1

I. FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES AND CONCEPTS

1. Are tinderas in a sari-sari store entitled to labor protection?

Yes. The protection of labor must be balanced with the protection of establishments whose clientele mainly
consists of the working class and the urban poor. When awarding labor claims, the tribunal must also
consider the type of establishment employing the laborer. (Dominga Cabug-os v. Teresita Espina, G.R. No. 228719,
August 8, 2022, Landmark Case)

2. Is it proper to dismiss a regular employee for refusing to undergo another training when he was
about to be transferred to another account?
No. A regular employee is entitled to security of tenure. As such, by requiring him to pass additional
training and examination as a condition to retain his employment under the pain of dismissal, the
employer disregarded his right to security of tenure. (Teletech Customer Care Management Philippines, Inc. vs.
Gerona, Jr., G.R. No. 219166. November 10, 2021)

II. RECRUITMENT AND PLACEMENT OF WORKERS

3. Is substitution or alteration of employment contract approved and verified by the DOLE

prohibited?
Yes. It is a prohibited practice under the Labor Code. To substitute or alter to the prejudice of the worker,
employment contracts approved and verified by the DOLE 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 DOLE is
considered an act of "illegal recruitment" under Section 6(i) of Republic Act No. 8042. (Fil-Expat Placement
Agency, Inc., v. Maria Antoniette Cudal Lee, G.R. No. 250439, September 22, 2020, J. Lopez)

4. What are the two types of illegal recruitment?

Simple Illegal Recruitment Illegal Recruitment Involving Economic Sabotage
It is committed by: It is committed by a syndicate or on a large scale.
a. a person who, not having the valid license or authority Illegal Recruitment by a syndicate - if carried out
required by law to enable him to lawfully engage in by a group of three (3) or more persons conspiring or
recruitment and placement of workers confederating with one another.
b. undertakes any of the activities within the meaning of Illegal Recruitment on a large scale - if committed
"recruitment and placement" mentioned in Article 13 (b) of against three (3) or more persons individually or as a
the Labor Code, or any of the prohibited practices group
enumerated in Section 6 of RA 8042.
(People vs. Imperio y Antonio, G.R. No. 232623, October 5, 2020; People v. Cagalingan, G.R. No. 198664, 2016; Article 38, Labor
Code of the Philippines)

5. Distinguish illegal recruitment from estafa.

Illegal Recruitment Estafa
It is committed when the following elements concur: It is committed when the following elements concur:
1. the offender has no valid license or authority required 1. the accused defrauded another by abuse of
by law to enable one to lawfully engage in recruitment confidence or by means of deceit; and
and placement of workers; and 2. the offended party, or a third party, suffered
2. he undertakes either any activity within the meaning of damage or prejudice capable of pecuniary
“recruitment and placement” defined under Art. 13(b), estimation. These elements are completely
or any of the prohibited practices enumerated under different from those required in illegal
Art. 34 of the Labor Code. recruitment.
Malum prohibitum Mala in se
Criminal intent is not necessary for conviction. Criminal intent is necessary for conviction.
(People v. Ocden, G.R. No. 173198, June 1, 2011; People v. Cagalingan, G.R. No. 198664, 2016)

6. What is the Theory of Imputed Knowledge?

The Theory of Imputed Knowledge ascribes the knowledge of the agent or recruitment agency to the
principal and not the other way around. The knowledge of the principal-foreign employer cannot,
therefore, be imputed to its agents or recruitment agency. (Sunace International Management Services, Inc. vs NLRC,
et al., G.R. No. 161757, 25 January 2006)

III. EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE RELATIONSHIP

7. What are the various tests in determining employer-employee relationship?

The existing economic conditions prevailing between the employer and
Economic Reality Test
employee are also applied in determining employer-employee relationship
Control Test An employment relation obtains where work is performed or services rendered
under the control and supervision of the party contracting for the service, not
only as to the result of the work but also as to the manner and details of the
performance.
Totality of Economic The determination of employer-employee relationship depends upon the
Circumstances Test circumstances of the whole economic activity.
Economic dependence and Adopts a two-tiered test in determining employer-employee relationship:
control test 1. the putative employer’s power to control the employee with respect to the
means and methods by which the work is to be accomplished; and
 2
2. the underlying economic realities of the activity or relationship
Four-fold test To ascertain the existence of an employer-employee relationship jurisprudence
has invariably adhered to the four-fold test, to wit:
1. The selection and engagement of the employee;
2. The payment of wages;
3. The power of dismissal; and,
4. The power to control the employee’s conduct, or the so-called “control test.”
(Poquiz, Labor Standards and Social Legislation With Notes and Comments, 2018, pp. 46 to 49; Pedro D. Dusol and Maricel M.
Dusol v. Emmarck A. Lazo, G.R. No. 200555, January 20, 2021, J. Lopez)

