both mean training periods for jobs requiring skills that can be acquired through actual work experience. And because both a learner and an apprentice are not as fully productive as regular workers, the learner and the apprentice may be paid wages twenty-five percent lower than the applicable legal minimum wage. They differ in the focus and terms of training. An apprentice trains in a highly skilled job or in any job found only in highly technical industries. Because it is a highly skilled job, the training period exceeds three months. For a learner, the training period is shorter because the job is more easily learned than that of apprenticeship. The job, in other words, is "non- apprenticeable" because it is practical skills which can be learned in three (not six) months. A learner is not an apprentice but an apprentice is, conceptually, also a learner. Accordingly, because the job is more easily learnable in learnership than in apprenticeship, the employer is committed to hire the learner- trainee as an employee after the training period. No such commitment exists in apprenticeship. Finally, employment of apprentices, as stated in Article 60, is legally allowed only in highly technical industries and only in apprenticeable occupations approved by the DOLE. Learnership is allowed even for non- technical jobs.

Rico has a temper and, in his work as Division Manager of Matatag Insurance, frequently loses his temper with his staff. One day, he physically assaults his staff member by slapping him. The staff member sues him for physical injuries. Matatag Insurance decides to terminate Rico, after notice and hearing, on the ground of loss of trust and confidence. Rico claims that he is entitled to the presumption of innocence because he has not yet been convicted. Comment on Matatag's action in relation to Rico's argument.

Matatag Insurance does not have to await the result of the criminal case before exercising its prerogative to dismiss. Under the Three-fold Liability Rule, a single act may result in three liabilities, two of which are criminal and administrative. To establish them, the evidence of the crime must amount to proof beyond reasonable doubt; whereas, the evidence of the ground for dismissal is substantial evidence only. In this regard, the company has some basis already for withholding the trust it has reposed on its manager. Hence, Rico's conviction need not precede the execution of his intended dismissal.

Juanito initiated a case for illegal dismissal against Mandarin Company. The Labor Arbiter decided in his favor, and ordered his immediate reinstatement with full backwages and without loss of seniority and other benefits. Mandarin Company did not like to allow him back in its premises to prevent him from influencing his co-workers to move against the interest of the company; hence, it directed his payroll reinstatement and paid his full backwages and other benefits even as it appealed to the NLRC. A few months later, the NLRC reversed the ruling of the Labor Arbiter and declared that Juanito's dismissal was valid. The reversal ultimately became final. 13 May Mandarin Company recover the backwages and other benefits paid to Juanito pursuant to the decision of the Labor Arbiter in view of the reversal by the NLRC? Rule, with reasons.

No, Mandarin Company may not recover the backwages and other benefits paid to Juanito. In Garcia v. Philippine Airlines, Inc., the Supreme Court held that a reinstated employee need not refund the backwages and other benefits paid pursuant to an order of reinstatement by the Labor Arbiter. The rationale is to help the employee make both ends meet during the pendency of the appeal and to prevent a situation where the dismissed employee will not spend the reinstatement wages for fear of refunding the same if the decision of Labor Arbiter is subsequently reversed.

Marciano was hired as Chief Engineer on board the vessel MN Australia. His contract of employment was for nine months. After nine months, he was re-hired. He was hired a third time after another nine months. He now claims entitlement to the benefits of a regular employee based on his having performed tasks usually necessary and desirable to the employer's business for a continuous period of more than one year. Is Marciano's claim tenable? Explain your answer.

No, Marciano's claim is not tenable. Seafarers are contractual employees for a fixed term and cannot attain regular status. Here, Marciano is a considered a seafarer since he is hired as Chief Engineer on board a vessel. 9 Hence, Marciano's claim that he is a regular employee is not tenable

Tarcisio was employed as operations manager and received a monthly salary of ₱25,000.00 through his payroll account with DB Bank. He obtained a loan from Roberto to purchase a car. Tarcisio failed to pay Roberto when the loan fell due. Roberto sued to collect, and moved to garnish Tarcisio's payroll account. The latter vigorously objected and argued that salaries were exempt from garnishment. Is Tarcisio correct? Explain your answer.

No, Tarcisio is not correct. Under Article 1708 of the Civil Code, only wages, which are the compensation paid for manual skilled or unskilled labor, are exempt from garnishment. Here, the subject of garnishment is Tarcisio's salary as a managerial employee, which is not considered as wages. Hence, Tarcisio's salary may be garnished.

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.

No, the argument of D is not tenable. The principle of non-diminution of benefits, which has been incorporated in Article 100 of the Labor Code, forbids an employer from unilaterally reducing, diminishing, discontinuing or eliminating compensation or privilege which are given as a company practice. In Netlink v. Delmo (G.R. No. 160827, June 18, 2014), the Supreme Court said that the length of time has not been laid out on what constitutes a company practice. However, there are Supreme Court decisions that say a period of two years, more or less, is deemed a company practice (Sevilla Trading Company v. Semana, G.R. No. 152456, April 28, 2004). In the question, the monthly gas and transportation allowance was given to D for three months only. Such a short period appears not to fall under the category of company practice using the above decisions as a basis.

Phil, a resident alien, sought employment in the Philippines. The employer, noticing that Phil was a foreigner, demanded that he first secures an employment permit from the DOLE. Is the employer correct? Explain your answer.

No, the employer is not correct. Only non-resident aliens who are seeking employment in the Philippines are required to secure first an Alien Employment Permit. Here, Phil is a resident alien, who is exempted from Alien Employment Permit requirement. Hence, the employer is not correct in demanding that Phil first secure an employment permit from the DOLE.

Gamma Company pays its regular employees P350.00 a day, and houses them in a dormitory inside its factory compound in Manila. Gamma Company also provides them with three full meals a day. In the course of a routine inspection, a Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) Inspector noted that the workers' pay is below the prescribed minimum wage of P426.00 plus P30.00 allowance, and thus required Gamma Company to pay wage differentials. Gamma Company denies any liability, explaining that after the market value of the company-provided board and lodging are added to the employees' P350 cash daily wage, the employees' effective daily rate would be way above the minimum pay required by law. The company counsel further points out that the employees are aware that their food and lodging form part of their salary, and have long accepted the arrangement. Is the company's position legally correct?

No, the following requisites were not complied with: (A) Proof that such facilities are customarily furnished by the trade (B) The provision of deductible facilities is voluntarily accepted by the employee (C) The facilities are charged at the fair and reasonable value. Mere availment is not sufficient to allow deduction from the employees' wages. (Mayon Hotel & restaurant v. Adarna, 458 SCRA 609 [2005]).

One of Pacific Airline's policies was to hire only single applicants as flight attendants, and considered as automatically resigned the flight attendants at the moment they got married. Is the policy valid? Explain your answer.

No, the policy is not valid. 7 Under the Labor Code, stipulations against marriage are not allowed. Here, Pacific Airline's policy of automatic resignation of the flight attendants at the moment of marriage is a stipulation against marriage. Hence, Pacific Airline's policy is not valid.

Procopio was dismissed from employment for stealing his co-employee Raul's watch. Procopio filed a complaint for illegal dismissal. The Labor Arbiter ruled in Procopio's favor on the ground that Raul's testimony was doubtful, and, therefore, the doubt should be resolved in favor of Procopio. On appeal, the NLRC reversed the ruling because Article 4 of the Labor Code - which states that all doubts in the interpretation and implementation of the provisions of the Labor Code, including the implementing rules and regulations, shall be resolved in favor of labor - applied only when the doubt involved the "implementation and interpretation" of the Labor Code; hence, the doubt, which involved the application of the rules on evidence, not the Labor Code, could not necessarily be resolved in favor of Procopio. Was the reversal correct? Explain your answer.

No, the reversal was not correct. Adjudication of labor disputes, which includes appreciation of evidence, is subsumed in the implementation of the Labor Code. Consequently, any doubt with respect to evidence should also be resolved in favor of labor. Hence, the NLRC's reversal due to its erroneous interpretation of Article 4 of the Labor Code was not correct.

Rosa was granted vacation leave by her employer to spend three weeks in Africa with her family. Prior to her departure, the General Manager of the company requested her to visit the plant of a client of the company in Zimbabwe in order to derive best manufacturing practices useful to the company. She accepted the request because the errand would be important to the company and Zimbabwe was anyway in her itinerary. It appears that she contracted a serious disease during the trip. Upon her return, she filed a claim for compensation, insisting that she had contracted the disease while serving the interest of her employer. Under the Labor Code, the sickness or death of an employee, to be compensable, must have resulted from an illness either definitely accepted as an occupational disease by the Employees' Compensation Commission, or caused by employment subject to proof that the risk of contracting the same is increased by working conditions. Is the serious disease Rosa contracted during her trip to Africa compensable? Explain your answer.

