Amboy, Ronrei Don N.

10/25/2020
LABOR1 Bar Questions

Q1. Mr. A signed a one (1)-year contract with XYZ Recruitment Co. for deployment as
welding supervisor for DEF, Inc. located in Dubai. The employment contract, which the
Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA) approved, stipulated a salary
of US$600.00 a month.

Mr. A had only been in his job in Dubai for six (6) months when DEF, Inc. announced
that it was suffering from severe financial losses and thus intended to retrench some of
its workers, among them Mr. A. DEF, Inc. hinted, however, that employees who would
accept a lower salary could be retained.

Together with some other Filipino workers, Mr. A agreed to a reduced salary of
US$400.00 a month and thus, continued with his employment.

(a) Was the reduction of Mr. A’s salary valid? Explain.

NO. Under Section 6 (i) of R.A. 8042 (“Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos
Act of 1995”), it prohibits the substitution or alteration of employment contracts, to
the prejudice of the worker, approved and verified by the Department of Labor
and Employment from the time of actual signing thereof by the parties up to and
including the period of the expiration of the same without the approval of the
Department of Labor and Employment.

(b) Assuming that the reduction was invalid, may Mr. A hold XYZ Recruitment Co,
liable for underpayment of wages? Explain.

YES. Mr. A may hold XYZ Recruitment Co. liable for underpayment of wages
because Section 10 of R.A. 8042 (“Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act
of 1995”) states that the liability of the principal/employer and the
recruitment/placement agency for any and all money claims under this section
shall be joint and several. Further, such liabilities shall continue during the entire
period of the duration of the employment contract and shall not be affected by
any substitution, amendment, or modification made locally or in a foreign country
of the said contract.

Q2 Lito Kulangkulang and Bong Urongsulong are employed as truck drivers of Line
Movers, Inc. Usually. Lito is required by the personnel manager to just stay at the head
office after office hours because he could be called to drive the trucks. While at the
head office. Lito merely waits in the manager's reception room. On the other hand. Bong
is allowed to go home after office hours but could be contacted whenever his services
as driver becomes necessary.

Would the hours that Lito and Bong are on call be considered compensable working
hours?

YES. Both instances wherein Lito and Bong are on call can be considered as
compensable working hours. Under Book III, Rule I, Section 3 of the Omnibus Rules
Implementing the Labor Code:

SECTION 3. Hours worked. — The following shall be considered as

compensable hours worked:

(a) All time during which an employee is required to be on duty or to be at the

employer's premises or to be at a prescribed work place; and

(b) All time during which an employee is suffered or permitted to work.

1
Furthermore, an employee who is required to remain on call in the employer’s premises
or so close thereto that he cannot use the time effectively and gainfully for his own
purpose shall be considered as working while on call.

But it can be argued that, in the case of Bong who is not required to stay in the office
but is allowed to go home, if he is not actually asked to report to the office to drive, he
can use his time effectively and gainfully to his own purpose, thus, the time that he is at
home may mean that they are not compensable hours.

Q3. 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 for each 8-hour
workday, and PhP70.00 for work done on Good Friday. She sued for underpayment of
wages and non-payment of holiday pay and night shit differential 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 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?

NO. In Mabeza vs NLRC, granting that meals and lodging were provided and
indeed constituted facilities, such facilities could not be deducted without the
employer complying first with certain legal requirements. Without satisfying these
requirements, the employer simply cannot deduct the value from the 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. Finally, facilities must be charged at fair and
reasonable value.

Thus, unless Hotel Neverland could comply with the legal requirements, it has no
reason to deduct food and lodging costs from Nelda’s basic salary.

(b) Applying labor standards law, how much should Nelda be paid for work done on
Good Friday?

As an employee paid P70 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 P154.00 for working that day.

Q4. Who among the following is not entitled to 13th month pay?

a. Stephanie, a probationary employee of a cooperative bank who rendered six (6)

months of service during the calendar year before filing her resignation;

b. Rafael, the secretary of a Senator;

c. Selina, a cook employed by and who lives with an old maid and who also tends
the sari-sari store of the latter;

d. Roger, a house gardener who is required to report to work only thrice a week.

Rafael, the secretary of a Senator as provided under Section 3 (b) of P.D. 851

2
Q5. After working from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m. on a Thursday as one of 5,000 employees in a
beer factory, A hurried home to catch the early evening news and have dinner with his
family. At around 10 p.m. of the same day, the plant manager called and ordered A to fill
in for C who missed the second shift.

May A be required to render overtime work, under pain of disciplinary sanction?

NO. A may not be required to render overtime work because it is not under one of the
circumstances stated in Article 89 of the Labor Code which provides for instances
where an employer may require an employee to perform emergency overtime work.
Article 89 of the Labor code provides:

Art. 89. Emergency overtime work. Any employee may be required by the

employer to perform overtime work in any of the following cases:

a. When the country is at war or when any other national or local emergency has
been declared by the National Assembly or the Chief Executive;
 
b. When it is necessary to prevent loss of life or property or in case of imminent
danger to public safety due to an actual or impending emergency in the locality
caused by serious accidents, fire, flood, typhoon, earthquake, epidemic, or other
disaster or calamity;
 
c. When there is urgent work to be performed on machines, installations, or
equipment, in order to avoid serious loss or damage to the employer or some
other cause of similar nature;
 
d. When the work is necessary to prevent loss or damage to perishable goods; and
 
e. Where the completion or continuation of the work started before the eighth hour
is necessary to prevent serious obstruction or prejudice to the business or
operations of the employer.

Any employee required to render overtime work under this Article shall be paid the
additional compensation required in this Chapter.