8. AAA, et. al filed a complaint against BBB Restaurant for unfair labor practices, illegal dismissal,
and other claims. They claimed to have been employed and alleged harassment after forming a
union. The restaurant denied any employment relationship with AAA, et. al. He asserted that CCC
and DDD were the restaurant owners, and he was only the lessor of the building. As supporting
evidence, BBB Restaurant submitted Contracts of Lease and Tax Returns showing his income
solely on building rentals. BBB Restaurant likewise presented the Certificate of Registration of
Business Name, Mayor's Permit, and Certificate of Registration with the Bureau of Internal
Revenue which were all issued in CCC name. Will the case for illegal dismissal prosper against
BBB Restaurant?
No. Applying the four-fold test of employment relationship, namely: (1) the selection and engagement of
the employee or the power to hire; (2) the payment of wages; (3) the power to dismiss; and (4) the power
to control the employee, would disclose that BBB Restaurant is not the employer of AAA, et. al. The
evidence showed that BBB Restaurant did not participate in the selection of employees, did not directly
pay their wages, did not have the power to dismiss them, and did not exercise control over their work.
(Abelardo Salazar v. Albina Simbajon, et.al, G.R. No. 202374, June 30, 2021, J. Lopez)

9. In 2016, riders were hired by AAA to pick up items from sellers and deliver them to AAA’s
warehouse. Each signed an independent contract agreement which states that they will be paid
P1,200.00 per day as service fee and will be engaged for a period of one year. The riders used their
privately-owned motorcycles in their trips. In 2017, the riders were told by a dispatcher that they
have been removed from their usual routes and will no longer be given any schedules. They
learned that their routes were already given to other employees. The riders filed a complaint for
illegal dismissal claiming that they are regular employees. AAA argued that there is no
employer-employee relationship because the riders are independent contractors. Are the riders
considered as employees of AAA?
Yes. The riders satisfy both the four-fold and economic dependence test. Under the four-fold test there
must be: (a) the employer's selection and engagement of the employee; (b) the payment of wages; (c) the
power to dismiss; and (d) the power to control the employee's conduct. The power of control is the most
significant factor in the four-fold test. It does not have to be actually exercised by the employer. It is
sufficient that the employer "has a right to wield the power." When the control test is insufficient, the
economic realities of the employment are considered.

Thus, the determination of the relationship between employer and employee depends upon the
circumstances of the whole economic activity, such as: (1) the extent to which the services performed are
an integral part of the employer's business; (2) the extent of the worker's investment in equipment and
facilities; (3) the nature and degree of control exercised by the employer; (4) the worker's opportunity for
profit and loss; (5) the amount of initiative, skill, judgment or foresight required for the success of the
claimed independent enterprise; (6) the permanency and duration of the relationship between the worker
and the employer; and (7) the degree of dependency of the worker upon the employer for his continued
employment in that line of business.

The services performed by the riders are integral to AAA’s business. The delivery of items is clearly
integrated in the services offered by AAA. That AAA could have left the delivery of the goods to the sellers
and buyers is of no moment because this is evidently not the business model they are implementing.
Further, the riders have invested in equipment to be engaged by AAA as the former are required to use
their own motor vehicles and other equipment and supplies in the delivery of the items. More importantly,
the riders are dependent on AAA for their continued employment in this line of business considering that
they were directly hired by AAA. This demonstrates that riders have been economically dependent on
AAA for their livelihood. (Ditiangkin, et al. v. Lazada E-Services Philippines Inc., G.R. No. 246892, September 21, 2022)