No, the serious disease Rosa contracted during her trip to Africa is not compensable. For an occupational disease to be compensable, it must be an illness accepted as occupational disease by the Employees' Compensation Commission or otherwise shown that the risk of contracting the disease is increased by the working condition. Here, Rosa failed to present proof that there is increased risk of contracting the disease because of the General Manager's request for her to visit a client's plant. Hence, Rosa's serious disease is not compensable.

The Regional Tripartite Wages and Productivity Board (RTWPB) for Region 3 issued a wage order on November 2, 2017 fixing the minimum wages for all industries throughout Region 3. (a) Is the wage order subject to the approval of the National Wages and Productivity Commission before it takes effect?

No, the wage order is not subject to the approval of the National Wages and Productivity Commission (NWPC) before it takes effect. Under the Labor Code, the NWPC only exercises technical and administrative supervision over the RTWPB.

Pablo works as a driver at the National Tire Company (NTC). He is a member of the Malayang Samahan ng Manggagawa sa NTC, the exclusive rank-and-file collective bargaining representative in the company. The union has a CBA with NTC which contains a union security and a check-off clause. The union security clause contains a maintenance of membership provision that requires all members of the bargaining unit to maintain their membership in good standing with the union during the term of the CBA under pain of dismissal. The check-off clause on the other hand authorizes the company to deduct from union members' salaries defined amounts of union dues and other fees. Pablo refused to issue an authorization to the company for the check-off of his dues, maintaining that he will personally remit his dues to the union. (A) Would the NTC management commit unfair labor practice if it desists from checking off Pablo's union dues for lack of individual authorization from Pablo? (B) Can the union charge Pablo with disloyalty for refusing to allow the check off of his union dues and, on this basis, ask the company to dismiss him from employment?

No, under R.A. No. 9481, violation of the Collective Bargaining Agreement, to be an unfair labor practice, must be gross in character. It must be a flagrant and malicious refusal o comply with the economic provisions of the CBA.

Benito is the owner of an eponymous clothing brand that is a top seller. He employs a number of male and female models who wear Benito's clothes in promotional shoots and videos. His deal with the models is that Benito will pay them with 3 sets of free clothes per week. Is this arrangement allowed?

No. The models are Benito's employees. As such, their services require compensation in legal tender (Art. 102, Labor Code). The three sets of clothes, regardless of value, are in kind; hence, the former's compensation is not in the form prescribed by law.

LKG Garments Inc. makes baby clothes for export. As part of its measures to meet its orders, LKG requires its employees to work beyond eight (8) hours everyday, from Monday to Saturday. It pays its employees an additional 35% of their regular hourly wage for work rendered in excess of eight (8) hours per day. Because of additional orders, LKG now requires two (2) shifts of workers with both shifts working beyond eight (8) hours but only up to a maximum of four (4) hours. Carding is an employee who used to render up to six (6) hours of overtime work before the change in schedule. He complains that the change adversely affected him because now he can only earn up to a maximum of four (4) hours' worth of overtime pay. Does Carding have a cause of action against the company?

No. Absent a right recognized by law or contract, Carding has no cause of action against the company. There is no law, contract or practice that guarantees to Carding the right to render overtime work of not less than six hours daily. The company can source workers from its own manpower to man a second shift in order to meet its business target. This is a management prerogative that was exercised in good faith by the company. As to the reduction of Carding's overtime, it is not an unlawful diminution of benefits because the lost 2-hour overtime compensation is not an accrued right.

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.

No. As provided by Article 94 of the Labor Code of the Philippines (PD No. 442), every employee is entitled to the payment of his regular daily basic wage (100%) during holiday except employees working in retail and service establishments regularly employing less than ten (10) workers. In the case at bar, Ms. F is working as a sales assistant in ABC Convenience Store which is engaged in retail business with only eight(8)workers. As such, ABC Convenience Store falls under the exception and hence, is not obliged to pay Mrs. F her holiday pay

Zienna Corporation (Zienna) informed the Department of Labor and Employment Regional Director of the end of its operations. To carry out the cessation, Zienna sent a Letter Request for Intervention to the NLRC for permission and guidance in effecting payment of separation benefits for its fifty (50) terminated employees. Each of the terminated employees executed a Quitclaim and Release before Labor Arbiter Nocomora, to whom the case was assigned. After the erstwhile employees received their separation pay, the Labor Arbiter declared the labor dispute dismissed with prejudice on the ground of settlement. Thereafter, Zienna sold all of its assets to Zandra Company (Zandra), which in tum hired its own employees. Nelle, one of the fifty (50) terminated employees, filed a case for illegal dismissal against Zienna. She argued that Zienna did not cease from operating since the corporation subsists as Zandra. Nelle pointed out that aside from the two companies having essentially the same equipment, the managers and owners of Zandra and Zienna are likewise one and the same. For its part, Zienna countered that Nelle is barred from filing a complaint for illegal dismissal against the corporation in view of her prior acceptance of separation pay. Is Nelle correct in claiming that she was illegally dismissed?

No. In SME Bank, Inc. v. De Guzman (G.R. No. 184517 and 186641, October 8, 2013), there are two (2) types of corporate acquisitions: asset sales and stock sales. In asset sales, the corporate entity sells all or substantially all of its assets to another entity. In stock sales, the individual or corporate shareholders sell a controlling block of stock to new or existing shareholders. Asset sales happened in this case; hence, Zienna is authorized to dismiss its employees, but must pay separation pay. The buyer Zandra, is not obliged to absorb the employees affected by the sale, nor is it liable for the payment of their claims. The most that Zandra may do, for reasons of public policy and social justice, is to give preference is hiring to qualified separated personnel of Zienna.

b. Can Nonato successfully claim disability benefits against N-Train Shipping and its agent Narita Maritime Services?

No. Nonato was repatriated due to a finished contract and not due to any accident or illness he suffered while on board N- Train's vessel. Moreover, Nonato was declared fit-to-work by the company-designated physician. Under the 2010 POEA- SEC, if a doctor appointed by the seafarer disagrees with the assessment of the company-designated physician, a third doctor may be agreed upon jointly between the employer and the seafarer. The third doctor's decision shall be final and binding on both parties. In this case, no third doctor was appointed. Thus, the fit-to-work assessment by the company- designated physician stands.

What are the grounds for validly terminating the services of an employee based on a just cause?

Under Article 296 of the Labor Code, the following are just causes for terminating the services of an employee: (a) serious misconduct or willful disobedience in connection with employee's work; (b) gross and habitual negligence by the employee of his duties; (c) fraud or willful breach of turst by the employee; (d) commission of a crime or offense against the person of the employer, his immediate family, or his duly authorized representative; and (e) any analogous causes.

Nonato had been continuously employed and deployed as a seaman who performed services that were necessary and desirable to the business of N- Train Shipping, through its local agent, Narita Maritime Services (Agency), in accordance with the 2010 Philippine Overseas Employment Administration Standard Employment Contract (2010 POEA-SEC). Nonato's last contract (for five months) expired on November 15, 2016. Nonato was then repatriated due to a "finished contract." He immediately reported to the Agency and complained that he had been experiencing dizziness, weakness, and difficulty in breathing. The Agency referred him to Dr. Neri, who examined, treated, and prescribed him with medications. After a few months of treatment and consultations, Nonato was declared fit to resume work as a seaman. Nonato went back to the Agency to ask for re-deployment but the Agency rejected his application. Nonato filed an illegal dismissal case against the Agency and its principal, with a claim for total disability benefits based on the ailments that he developed on board N- Train Shipping vessels. The claim was based on the certification of his own physician, Dr. Nunez, that he was unfit for sea duties because of his hypertension and diabetes. a. Was Nonato a regular employee of N-Train Shipping?

No. Seafarers are considered contractual employees. They cannot be considered as regular employees under Article 280 of the Labor Code. Their employment is governed by the contracts they sign every time they are hired or rehired and their employment is terminated when the contract expires. Their employment is contractually fixed for a certain period of time (Millares v. NLRC, G.R. No. 110524, July 29, 2002).

Soledad, a widowed school teacher, takes under her wing one of her students,Kiko,13yearsold,who was abandoned by his parents and has to do odd jobs in order to study. She allows Kiko to live in her house, provides him with clean clothes, food, and a daily allowance of 200 pesos. In exchange ,Kiko does routine housework, consisting of cleaning the house and doing errands for Soledad. One day, a representative of the DOLE and the DSWD came to Soledad's house and charged her with violating the law that prohibits work by minors. Soledad objects and offers as a defense that she was not requiring Kiko to work as the chores were not hazardous. Further, she did not give him chores regularly but only intermittently as the need may arise. Is Soledad's defense meritorious?

No. Soledad's defense is not meritorious because the work rendered by Kiko at her house is in the form of physical exertion requiring compensation. Hence, it is an employment which no person can contract with a minor below 15 years of age (Art. 137, Labor Code). Her defense that his occasional work did not expose him to hazardous conditions cannot take the place of the defense allowed by law, viz., the employer is either parent or guardian. She is neither. Therefore, her defense must fail.

Lanz was a strict and unpopular Vice-President for Sales of Lobinsons Land. One day, Lanz shouted invectives against Lee, a poor performing sales associate, calling him, among others, a "brown monkey." Hurt, Lee decided to file a criminal complaint for grave defamation against Lanz. The prosecutor found probable cause and filed an information in court. Lobinsons decided to terminate Lanz for committing a potential crime and other illegal acts prejudicial to business. Can Lanz be legally terminated by the company on these grounds?

No. The grounds relied upon by Lobinsons are not just causes for dismissal under the Labor Code. Defamation is not a crime against person which is a ground to dismiss under Art. 282, now Art. 295 (d) of the Labor Code.

Nico is a medical representative engaged in the promotion of pharmaceutical products and medical devices for Northern Pharmaceuticals, Inc. He regularly visits physicians' clinics to inform them of the chemical composition and benefits of his employer's products. At the end of every day, he receives a basic wage of PhP700.00 plus a PhP150.00 "productivity allowance." For purposes of computing Nico's 13th month pay, should the daily "productivity allowance" be included?

No. The second paragraph of Section 5(a) of the Revised Guidelines Implementing the 13th Month Pay Law states that "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." However, the SC in Philippine Duplicators, Inc. v. NLRC, 241 SCRA 380 (G.R. No. 110068 February 15, 1995), declared the aforesaid provision as null and void with respect to those medical representatives who do not obtain productivity allowances by virtue of generated sales. Such allowances are in the nature of profit-sharing bonuses or commissions that should be properly excluded from the ambit of the term "basic salary" for purposes of computing 13th month pay due to employees.

Give the procedure to be observed for validly terminating the services of an employee based on a just cause?

Termination of an employee based on just causes requires compliance with the twin-notice requirement. First, a notice should be served on the employee specifying the grounds for termination. The employee should be given reasonable opportunity to explain his side Second, a notice should be served on the employee indicating the termination of his services

What are the accepted tests to determine the existence of an employer-employee relationship?

The accepted tests to determine the existence of an employer-employee relationship are the four-fold test and the economic reality test. The four-fold test requires the following requisites: (a) the power to hire employees; (b) the power of dismissal; (c) payment of wages; (d) power to control employee's conduct, which is the most important requisite. The economic reality test examines the economic realities prevailing within the activity or between the parties, taking into consideration the totality of circumstances surrounding the true nature of the relationship between the parties.

Distinguish a learner from an apprentice.

The distinctions between a learner and an apprentice are as follows: (a) As to nature, a learner trains in a semi-skilled job, whereas an apprentice trains in a highly technical job. (b) As to period, a learner works for 3 months, whereas an apprentice works for not less than 3 months but not more than 6 months. (c) As to possibility of regular employment, learners become regular employees after the period for learnership, whereas there is no such possibility. 6 (d) As to requirement of TESDA approval, learnership does not require TESDA approval, whereas no such requirement exists for apprenticeship. (e) As to deductibility of expenses, a learner's expenses are not deductible, whereas an apprentice's training expenses are deductible from income tax. (d) As to compensation, a learner must be compensated, whereas an apprentice may be uncompensated, if DOLE authorizes such, as when apprenticeship is part of OJT required by schools.

Linda was employed by Sectarian University (SU) to cook for the members of a religious order who teach and live inside the campus. While performing her assigned task, Linda accidentally burned herself. Because of the extent of her injuries, she went on medical leave. Meanwhile, SU engaged a replacement cook. Linda filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, but her employer SU contended that Linda was not a regular employee but a domestic househelp. Decide

The employer's argument that Linda was not a regular employee has no merit. The definition of domestic servant or househelper contemplates one who is employed in the employer's home to minister exclusively to the personal comfort and enjoyment of the employer's family. The Supreme Court already held that the mere fact that the househelper is working in relation to or in connection with its business warrants the conclusion that such househelper or domestic servant is and should be considered as a regular employee (Apex Mining Co., Inc. v. NLRC, G.R. No. 94951, April 22, 1991). Here, Linda was hired not to minister to the personal comfort and enjoyment of her employer's family but to attend to other employees who teach and live inside the campus.

As a rule, direct hiring of migrant workers is not allowed. What are the exceptions? Explain your answer.

The exceptions to the prohibition on direct hiring of migrant workers are: (a) Those hired by international organizations; (b) Those hired by members of the diplomatic corps; and (c) Name hires or workers who are able to secure overseas employment opportunity with an employer without the assistance or participation of any agency.

Pedro, a bus driver of Biyahe sa Langit Transport, was involved in a collision with a car, damaging the bus. The manager accused him of being responsible for the damage and was told to submit his written explanation within 48 hours. Pedro submitted his explanation within the period. The day.after, Pedro received a notice of termination stating that he is dismissed for reckless driving resulting to damage to company property, effective immediately. Pedro asks you, as his counsel, if the company complied with the procedural due process with respect to dismissal of employees. [a] Explain the twin notice and hearing rule. [b] Did the Biyahe sa Langit Transport comply with the prior procedural requirements for dismissal?

[a] The twin notice and hearing rule requires a directive that the employee be given the opportunity to submit a written explanation on why he should not be dismissed within a reasonable period of time (King of Kings Transport, Inc. v. Santiago V. Mamac, G.R. No. 166208, June 29, 2007). The grounds for terminating an employee, again as explained in the Kings case, must be a detailed narration of the facts and circumstances that will serve as basis for the charge against him. Further, it should mention specifically which company rule or provision of the Labor Code was violated. The Supreme Court defines 'reasonable period of time" to be five calendar days from the day the employee received the NTE. As to the hearing, in Perez v. Philippine Telegraph Company, 584 SCRA 110 120091, the Supreme Court enunciated the rule that a hearing is only necessary if it was asked or requested by an employee. In case it was requested, a summary hearing must be done by the employer where the employee must be afforded the opportunity to adduce evidence and present witnesses in his behalf. Then the employer must inform the employee in writing of its decision stating the facts, the analysis of the evidence and statement of witnesses and the law or policy which led to the decision. [b] No. The notice given by Biyahe sa Langit Transport did not give Pedro a minimum period of five (5) days to submit a written explanation. He was given only 48 hours to submit the same. The fact that he met the deadline did not cure the lapse committed by Biyahe sa Langit Transport. There being a violation, of procedural due process, Biyahe sa Langit Transport becomes liable for nominal damages even, assuming that there was a valid ground for dismissal.

Tess, a seamstress at Marikit Clothing Factory, became pregnant. Because of morning sickness, she frequently absented herself from work and often came to the factory only four (4) days a week. After two (2) months, the personnel manager told her that her habitual absences rendered her practically useless to the company and, thus, asked her to resign. She begged to be retained, citing her pregnancy as reason for her absences. Tess asked for leave of absence but her request was denied. She went on leave nevertheless. As a result, she was thus dismissed for going on leave without permission of management. Tess filed a complaint for illegal dismissal. The company's defense: she was legally dismissed because of her numerous absences without leave and not because of her pregnancy. On the other hand, Tess argues that her dismissal was an act of discrimination, based as it was on her pregnancy which the company treated as a disease. Whose position is meritorious-the company's or Tess'? Explain.

The position of Tess is meritorious because the dismissal was based on the alleged failure of Tess to file a leave of absence. She filed the said leave but was denied by Marikit Clothing Factory. Under the present law, a pregnant worker is entitled to go on maternity leave. She asked for leave of absence only to be denied and yet she was terminated for absence without leave. This is an act that flagrantly violates Tess' right which translates to discrimination. However, I do not agree with Tess' contention that her pregnancy was treated as a form of disease. There is nothing to support this contention.

What are the requisites of a valid quitclaim?