10. Is the use of the phrase “co-terminus with the project” in the employment contract by the
employer sufficient to adequately inform the employee of the duration and scope of the project for
the employee to be considered as project-based?
Yes. For an employee to be considered as project-based, the employer must show compliance with two
(2) requisites, namely that: (a) the employee was assigned to carry out a specific project or undertaking;
and (b) the duration and scope of which were specified at the time they were engaged for such project. To
satisfy the second requisite, law and jurisprudence dictate that the duration of the undertaking begins and
ends at determined or determinable times. However, the phrase ‘determinable times’ simply means
capable of being determined or fixed. There is substantial compliance with the requisite when the
 3
employer expressly indicates in the employment contracts that the employee’s position is "co-terminus
with the project." This caveat sufficiently appraise the employee that his/her security of tenure would only
last as long as the project is subsisting. (Gadia v. Sykes Asia, Inc., G.R. No. 209499, January 28, 2015)

11. Is the repeated rehiring of project employees to different projects make them regular employees?
No. The repeated and successive rehiring of employees as project-based employees does not by and of
itself qualify them as regular employees. Case law states that length of service through rehiring is not the
controlling determinant of the employment tenure of project-based employees but, whether the
employment has been fixed for a specific project or undertaking, with its completion having been
determined at the time of their engagement. The rule that employees initially hired on a temporary basis
may become permanent employees by reason of their length of service is not applicable to project-based
employees. While generally, length of service provides a fair yardstick for determining when an employee
initially hired on a temporary basis becomes a permanent one, this standard will not be fair, if applied to
project-based industries because these firms cannot guarantee work and funding for its payrolls beyond
the life of each project as they have no control over the decisions and resources of project proponents or
owners. (Herma Shipyard, Inc. v. Oliveros, et al., G.R. No. 208936, April 17, 2017)

12. What are the classifications/types of employees?

Regular Those who have been engaged to perform activities which are usually necessary or desirable in
the usual business or trade of the employer

Two kinds:
a. Employee who is engaged to perform activities which are usually necessary or desirable in the
usual business or trade of the employer, or
b. Employee who has rendered at least one year of service, whether such service is continuous
or broken, shall be considered a regular employee with respect to the activity in which he is
employed, and his employment shall continue while such activity exists
Casual Those who are not regular, project, or seasonal employees
Probationary Where the employee upon his engagement is made to undergo a trial period during which the
employer determines his fitness to qualify for regular employment based on reasonable standards
made known to him at the time of engagement
Project Those whose employment has been fixed for a specific project or undertaking, the completion or
termination of which has been determined at the time of the engagement of the employee

Seasonal Those who work or perform services which are seasonal in nature and the employment is for the
duration of the season
Fixed-term Those whose contracts specifies that the services of the employee shall be engaged only for a
definite period, the termination of which occurs upon the expiration of said period irrespective of
the existence of just cause and regardless of the activity the employee is called upon to perform

13. Is fixed-term employment prohibited?

No. Article 280 of the Labor Code does not proscribe or prohibit an employment contract with a fixed
period provided the same is entered into by the parties, without any force, duress or improper pressure
being brought to bear upon the employee and absent any other circumstance vitiating consent. It does not
necessarily follow that where the duties of the employee consist of activities usually necessary or desirable
in the usual business of the employer, the parties are forbidden from agreeing on a period of time for the
performance of such activities. (Tuppil, et al. v. LBP Service Corporation,G.R. No. 228407, June 10, 2020, J. Lopez)

14. What is a floating status?

The period of time when an employee is in between assignments or when they are made to wait after
being relieved from a previous post until they are transferred to a new one. However, the employee must
not remain in such status for a period of more than six (6) months; otherwise, he is deemed terminated.
(Sec. 12, Department Order No. 215 of the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE))

15. What are the criteria for valid fixed-term employment and employment subject to suspensive
condition?
The criteria of a valid fixed-term employment are: (1) the fixed period of employment was knowingly and
voluntarily agreed upon by the parties without any force, duress, or improper pressure being brought to
bear upon the employee and absent any other circumstances vitiating his consent; or (2) it satisfactorily
appears that the employer and the employee dealt with each other on more or less equal terms with no
moral dominance exercised by the former or the latter.(Tuppil, et al. v. LBP Service Corporation,G.R. No. 228407, June
10, 2020, J. Lopez; SAGUN v. ANZ GLOBAL, G.R. No. 220399, August 22, 2016)

16. AAA, who was claiming to be a regular employee, was allegedly illegally terminated after refusing
to sign a new employment contract. BBB Company claimed, on the other hand, that AAA should
be reporting to CCC Manpower as its labor-only contractor. It further argued that CCC Manpower
should be impleaded in this case. Is an employee, who was allegedly hired through labor-only
contracting, required to implead such contractor in an illegal dismissal case?
No. In labor-only contracting, the party who would have been the principal in a legitimate job contracting
relationship, and who has no direct relationship with the contractor's employees, simply becomes the
employer in the situation with direct supervision and control over the contracted employees. Strictly
 4
speaking, in labor-contracting, there is no contracting, and no contractor; there is only the employer's
representative who gathers and supplies people for the employer. Considering that the BBB Company and
CCC Manpower's contracting relationship is a prohibited form of contracting, it is no longer necessary to
implead CCC Manpower as a party to the case. It is a consequence of labor-only contracting that the
personality of the principal and the contractor is merged into one. Thus, CCC Manpower becomes a mere
representative of the BBB Company, who is the employer of AAA. (Ortiz v. Forever Richardson et. al, GR No.
238289, January 20, 2021, J. Lopez)

17. Differentiate legitimate job contracting and labor-only contracting.

Legitimate Job Contracting Labor-only Contracting
The law creates an employer-employee relationship for a limited The contractor is considered merely an
purpose, i.e., to ensure that the employees are paid their wages. agent of the principal employer and the
latter is responsible to the employees of
the labor-only contractor as if such
employees had been directly employed
by the principal employer.
The principal employer becomes jointly and severally liable with the The principal employer becomes
job contractor only for the payment of the employees' wages solidarity liable with the labor-only
whenever the contractor fails to pay the same. Other than that, the contractor for all the rightful claims of the
principal employer is not responsible for any claim made by the employees.
employees.
Elements: Elements:
1. The contractor or subcontractor carries on a distinct and 1. The contractor or subcontractor does
independent business and undertakes to perform the job, work or not have substantial capital or
service on its own account and under its own responsibility investment to perform the job, work or
according to its own manner and method, and free from the service under its own account and
control and direction of the principal in all matters connected with responsibility; and
the performance of the work except as to the results thereof; 2. The employees recruited, supplied, or
2. The contractor or subcontractor has substantial capital or placed by such contractor or
investment; and subcontractor are performing activities
3. The Service Agreement ensures compliance with all the rights and which are directly related to the main
benefits for all the employees of the contractor or subcontractor business of the principal.
under the labor laws.
(Rico Palic Conjusta v. Ppi Holdings, Inc., G.R. No. 252720, August 22, 2022, J. Lopez; Sec. 8, D.O. No. 174, s. 2017; SLL
International Cables Specialist vs. NLRC, G.R. No. 172161, 2011; Sasan v. NLRC, G.R. No. 76240, 17 Oct. 2008)

18. Is the dismissal of Union members due to authorize causes tantamount to ULP?
No. Dismissal of union members due to redundancy is not per se an act of ULP amounting to union busting. For while
the number of union membership was diminished due the termination of herein union members, it cannot be said that
respondent company acted in bad faith in terminating their services because the termination was not without a valid
reason. (SACORU vs. Coca-Cola Bottlers Philippines, Inc., G.R. No. 200499, October 4, 2017)

19. Does performance of core activities by contractual workers automatically make the contractual
arrangement illegal?
No, it is not the performance of core activities per se that makes a contracting arrangement illegal, but
rather, a clear showing that the resort to such an arrangement was done specifically to violate the
employee’s right to security of tenure and payment of benefits to which he is entitled. (BPI Employees
Union-Davao vs. Bank of the Philippine Islands, G.R. No. 174912, July 24, 2013)

20. When does contracting out become ULP?

When the contracting out of a job, work or service being performed by union members interferes with,
restrain or coerce employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization, that it shall constitute an
unfair labor practice. Thus, it is not unfair labor practice to contract out work for reasons of business
decline, inadequacy of facilities and equipment, reduction of cost and similar reasonable grounds. (BPI
Employees Union-Davao vs. Bank of the Philippine Islands, G.R. No. 174912, July 24, 2013)

IV. LABOR STANDARDS

21. Differentiate night differential pay and overtime pay.

Night differential Pay Overtime Pay
It pertains to the extra compensation amounting to ten It pertains to the extra compensation for work
percent (10%) of an employee's regular wage for each hour performed beyond eight (8) hours a day.
of work carried out between 10 p.m. and 6 a.m.
Limited to employees with consistent night work Relevant to employees working either during the day
assignments. shift or the night shift
The night differential amounts to 10% of the hourly wage, Overtime pay is an extra 25% of the employee's
excluding overtime pay. regular hourly wage
(Article 86 & 87, Labor Code of the Philippines)