The requisites of a valid quitclaim are: 1. A fixed amount as full and final compromise settlement; 2. The benefits of the employees if possible with the corresponding amounts, which the employees are giving up in consideration of the fixed compromise amount; 3. A statement that the employer has clearly explained to the employees in English, Filipino, or in the dialect known to the employees and that by signing the waiver or quitclaim, they are forfeiting or relinquishing their right to receive the benefits which are due them under the law, and 4. A statement that the employees signed and executed the document voluntarily, and had fully understood the contents of the document and that their consent was freely given without any threat, violence, intimidation, or undue influence exerted on their person.

Cris filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against Baker Company. The Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint but awarded Cris financial assistance. Only the company appealed from the Labor Arbiter's ruling. It confined its appeal solely to the question of whether financial assistance could be awarded. The NLRC, instead of ruling solely on the appealed issue, fully reversed the Labor Arbiter's decision; it found Baker Company liable for illegal dismissal and ordered the payment of separation pay and full backwages. Through a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, Baker Company challenged the validity of the NLRC ruling. It argued that the NLRC acted with grave abuse of discretion when it ruled on the illegal dismissal issue, when the only issue brought on appeal was the legal propriety of the financial assistance award. Cris countered that under Article 218(c) of the Labor Code, the NLRC has the authority to "correct, amend, or waive any error, defect or irregularity whether in substance or in form" in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction. Decide the case.

The review power of the NLRC in perfected appeals is limited only to those issues raised on appeal. Hence, it is grave abuse of discretion for the NLRC to resolve issues not raised on appeal (United Placement International v. NLRC, 221 SCRA 445 [1993]).

The labor sector has been loudly agitating for the end of labor-only contracting, as distinguished from job contracting. Explain these two kinds of labor contracting, and give the effect of a finding that one is a labor-only contractor. Explain your answers.

There is job contracting if a contractor carries on a distinct and independent business free from the control of the principal in all matters except as to the results thereof; and has substantial capital or investment. There is labor-only contracting when the principal retains the power to control the contracted employees; or when the contractor has insufficient capital and performs activities directly related to the business of the principal. A finding that there is labor-only contracting makes the principal the direct employer of the contracted employees, and is solidarily liable with the contractor for the wages and other benefits of the contracted employees.

Because of the stress in caring for her four (4) growing children, Tammy suffered a miscarriage late in her pregnancy and had to undergo an operation. In the course of the operation, her obstetrician further discovered a suspicious-looking mass that required the subsequent removal of her uterus (hysterectomy). After surgery, her physician advised Tammy to be on full bed rest for six (6) weeks. Meanwhile, the biopsy of the sample tissue taken from the mass in Tammy's uterus showed a beginning malignancy that required an immediate series of chemotherapy once a week for four (4) weeks. (A) What benefits can Tammy claim under existing social legislation? (B) What can Roger-Tammy's 2nd husband and the father of her two (2) younger children -claim as benefits under the circumstances?

Under R.A. No. 8187 or the Paternity Leave Act of 1996, Roger can claim paternity leave of seven (7) days with full pay if he is lawfully married to Tammy and cohabiting with her at the time of the miscarriage.

Percival was a mechanic of Pacific Airlines. He enjoyed a meal break of one hour. However, during meal breaks, he was required to be on stand-by for emergency work. During emergencies, he was made to forego his meals or to hurry up eating. He demanded payment of overtime for work done during his meal periods. Is Percival correct? Explain your answer.

Yes, Percival is correct. Meal break is compensable when the employees are required to stand by for emergency work and is considered overtime work. Here, Percival is required to be on. stand-by for emergency work during his meal break. Hence, he is correct to demand overtime for work done during his meal periods

Linis Manpower, Inc. (LMI) had provided janitorial services to the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA) since March 2009. Its service contract was renewed every three months. However, in the bidding held in June 2012, LMI was disqualified and excluded. In 2013, six janitors of LMI formerly assigned at POEA filed a complaint for underpayment of wages. Both LMI and POEA were impleaded as respondents. Should POEA, a government agency subject to budgetary appropriations from Congress, be held liable solidarily with LMI for the payment of salary differentials due to the complainant? Cite the legal basis of your answer.

Yes, but only to the extent of work performed under the contract. The second paragraph of Art. 106 of the Labor Code provides: Art. 106. Contractor or subcontractor. - ... In the event that the contractor or subcontractor fails to pay the wages of his employees in accordance with this Code, the employer shall be jointly and severally, liable with his contractor or subcontractor to such employees to the extent of the work performed under the contract, in the same manner and extent that he is liable to employees directly employed by him ... The fact that POEA is a government agency is of no moment. In U.S.A. v. Ruiz (G.R. No. L-35645, May 22, 1985), the Supreme Court ruled that the State may be sued if the contract it entered into is pursuant to its proprietary functions.

Marcel was the Vice President for Finance and Administration and a member of the Board of Directors of Mercedes Corporation. He brought a complaint for illegal suspension and illegal dismissal against Mercedes Corporation, which moved to dismiss the complaint on the ground that the complaint pertained to the jurisdiction of the RTC due to the controversy being intra-corporate based on his positions in the corporation. Marcel countered that he had only been removed as Vice President for Finance and Administration, not as a member of the Board of Directors. He also argued that his position was not listed as among the corporate offices in Mercedes Corporation's by-laws. Is the argument of Marcel correct? Explain your answer.

Yes, the argument of Marcel is correct. A dispute is intra-corporate when it involves, among others, the removal of corporate officers, namely the corporate president, treasurer, and secretary, and corporate officers listed as such in the by-laws of the corporation. Here, Marcel was suspended and dismissed as the Vice President for Finance and Administration, which is not a corporate officer as it is not one of those enumerated in the Corporation Code or in the by-laws of Mercedes Corporation. Hence, Marcel's dismissal and suspension are not intra-corporate disputes. See Matling Industrial and Commercial Corp. v. Coros (2010)

Star Crafts is a lantern maker based in Pampanga. It supplies Christmas lanterns to stores in Luzon, MetroManila, and parts of Visayas, with the months of August to November being the busiest months. Its factory employs a workforce of 2,000 workers who make different lanterns daily for the whole year. Because of increased demand, Star Crafts entered into a contractual arrangement with People Plus, a service contractor, to supply the former with 100 workers for only 4 months, August to November, at a rate different from what they pay their regular employees. The contract with People Plus stipulates that all equipment and raw materials will be supplied by Star Crafts with the express condition that the workers cannot take any of the designs home and must complete their tasks within the premises of Star Crafts. Is there an employer-employee relationship between Star Crafts and the100 workers from People Plus? Explain.

Yes. People Plus is a labor-only-contractor because it is not substantially capitalized. Neither does it carry on an independent business in which it actually and directly uses its own investment in the form of tools, equipment, machineries or work premises. Hence, it is just an agent or recruiter of workers who perform work directly related to the trade of Star Crafts. Since both essential element and confirming element of labor-only contracting are present, Star Crafts as principal and the supplied workers are related as employer and employees. As principal, Star Crafts will always be an employer in relation to the workers supplied by its contractor. Its status as employer is either direct or indirect depending on the latter's standing in law. Thus even if People Plus were a legitimate job contractor, still Star Crafts will be treated as a statutory employer for purposes of paying the workers' unpaid wages and benefits (Art. 106, Labor Code; D.O. 18-A).

Karina Santos is a famous news anchor appearing nightly in the country's most watched newscast. She is surprised, after one newscast, to receive a notice of hearing before the station's Vice President for Human Resources and calls the VP immediately to ask what was wrong. Karina is told over the phone that one of her crew filed a complaint against her for verbal abuse and that management is duty bound to investigate and give her a chance to air her side. Karina objects and denies that she had ever verbally assaulted her crew. The VP then informed her that pending the investigation she will be placed on a 30-daypreventive suspension without pay and that she will not be allowed to appear in the newscast during this time. Is the preventive suspension of Karina valid? Discuss the reasons for your answer.

Yes. Preventive suspension is justified where the employee's continued employment poses serious and imminent threat to the life or property of the employer or of the employee's co-workers. It may be imposed in the course of an investigation for a serious offense in order to prevent him from causing harm or injury to the company or fellow employees (Secs. 8 & 9, Rule XXIII, Bk V, ORILC; Maricalum Mining Corp. v. Decorion, G.R. No. 158673, 12 April 2006; Artificio v. NLRC, G.R. No. 172988, 26 July 2010). Given the physical proximity between Karina Santos and the complaining crew, and the likelihood of a disciplinary action, the latter must be protected from further verbal abuse.