22. What are the various overtime rates?

Overtime during Rate
Regular Workdays Regular basic wage + 25% of the basic hourly rate
 5
Overtime during Rate
Regular/Legal Holiday Holiday wage rate (200%) + 30% of hourly regularly or
legal holiday rate
Rest day or Special Holidays Rest Days/Special Holiday wage rate (130%) + 30% of
hourly rest day or special holiday rate
Scheduled Rest Day which is also Special Holiday Holiday wage rate (150%) + 30% holiday hourly rate
Scheduled Rest Day which is also Regular Holiday Holiday wage rate (260%) + 30% of holiday hourly rate
(Art. 87, 93, 94, Labor Code, as amended)

23. Who bears the burden of proof in determining the employee’s entitlement to monetary claims?
Employer Employee
In claims for payment of salary differential, service On the other hand, for overtime pay, premium pay for
incentive leave, holiday pay, and 13th month pay, the holidays and rest days, the burden is shifted on the
burden rests on the employer to prove payment. employee, as these monetary claims are not incurred in
This standard follows the basic rule that in all illegal the normal course of business. It is thus incumbent upon
dismissal cases the burden rests on the the employee to first prove that he actually rendered
defendant-employer to prove payment rather than on the service in excess of the regular eight working hours a day,
plaintiff-employee to prove non-payment. and that he in fact worked on holidays and rest days.
(Zonio v. 1st Quantum Leap Security Agency, G.R. No. 224944, May 5, 2021, J. Lopez)

24. What are the legally mandated holiday pays?

Special Holiday Pay Regular Holiday Pay
Work performed on any Every worker shall be paid his regular daily wage during regular holidays, except in
special holiday shall be retail and service establishments regularly employing less than ten (10) workers. The
paid an additional employer may require an employee to work on any holiday but such employee shall be
compensation of at least paid a compensation equivalent to twice his regular rate. It is not just meant to prevent
thirty percent (30%) of the diminution of the monthly income of the workers on account of work interruptions, but is
regular wage of the also intended to enable the worker to participate in national celebrations held during
employee. days with great historical and cultural significance
(Article 94, Labor Code)

25. When does the non-diminution rule apply?

The non-diminution rule applies only if the benefit is based on an express policy, a written contract, or has
ripened into a practice. To be considered as company practice requires an indubitable showing that the
employer agreed to continue giving the benefit knowing fully well that the employee is not covered by any
provision of law or agreement for its payment. (Home Credit Mutual Building and Loan Association et.al v. Ma. Roulette
Prudente, G.R. No. 200010, August 27, 2020, J. Lopez)

26. What is the Prohibition on Deduction of Wages?

No employer, in his own behalf or in behalf of any person, shall make any deduction from the wages of his
employees, except:
a. In cases where the worker is insured with his consent by the employer, and the deduction is to
recompense the employer for the amount paid by him as premium on the insurance.
b. For union dues, in cases where the right of the worker or his union to check-off has been recognized
by the employer or authorized in writing by the individual worker concerned; and
c. In cases where the employer is authorized by law or regulations issued by the Secretary of Labor and
Employment. (Art. 113, Labor Code of the Philippines)

27. Are kasambahays entitled to Service Incentive Leave?

Yes. The kasambahays are entitled to Service Incentive Leaves. A “kasambahay” who has rendered at
least one (1) year of service shall be entitled to an annual service incentive leave of at least five (5) days
with pay. Any unused portion of said annual leave shall not be cumulative or carried over to the
succeeding years. Unused leaves shall not be convertible to cash. (Sec. 7, IRR of RA 10361)

28. Discuss the maternity leave benefits under Expanded Maternity Leave Law (RA 11210).
All covered female workers in the public and private sector including those in the informal sector,
regardless of civil status or the legitimacy of her child, shall be granted one hundred five (105) days
maternity leave with full pay and an option to extend for another thirty (30) days without pay. Another
fifteen (15) days is granted to workers qualified under the Solo Parents Welfare Act. In case of pregnancy
miscarriage or termination of pregnancy, sixty (60) days maternity leave with full pay shall be granted to
the female worker. (Section 3, RA 11210)