Luisa is an unwed mother with 3 children from different fathers. In 2004, she became a member of the Social Security System (SSS). That same year, she suffered a miscarriage of a baby out of wedlock from the father of her third child. She wants to claim maternity b e n e fi t s under the SSS Act. Is she entitled to claim?

Yes. Provided Luisa has reported to her employer her pregnancy and date of expected delivery and paid at least three monthly contributions during the 12-month period immediately preceding her miscarriage then she is entitled to maternity benefits up to four deliveries. As to the fact that she got pregnant outside wedlock, as in her past three pregnancies , this will not bar her claim because the SSS is non-discriminatory. Likewise, the system is morality-free; hence, the several men in her life are immaterial. Therefore, regardless of non-marriage and lack of morals, Luisa is entitled to claim maternity benefits under the Social Security Act.

Matibay Shoe and Repair Store, as added service to its customers, devoted a portion of its store to a shoe shine stand. The shoe shine boys were tested for their skill before being allowed to work and given ID cards. They were told to be present from the opening of the store up to closing time and were· required to follow the company rules on cleanliness and decorum. They bought their own shoe shine boxes, polish, and rags. The boys were paid by their customers for their services but the payment is coursed through the store's cashier, who pays them before closing time. They were not supervised in their work by any managerial employee of the store but for a valid complaint by a customer or for violation of any company rule, they can be refused admission to the store. Were the boys employees of the store? Explain.

Yes. 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 employer's power to control the employee's conduct; and (d) the power of dismissal. The first element is present, as Matibay Shoe allowed shoe shine boys in its shoe shine stand to render services that are desirable in the line of business of Matibay Shoe. In issuing ID's to the shoe shine boys, the same signifies that they can represent themselves as part of the work force of Matibay Shoe. The second element is also present. Requiring the customers to pay through the Matibay Shoe's cashier signifies that their services were not engaged by the customers. Equally important, it was Matibay Shoe which gave the shoe shine boys their daily wage. The third element is satisfied. Requiring the shoe shine boys to be present from store opening until store closing and to follow company rules on cleanliness and decorum shows that they cannot conduct their activity anywhere else but inside the store of Matibay Shoe, hence, their means and methods of accomplishing the desired services for the customers of Matibay Shoe was controlled by it. Lastly, the fourth element is made apparent when Matibay Shoe barred the shoe shine boys from continuing with their work-related activity inside its establishment.

Dion is an Accounting Supervisor in a trading company. He has rendered exemplary service to the company for 20 years. His co-employee and kumpadre, Mac, called him over the phone and requested him to punch his (Mac's) daily time card as he (Mac) was caught in a monstrous traffic jam. Dion acceded to Mac's request but was later caught by the Personnel Manager while punching. Mac's time card. The company terminated the employment of Dion on the ground of misconduct. Is the dismissal valid and just? Explain.

Yes. The ground sustaining the dismissal of Dion is serious misconduct. The act of Dion in giving in to Mac's request to punch the latter's daily time card is loth a wrongful conduct, grave in character and not merely trivial or unimportant. The subject act involves dishonesty, and the same portrays Dion's moral obliquity to make it appear that Mac was working when actually he is not. The fact that he has rendered 20 years of service aggravates his situation because, by the length of his service, he should be well-aware that Mac must personally punch his daily time card.

Luisito has been working with Lima Land for twenty vears. Wanting to work in the public sector, Luisito applied with and was offered a job at Livecor. Before accepting the offer, he wanted to consult you whether the payments that he and Lima Land had made to the Social Security System (SSS) can be transferred or credited to the Government Service Insurance System (GSIS). What would you advice?

Yes. Under R.A. 7699, otherwise known as the Portability Law, one may combine his years of service in the private sector represented by his contributions to the Social Security System (SSS) with his government service and contributions to the GSIS. The contributions shall be totalized for purposes of old-age, disability, survivorship and other benefits in case the covered member does not qualify for such benefits in either or both Systems without totalization.

Baldo, a farm worker on pakyaw basis, had been working on Dencio's land by harvesting abaca and coconut, processing copra, and clearing weeds from year to year starting January 1993 up to his death in 2007. He worked continuously in the sense that it was done for more than one harvesting season. [a] Was Dencio required to report Baldo for compulsory social security coverage under the SSS law? Explain. [b] What are the liabilities of the employer who fails to report his employee for social security coverage? Explain.

[a] Dencio is required to report Baldo for compulsory social security coverage under the SSS Law. From the facts mentioned, Baldo is clearly an employee of Dencio. Considering the length of time that Baldo has worked with Dencio, it may be justifiably concluded that he is engaged to perform activities necessary or desirable in the usual trade or business of Dencio and is therefore a regular employee. Length of service was used by the Supreme Court in the case of Brotherhood Labor Unity Movement of the Philippines v. Zamora (G.R. No. 485451, January 7, 1987), to pronounce that the individual involved is a regular employee. Baldo, is thus, not a casual or temporary employee, exempted from the coverage of the SSS Law. [b] The employer is subject to the following liabilities: It shall pay to the SSS damages equivalent to the benefit which the employee would have been entitled had his name been reported on time to the SSS, except that in case of pension benefits, the employer shall be liable to pay the SSS damages equivalent to five years monthly pension; however, if the contingency occurs within thirty (30) days from date of employment, the employer shall be relieved of his liability for damages (Sec. 24 (a), R.A. 1161, as amended). It shall pay the corresponding unremitted contributions and penalties thereon (Sec. 24 (b), R.A. 1161, as amended).

Jim is the holder of a certificate of public convenience for a jeepney. He entered into a contract of lease with Nick, whereby they agreed that the lease period is for one (1) year unless sooner terminated by Jim for any of the causes laid down in the contract. The rental is thirty thousand pesos (P30,000.00) monthly. All the expenses for the repair of the jeepney, together with expenses for diesel, oil and service, shall be for the account of Nick. Nick is required to make a deposit of three (3) months to answer for the restoration of the vehicle to its good operating condition when the contract ends. It is stipulated that Nick is not an employee of Jim and he holds the latter free and harmless from all suits or claims which may arise from the implementation of the contract. Nick has the right to use the jeepney at any hour of the day provided it is operated on the approved line of operation. After five (5) months of the lease and payment of the rentals, Nick became delinquent in the payment of the rentals for two (2) months. Jim, as authorized by the contract, sent a letter of demand rescinding the contract and asked for the arrearages. Nick responded by filing a complaint with the NLRC for illegal dismissal, claiming that the contract is illegal and he was just forced by Jim to sign it so he can drive. He claims he is really a driver of Jim on a boundary system and the reason he was removed is because he failed to pay the complete daily boundary , of one thousand (P1,000.00) for 2 months due to the increase in the number of tricycles. [a] Jim files a motion to dismiss the NLRC case on the ground that the regular court has jurisdiction since the agreement is a lease contract. Rule on the motion and explain. [b] Assuming that Nick is an employee of Jim, was Nick validly dismissed?

[a] Jim's Motion to Dismiss must be denied. Although Jim and Nick called their contract as a lease, it is actually a contract of employment, and the rentals that Nick must pay to Jim is actually a boundary. Martinez v. National Labor Relations Commission (G.R. No. 117495, May 29, 1997), teaches that jeepney owners/operators exercise control over jeepney drivers. The fact that the drivers do not receive fixed wages but get only that in excess of the so-called boundary they pay to the owner/operator does not affect the existence of employer-employee relationship. Nick was engaged by Jim to perform activities which were usually necessary or desirable to the business or trade of Jim which makes him the employer of Nick. [b] Yes. For failing to remit five (5) months' worth of boundary, Nick apparently committed fraud against Jim. In Cosmos Bottling Corporation v. Fermin (G.R. No. 193676, June 20, 2012), and Fermin v. Cosmos Bottling

Empire Brands (Empire) contracted the services of Style Corporation (Style) for the marketing and promotion of its clothing line. Under the contract, Style provided Empire with Trade Merchandising Representatives (TMRs) whose services began on September 15, 2004 and ended on June 6, 2007, when Empire terminated the promotions contract with Style. Empire then entered into an agreement for manpower supply with Wave Human Resources (Wave). Wave owns its condo office, owns equipment for the use by the TMRs, and has assets amounting to Pl,000,000.00. Wave provided the supervisors who supervised the TMRs, who, in tum, received orders from the Marketing Director of Empire. In their agreement, the parties stipulated that Wave shall be liable for the wages and salaries of its employees or workers, including benefits, and protection due them, as well as remittance to the proper government entities of all withholding taxes, Social Security Service, and Philhealth premiums, in accordance with relevant laws. As the TMRs wanted to continue working at Empire, they submitted job applications as TMRs with Wave. Consequently, Wave hired them for a term of five (5) months, or from June 7, 2007 to November 6, 2007, specifically to promote Empire's products. When the TMRs' 5-month contracts with Wave were about to expire, they sought renewal thereof, but were refused. Their contracts with Wave were no longer renewed as Empire hired another agency. This prompted them to file complaints for illegal dismissal, regularization, non-payment of service incentive leave and 13th month pay against Empire and Wave. [a] Are the TMRs employees of Empire? [b] Were the TMRs illegally dismissed by Wave?

[a] Yes. From the time Empire contracted the services of Style, both engaged in labor-only contracting. In BPI Employees Union-Davao City-FUBU v. BPI (G.R. No. 174912, July 24, 2013), it was ruled that where any of the following elements is present, there is labor-only contracting: (1) The contractor or subcontractor does not have substantial capital or investment which relates to the job, work or service to be performed and the employees recruited, supplied or placed by such contractor or subcontractor are performing activities which are directly related to the main business of the principal; or (2) The contractor does not exercise the right to control over the performance of the work of the contractual employee. The first element is present herein, as Style has no substantial capital or investment in engaging in the supply of services contracted out by Empire which is directly related to the marketing and promotion of its clothing line. The second element is present as it is inevitable for Empire to direct the activities of the TMRs to properly market and promote its product line. The subsequent contract of Empire with Wave did not affect the regular employment of the TMRs with Empire as, through the Marketing Director of Empire, the TMRs were under the control of Empire. Thus, the five-month employment contract entered into by the TMRs with Wave did not divest them of their regular employment status with Empire. In addition, such scheme undermined the security of tenure of the TMRs which is constitutionally guaranteed, hence, the contract of the TMRs with Wave is void ad initio. [b] No. As the TMRs are employees of Empire, Wave did not have the power of dismissal; thus, even if Wave dismissed the TMRs the same has no consequence.

Inggo is a drama talent hired on a per drama "participation basis" by DJN Radio Company. He worked from 8:00 a.m. until 5:00 p.m., six days a week, on a gross rate of P80.00 per script, earning an average of P20,000.00 per month. Inggo filed a complaint before the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) against DJN Radio for illegal deduction, non-payment of service incentive leave, and 13th month pay, among others. On the basis of the complaint, the DOLE conducted a plant level inspection. The DOLE Regional Director issued an order ruling that Inggo is an employee of DJN Radio, and that Inggo is entitled to his monetary claims in the total amount of P30,000.00. DJN Radio elevated the case to the Secretary of Labor who affirmed the order. The case was brought to the Court of Appeals. The radio station contended that there is no employer-employee relationship because it was the drama directors and producers who paid, supervised, and disciplined him. Moreover, it argued that the case falls under the jurisdiction of the NLRC and not the DOLE because Inggo's claim exceeded P5,000.00. [a] May DOLE make a prima facie determination of the existence of an employer-employee relationship in the exercise of its visitorial and enforcement powers? [b] If the DOLE finds that there is an employee-employer relationship, does the case fall under the jurisdiction of the Labor Arbiter considering that the claim of inggo is more than P5,000.00. Explain.

[a] Yes. Pursuant to Article 128 (b) of the Labor Code, the DOLE may do so where the prima facie determination of employer-employee relationship is for the exclusive purpose of securing compliance with labor standards provisions of said Code and other labor legislation. The DOLE, in the exercise of its visitorial and enforcement powers, somehow has to make a determination of the existence of an employer-employee relationship. Such determination, however, cannot be coextensive with the visitorial and enforcement power itself. Indeed, such determination is merely preliminary, incidental and collateral to the DOLE's primary function of enforcing labor standards provisions (People's Broadcasting Bombo Radyo Phils., Inc. v. Secretary of Labor, G.R. No. 179652, May 8, 2009). [b] No. As held in the case of Meteoro v. Creative Creatures, Inc., G.R. No. 171275, July 13, 2009, the visitorial and enforcement powers of the Secretary, exercised through his representatives, encompass compliance with all labor standards taws and other labor legislation, regardless of the amount of the claims filed by workers; thus, even claims exceeding P5,000.00.

Gregorio was hired as an insurance underwriter by the Guaranteed Insurance Corporation (Guaranteed). He does not receive any salary but solely relies on commissions earned for every insurance policy approved by the company. He hires and pays his own secretary but is provided free office space in the office of the company. He is, however, required to meet a monthly quota of twenty (20) insurance policies, otherwise, he may be terminated. He was made to agree to a Code of Conduct for underwriters and is supervised by a Unit Manager. [a] Is Gregorio an employee of Guaranteed? Explain. [b] Suppose Gregorio is appointed as Unit Manager and assigned to supervise several underwriters. He holds office in the company premises, receives an overriding commission on the commissions of his underwriters, as well as a monthly allowance from the company, and is supervised by a branch manager. He is governed by the Code of Conduct for Unit Managers. Is he an employee of Guaranteed? Explain.

[a]No, Gregorio is not an employee of Guaranteed. Control is the most important element of employer-employee relationship, which refers to the means and methods by which the result is to be accomplished (Avelino Lambo and Vicente Belocura v. NLRC and J.C. Tailor Shop and/or Johnny Co., 375 Phil. 855 [1999]), .citing Makati Haberdashery, Inc. v. NLRC, 259 Phil. 52 [1989]. The requirement of complying with quota, company code of conduct and supervision by unit managers do not go into the means and methods by which Gregorio must achieve his work. He has full discretion on how to meet his quota requirement, hence, there is no employer- employee relationship between Gregorio and Guaranteed. [b]Yes, Gregorio is an employee. In fact, he is deemed as a regular employee. As a unit manager who was tasked to supervise underwriters, he can be said to be doing a task which is necessary and desirable to the usual business of Guaranteed. Article 295 of the Labor code provides that "(T)he provisions of written agreement to the contrary notwithstanding and regardless of the oral agreement of the parties, an employment shall be deemed to be regular where the employee has been engaged to perform activities which are usually necessary or desirable in the usual business or trade of the employer, x x x."

Briefly discuss the powers and responsibilities of the following in the scheme of the Labor Code: (a)Secretary of Labor

a) 1.Power to inspect employer's records and premises at any time ofthe day or night whenever work is being undertaken therein, and the right to copy therefrom, to question any employee and investigate any fact, condition or matter which may be necessary to determine violations or which may aid in the enforcement of the Labor Code and of any labor law, wage order or rules and regulations issued pursuant thereto. [Labor Code, Article128(a)] 2.Power to issue compliance orders to give effect to the labor standards provisions of this Code and other labor legislation based on the findings of labor employment and enforcement officers or industrial safety engineers made in the course of inspection. [Labor Code, Article 128(b)] 3.Power to issue writs of execution to the appropriate authority for the enforcement of their orders, except in cases where the employer contests the findings of the labor employment and enforcement officer and raises issues supported by documentary proofs which were not considered in the course of inspection. [Labor Code, Article 128(b)] 4.Power toorder stoppage of work or suspension of operations of any unit or department of an establishment when non-compliance with the law or implementing rules and regulations poses grave and imminent danger to the health and safety of workers in the workplace. [Labor Code, Article 128(c)] 5.Assumption of Jurisdiction and/or Certification to the NLRC for Compulsory Arbitration in labor disputes causing or likely to cause a strike or lockout in an industry indispensable to the national interest. [Labor Code, Article 278(g)]

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 (b)Illegal dismissal (c)Unfair labor practice (d)Offenses under the Labor Code (e)Illegal recruitment

a) All money claims arising from employer-employeerelations 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. [Labor Code, Article 306 (291)] b) The prescriptive period for filing an illegal dismissal complaint is four years from the time the cause of action accrued. [Teekay Shipping Philippines, Inc., vs. Ramier Concha, G.R. No. 185463, February 22, 2012; Civil Code, Article1146] c) All unfair labor practices 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. [Labor Code, Article 305 (290)] d) Offenses penalized under this Code and the rules and regulations issued pursuant thereto shall prescribe in three (3) years. [Labor Code, Article 305(290)] e) 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. [Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act of1995, Republic Act No. 8042, [June 7, 1995], Section12]Note that RA 8042 only applies to Migrant Workers. Illegal recruitment for local employment is subject to the provisions of the Labor Code, in particular, Article 305 (290), first paragraph, to wit: offenses penalized under this Code xxx shall prescribe in three (3) years.