29. When can a male employee avail himself of Paternity Leave?

a. During the first four deliveries or miscarriage of the employee’s lawful wife with whom he is cohabiting;
b. It may be enjoyed by the qualified employee before, during or after the delivery by his wife; provided,
that the total number of days shall not exceed seven (7) working days for each delivery; and
c. It shall be available no later than sixty (60) days after the date of said delivery. (Section 2 & Section 5, Rules
Implementing Paternity Leave Act)

30. What are the leave benefits under RA 9710 Magna Carta of Women and RA 9262 Anti-VAWC?
RA 9710 RA 9262
a. Two (2) months with full pay based on gross monthly compensation, Ten (10) days with full pay. The said
for women employees who undergo surgery caused by gynecological leave shall be extended when the need
 6
RA 9710 RA 9262
disorders, provided that they have rendered continuous aggregate arises, as specified in the protection
employment service of at least six (6) months for the last twelve (12) order issued by the barangay or the
months. court. The leave benefit shall cover the
b. Under the CSC Guidelines, aside from observing prescribed days that the woman employee has to
recuperation periods, the employee, before she can return to work, attend to medical and legal concerns.
shall present a medical certificate signed by her attending surgeon
that she is physically fit to assume the duties of her position.
(Sec. 18, RA 9710; Sec. 43, RA 9262; House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal v. Panga-Vega, G.R. No. 228236, January 27,
2021, J. Lopez)

31. What are the conditions to be met in order for a child below 15 years old be allowed to work?
a. Must be directly under the supervision of his parents or guardian;
b. Cannot be made to work for more than 20 hours a week;
c. Work shall not be more than 4 hours per day;
d. Should not work between 8 pm and 6 am; and
e. Work is not hazardous or deleterious to the child’s health or morals (Art. 139, Labor Code and RA 9231, Sec. 3)

32. Distinguish a “househelper” from a “homeworker.”

Househelpers / Kasambahay Industrial Homeworkers
Regulatory law Protected by R.A. No. 10361 Protected by P.D. 442, as renumbered;
Nature of work Ministers to the personal comfort and Processes or fabricates raw materials
convenience of a household
Place of work Works at his employer's house Works at home or about the premise of his
home
Tenure Contractual worker Has security of tenure
Jurisdiction Issues of a kasambahay against their Issues of a homeworker against his employer
employer are for the DOLE Regional are not exclusively for the DOLE Regional
Director to hear and resolve Director to resolve.
(Sec. 37, R.A. 10361; D.O. 5, s. 1995; R.A. No. 10361; P.D. 442)

33. Distinguish apprentices and learners.

Apprenticeship Learnership
Practical Training Practical training on-the-job Practical training on-the-job
Training Agreement Apprenticeship agreement Learnership agreement
Occupation Apprenticeable occupations or any Learnable occupations consisting of
trade, form of employment or semi-skilled and other industrial
occupation approved for occupations w/c are
apprenticeship by the DOLE non-apprenticeable.
Secretary.
Duration of Training More than 3 months, but not over 6 Period not exceeding 3 months
months
When Employed No similar provision. See Art. 74
Limitation on Number No similar cap. A participating enterprise is allowed
of Trainees to take in learners only up to a
maximum of 20% of its total
workforce
Option to Employ The enterprise is given only an The enterprise is obliged to hire the
option to hire the apprentice as an learner after the lapse of the
employee. learner-ship
period
Wage Rate 75% of statutory minimum wage 75% of statutory minimum wage
Qualifications See Art. 59 No qualifications express
(Art. 58-73, Labor Code of the Philippines)