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. (b)Assuming that Mrs. Bis instead a clerk in X's company with at least 30 regular employees, will her monetary claim prosper? Explain.

a) No, the contention of X is not tenable. Mrs. B being a kasambahay is entitled to service incentive leave under R.A. 10361 as clarified by Labor Advisory No. 010-18. As such, she has the prerogative to use it, monetize it after 12 months of service, or commute it until separation from service. If she elects the second, she has three (3) years to demand for payment to avail of the benefit. Hence, not being a prescribed claim, it's withholding is unlawful. [Lourdes Rodriguez v. Park N Ride, G.R. No. 222980, March 20, 2017] b) Yes, the money claim will prosper. A clerk is not one of those exempt employees in Article 82 of the Labor Code which refers to government employees, managerial employees, field personnel members of the family who are dependent on him for support, domestic helpers, persons in the personal service of another and persons who are paid by results.

Because of dwindling sales and the consequent limitation of production, rumors were rife that XYZ, Inc. would reduce its employee force. The next day, the employees of XYZ, Inc. received a notice that the company will have a winding down period of 10 days, after which there will be a six (6)-month suspension of operations to allow the company to address its precarious financial position. On the fourth (4th) month of suspension of its operations, XYZ, Inc. posted an announcement that it will resume its operations in 60 days but at the same time announced that instead of closing down due to financial losses, it will retrench 50% of the workforce. (a)Is the announcement that there would be retrenchment affecting 50%) of the work force sufficient compliance with the legal requirements for retrenchment? Explain. (b)Assuming that XYZ, Inc., instead of retrenchment, extended the suspension of its operations from six (6) months to eight (8) months, would the same be legally permissible? If not, what are the consequences?

a) No, there is no sufficient compliance with the legal requirements for retrenchment. Under Article 298 of the Labor Code, individual written notices of the termination due to retrenchment must be given each affected employee, in addition to the notice to be submitted to the DOLE within 30 days from the intended date of termination. Mere announcement is not compliance It is assumed that there is substantial evidence establishing that there are serious business losses justifying the retrenchment and other previous cost-cutting measures have proven to be ineffective. b) No, under Article 300 of the Labor Code it is not legally permissible because the employer is allowed under the law to suspend operations only up to 6 months. If the suspension persists beyond 6 months it amounts to termination. The employer must then show compliance with procedural and substantive due process else the termination would be considered as illegal.

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? (b)Will Ms. T's claim for constructive dismissal prosper? Explain.

a) Resignation is at the instance of the employee, whereas constructive dismissal is at the instance of the employer. Resignation is voluntary, whereas in constructive dismissal there is vitiated consent. Resignation means no separation pay, whereas constructive dismissal means payment of separation pay and damages. Resignation must be at least with 30 days' notice on the part of the employee, whereasin constructive dismissal the employee can leave anytime. b) No. The Supreme Court ruled that "... the employer did not violate any law when it gave the employeethe option to resign because there is nothing illegal with the practice of allowing an employee to resign instead of being separated for cause, so as not to smear her employment..." This case applies to Ms. T as she was caught stealing and her resignation gives her a chance not to smear her records. [Sicangco v. NLRC, G.R. No. 110261, August 4, 1994]

Ms. A is a volleyball coach with five (5) years of experience in her field. Before the start of the volleyball season of2015, she was hired for the solepurpose of overseeing the training and coaching of the University's volleyball team. During her hiring, the Vice-President for Sports expressed to Ms. A the University's expectation that she would bring the University a championship at the end of theyear. In her first volleyball season, the University placed ninth (9th) out of10 participating teams. Soon after the end of the season, the Vice-President for Sports informed Ms. A that she was a mere probationary employee and hence, she need not come back for the next season because of the poor performance of the team. In any case, the Vice-President for Sports claimed that Ms. A was a fixed-term employee whose contract had ended at the close of theyear. (a)Is Ms. A a probationary, fixed-term, or regular employee? Explain your reasons as to why she is or she is not such kind of an employee for each of the types of employment given. (b)Assuming that Ms. A was dismissed by the University for serious misconduct but was never given a notice to explain, what is the consequence of a procedurally infirm dismissal from service under our Labor law and jurisprudence? Explain.

a) There being no specific indication as to the nature of the engagement or that her performance was to beevaluated in accordance with standards for regularization made known at the time of engagement, it is thus presumed that Ms. A was hired as a regular employee. She cannot also be categorized as a term employee since it was not agreed upon by her and the University that her employment would only be for a definite period of time. As a matter of fact, there being no mention of a contract in the facts, Ms. A can only be considered as a regular employee. b) The University should pay nominal damages to Ms. A in the amount of P30,000.00.Applying the Agabon Doctrine, if the dismissal of the employee was for just cause but procedural due process was not observed, the lack of statutory due process should not nullify the dismissal or render it illegal or ineffectual [Agabon v. NLRC, G.R. No.158693, November 17,2004]. However, the employer should indemnify the employee for the violation of his right to procedural due process.

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? (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.

a) This test is premised on the exercise or the reservation of the right to control the manner and method to do a job. The important factor to consider is how the work itself is done,notjust the end result thereof. [Reyes v. Glaucoma, June 17, 2015, G.R. No.189255] b) No, it is not correct. A, B & C are employees of MM Medical Center, Inc. In the case with similar facts, the Supreme Court said, "... the existence of LSGI's power of control over the means and method pursued by the petitioners in the performance of their job gives them the status of a regular employment..." [Samonte v. La SalleGreenhills (February 10, 2016, G.R. No. 199683] This control is manifested by the fact that a supervisor gives them specific instructions on how they perform their respective tasks. Therefore, the Medical Director's reliance on the contract signed by A, B, and C to refute the existence of employer-employee relationship is not correct.

W Gas Corp. is engaged in the manufacture and distribution to the general public of various petroleum products. On January 1,20 I 0, 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. (b)Will Mr. R's complaint for illegal dismissal against W Gas Corp. prosper? Explain.

a) Yes, Q Manpower Co. is a labor-only contractor. Article 106 of the Labor Code provides that there is "labor-only" contracting where 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 the workers recruited and placed by such contractor are performing activities which are directly related to the business. In the question posed, the equipment belonged to W Gas Corp. In the course of the proceedings, no evidence was presented to prove Q Manpower Co's substantial capitalization. b) Yes, Mr. R's complaint for illegal dismissal against W Gas Corp will prosper as it is solidarily liable with Q Manpower Corp. under Article 106 of the Labor Code. Having proved that Q Manpower is only a labor-only contractor, it is considered merely as an agent of W Gas Corp. Consequently, there exists an employer-employee relationship between Mr. R and W Gas Corp. It cannot terminate Mr. R on the pretext that the service contract it had entered with Q Manpower Co. has already lapsed, but must prove just or authorized cause after due process.

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 is 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. (b)Assuming that on appeal, the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) upholds the decision of the LA, where, how, and within what timeframe should ABC, Inc. assail the NLRC ruling?

a) Yes, it is correct but only insofar as it contends to order reinstatement. Firstly, a motion for reconsideration before the Labor Arbiter is a prohibited pleading under the 2011 NLRC Rules of Procedure as amended. However, assuming that it is not, ABC's contention to delete the separation pay and instead order reinstatement is correct. The general rule is that in case a dismissal is declared, actual reinstatement should be the norm and thus must be granted as a matter of course. [Emiritus v. Dalig, G.R. No.204761, April 2, 2014] Separation pay is awardable only if there are strained relations between the employer and the employee"... if strained relations are neither alleged nor proven, there is no basis to order the award of separation pay. Since the facts do not disclose that there were strained relations between Mr. K and ABC Inc., and the LA's decision fails to state that there is a bar to reinstatement, the general norm of reinstatement must be followed. As to the award of backwages, ABC Inc.'s claim to delete is incorrect. Under Article 294, an employee who is illegally dismissed is entitled to payment of full backwages, inclusive of allowances and other benefits or their monetary equivalent, computed from the time his compensation was withheld up to the time of his actual reinstatement OR up to the finality of the decision in case no actual reinstatement is ordered. b) A motion for reconsideration must first be filed in the NLRC, which must be filed within ten (10) calendar days from receipt of decision, resolution or order, with proof of service that a copy of the same has been furnished, within the reglementary period, the adverse party. [Section 15, Rule VII, 2011 NLRC Rules of Procedure] [RA Comment: I integrated the experts' discussion in the answer. The legal basis was found with a quick search, so it needs to be checked.] If the LA ruling is still upheld, from the NLRC, the case may go to the Court of Appeals in a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of Court within a reglementary period of 60 days from the time of receipt of the Resolution denying the Motion for Reconsideration. [St. Martin Funeral Home v. NLRC, G.R. No. 130866, September 16, 1998] The petition is grounded on grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of the NLRC. It is an initiatory pleading, therefore must be accompanied by a verification and certification of non-forum shopping. Factual issues may be raised and all pertinent pleadings, decision and resolution must be a certified true copy.

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. (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.

a) Yes. R.A. 8282, otherwise known as the SSS Law, states that if a member has no primary beneficiaries, his secondary beneficiaries shall be entitled to a lump sum benefit equivalent to thirty-six (36) times the monthly pension. Thus, the mother of X, as a secondary beneficiary, is entitled to a lump sum death benefits for X, who has made at least 36 monthly contributions. [Section 13 in relation to Sec. 8(k), R.A. 9262] b) Yes. The presumption that the surviving spouse whose marriage to SSS members were contracted after the latter's retirement entered into the marriage for the purpose of securing survivor's benefits is not necessarily or universally true. [Dycaico v. Social Security System, G.R. No. 161357, November 30, 2005]

Narciso filed a complaint against Norte University for the payment of retirement benefits after having been a part-time professional lecturer in the same school since 1974. Narciso taught for two semesters and a summer term for the school year 1974-1975, took a leave of absence from 1975 to 1977, and resumed teaching until 2003. Since then, his contract has been renewed at the start of every semester and summer, until November 2005 when he was told that he could no longer teach because he was already 75 years old. Norte University also denied Narciso's claim for retirement benefits stating that only full-time permanent faculty, who have served for at least five years immediately preceding the termination of their employment, can avail themselves of post-employment benefits. As part-time faculty member, Narciso did not acquire permanent employment status under the Manual of Regulations for Private Schools, in relation to the Labor Code, regardless of his length of service. a. Is Narciso entitled to retirement benefits?

a. As a part-time employee with fixed-term employment, Narciso is entitled to retirement benefits. Book VI, Rule II of the Rules Implementing the Labor Code states that the rule on retirement shall apply to all employees in the private sector, regardless of their position, designation or status and irrespective of the method by which their wages are paid, except to those specifically exempted. Part-time faculty members do not fall under the exemption. Based also on the Retirement Pay Law, and its Implementing Rules, part-time faculty members of private educational institutions are entitled to full retirement benefits even if the services are not continuous, and even if their contracts have been renewed after their mandatory age of retirement.

Nelda worked as a chambermaid in Hotel Neverland with a basic wage of PhP560.00 for an eight-hour workday. On Good Friday, she worked for one (1) hour from 10:00 PM to 11 :00 PM. Her employer paid her only PhP480.00 for each 8-hour workday, and PhP70.00 for the work done on Good Friday. She sued for underpayment of wages and non-payment of holiday pay and night shift differential pay for working on a Good Friday. Hotel Neverland denied the alleged underpayment, arguing that based on long-standing unwritten tradition, food and lodging costs were partially shouldered by the employer and partially paid for by the employee through salary deduction. According to the employer, such valid deduction caused the payment of Nelda's wage to be below the prescribed minimum. The hotel also claimed that she was not entitled to holiday pay and night shift differential pay because hotel workers have to work on holidays and may be assigned to work at night. a. Does the hotel have valid legal grounds to deduct food and lodging costs from Nelda's basic salary?

a. In Mabeza v. NLRC, the Supreme Court established three requirements before the value of "facilities" such as food and lodging may be deducted from an employee's wages: first, proof must be shown that such facilities are customarily furnished by the trade; second, the provision of deductible facilities must be voluntarily accepted in writing by the employee; and finally, facilities must be charged at fair and reasonable value. In the case at hand, the second and third requisites on voluntary acceptance of deductible facilities in writing, at fair and reasonable value, was not established.

Your favorite relative, Tita Nilda, approaches you and seeks your advice on her treatment of her kasambahay, Noray. Tita Nilda shows you a document called a "Contract of Engagement" for your review. Under the Contract of Engagement, Noray shall be entitled to a rest day every week, provided that she may be requested to work on a rest day if Tita Nilda should need her services that day. Tita Nilda also claims that this Contract of Engagement should embody all terms and conditions of Noray's work as the engagement of a kasambahay is a private matter and should not be regulated by the State. a. Is Tita Nilda correct in saying that this is a private matter and should not be regulated by the State?

a. Tita Nilda is incorrect. The relationship between Tita Nilda and Noray is an employer-employee arrangement that is regulated by the police power of the State. Through the Batas Kasambahay (R.A. 10361), the State recognizes this employment relationship and establishes minimum labor standards for domestic workers, toward decent employment and income, enhanced coverage of social protection and respect for human rights, and strengthened social dialogue. Also, since domestic workers are generally working women in vulnerable working conditions, the State regulates domestic worker employment to prevent abuse and exploitation and uphold the gender rights of domestic workers.

Nicodemus was employed as a computer programmer by Network Corporation, a telecommunications firm. He has been coming to work in short and sneakers, in violation of the "prescribed uniform policy" based on company rules and regulations. The company human resources manager wrote him a letter, giving him 10 days to comply with the company uniform policy. Nicodemus asserted that wearing shorts and sneakers made him more productive, and cited his above-average output. When he came to work still in violation of the uniform policy, the company sent him a letter of termination of employment. Nicodemus filed an illegal dismissal case. The Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of Nicodemus and ordered his reinstatement with backwages. Network Corporation, however, refused to reinstate him. The NLRC 1st Division sustained the Labor Arbiter's judgment. Network Corporation still refused to reinstate Nicodemus. Eventually, the Court of Appeals reversed the decision of the NLRC and ruled that the dismissal was valid. Despite the reversal, Nicodemus still filed a motion for execution with respect to his accrued backwages. a. Were there valid legal grounds to dismiss Nicodemus from his employment?

a. Yes. Nicodemus clearly committed willful disobedience of lawful orders issued by the Network Corporation, with respect to the uniform policy. This is a ground for termination under Article 288(a) of the Labor Code.

Seasonal and project employees

b) Seasonal employees are those who are called to work from time to time according to the occurrence of varying need during a season, and the employment is only for the duration of said season. They are laid off after completion of the required phase of work for the season. Project employees are those who are assigned to carry out a specific project or undertaking, the duration and scope of which were specified at the time the employees were engaged for the project, hence, the services of the project employees are coterminous with the project for which they were hired. [Article 295, Labor Code]

b. Applying labor standards law, how much should Nelda be paid for work done on Good Friday? Show the computation in your test booklet and encircle your final answer.

b. As an employee paid Php 70 an hour, Nelda was entitled to an additional 100% of her hourly wage for working on a Good Friday, plus 10% for night differential pay. Nelda should be paid a total of Php 154.00 for working that day.

b. If he is entitled to retirement benefits, how should retirement pay be computed in the absence of any contract between him and Norte University providing for such benefits?

b. In the absence of any contract providing for higher retirement benefits, private educational institutions, including Norte University, are obligated to set aside funds for the retirement pay of all its part-time faculty members. A covered employee who retires pursuant to the Retirement Pay Law shall be entitled to retirement pay equivalent to at least one-half (1/2) month salary for every year of service, a fraction of at least six(6) months being considered as one whole year. One-half month salary shall mean fifteen (15) days plus one-twelfth (1/12) of the 13th month pay and the cash equivalent of not more than five (5) days service incentive leaves. In total, this should amount to 22.5 days for every year of service (De La Salle Araneta University v. Bernardo, G.R. No. 190809, February 13, 2017).

b. Is the stipulation that she may be requested to work on a rest day legal?

b. Yes. Such a stipulation is legal as it states that Noray may only be "requested" to work on a rest day, thereby recognizing that the consent of Noray is needed in order to waive her right to a weekly rest day. Section 21 of the Kasambahay Law allows both the employer and domestic worker to agree on certain arrangements to offset, waive, or accumulate rest days, subject to payment of appropriate wages and benefits.

c. Are stay-in family drivers included under the Kasambahay Law?

c. No. Family drivers are not included under the Kasambahay Law. A "Kasambahay" refers to any person engaged in domestic work within an employment relationship such as, but not limited to, the following: general househelp, nursemaid or "yaya", cook, gardener, or laundry person, but shall exclude any person who performs domestic work only occasionally or sporadically and not on an occupational basis.