34. What are the acts that constitute gender-based sexual harassment in the workplace under RA
11313 or the Safe Spaces Act?
a. An act or series of acts involving any unwelcome sexual advances, requests or demand for sexual
favors or any act of sexual nature, whether done verbally, physically, or through the use of technology
such as text messaging or electronic mail or through any other forms of information and
communication systems, that has or could have a detrimental effect on the conditions of an individual’s
employment or education, job performance or opportunities;
b. A conduct of sexual nature and other conduct based on sex affecting the dignity of a person, which is
unwelcome, unreasonable, and offensive to the recipient, whether done verbally, physically, or through
the use of technology such as text messaging or electronic mail or through any other forms of
information and communication systems;
c. A conduct that is unwelcome and pervasive and creates an intimidating, hostile or humiliating
environment for the recipient: Provided, That the crime of gender-based sexual harassment may also
be committed between peers and those committed to a superior officer by a subordinate, or to a
teacher by a student, or to a trainer by a trainee. (Sec. 16, RA 11313)
 7
35. What are the unlawful acts related to age discrimination in the workplace, as listed under RA
10911 or the Anti-Age Discrimination in Employment Act?
a. Employers printing or publishing any notice of advertisement relating to employment that suggests
preferences, limitations, specifications, and discrimination based on age. Employers requiring the
declaration of age or birth date during the application process.
b. Employers declining any employment application because of the individual's age.
c. Employers discriminating against an individual in terms of compensation, terms and conditions, or
privileges of employment on account of their age.
d. Employers denying any employee's or worker's promotion or opportunity for training because of age.
e. Employers forcibly laying off an employee or worker because of old age.
f. Employers imposing early retirement on the basis of the employee's or worker's age.
g. Labor contractors or subcontractors refusing to refer for employment or otherwise discriminating against
any individual because of their age.
h. Labor organizations denying membership to any individual because of their age, excluding individuals
from membership because of age, or causing or attempting to cause an employer to discriminate
against an individual in violation of the Act.
i. Publishers printing or publishing any notice of advertisement relating to employment suggesting
preferences, limitations, specifications, and discrimination based on age. (Section 5 of RA 10911)

36. What are the prohibitions imposed upon employers concerning a person’s exercise of
reproductive health rights?
Any employer who shall suggest, require, unduly influence or cause any applicant for employment or an
employee to submit himself/herself to sterilization, use any modern methods of family planning, or not use
such methods as a condition for employment, continued employment, promotion or the provision of
employment benefits. Further, pregnancy or the number of children shall not be a ground for non-hiring or
termination from employment. (R.A. No. 10354, sec. 23(c))

37. What acts constitute discrimination against solo parents?

No employer shall discriminate against any solo parent employee with respect to terms and conditions of
employment on account of his or her status. Employers may enter into agreements with their solo parent
employees for a telecommuting program, as provided in Republic Act No. 11165, otherwise known as the
'Telecommuting Act': Provided, That said solo parent employees shall be given priority by their employer.
(R.A. No. 8972, as amended by R.A. No. 11861, sec. 7)

38. AAA was hired by the bank as an Accounting Specialist. She was fired for marrying her co-worker
due to the implementation of “no-spouse employment policy.” Aside from management
prerogative, she was not given any other reason for her termination, and her husband retained his
employment status. Was AAA’s dismissal justified by the no-spouse employment policy of the
bank?
No. The no-spouse qualification is not reasonably related to the bank's essential operation of its business.
Moreover, there is no factual basis to conclude that all of their employees who marry each other would be
unable to perform their duties, entailing one's dismissal. Friends, lovers, and couples share secrets. Any
bank employee may potentially craft elaborate schemes to embezzle the bank's funds. While a bank must
observe high standards of diligence, enforcing an arbitrary no-spouse employment rule that directs the
immediate dismissal of an employee who marries a co-worker cannot be justified. That is illegal dismissal.
(Dela Cruz-Cagampan vs. One Network G.R. 217414, June 22, 2022, Landmark Case)

39. What are the prohibitions imposed upon employers concerning women and their marital status?
a. Require as a condition of employment or continuation of employment that a woman employee shall not
get married, or
b. Stipulate expressly or tacitly that upon getting married a woman employee shall be deemed resigned
or separated or
c. Actually dismiss, discharge, discriminate, or otherwise prejudice a woman employee merely by reason
of her marriage. (Art. 134 Labor Code, Duncan Assoc of Detailman – PTGWO v. Glaxo Wellcome, G.R. No. 162994,
September 17, 2004)

40. Distinguish disability from handicap.

Disability Handicap
Disability shall mean: Refers to a disadvantage for a given individual
1. a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits resulting from an impairment or a disability, that
one or more psychological, physiological or anatomical limits or prevents the functions or activity, that is
functions of an individual or activities of such individual; considered normal given the age and sex of the
2. a record of such an impairment; or individual
3. being regarded as having such an impairment
(Section 4, Chapter 1, Title One, RA 7277)
 8
V. SOCIAL WELFARE BENEFITS

41. Who may be covered by SSS?

Compulsory Voluntary By Agreement
All employees not over 60 years Spouses who devote full time to managing the Any foreign government,
of age and their employers; household and family affairs; international organization,
Domestic helpers whose income An OFW upon the termination of his or her or their wholly owned
is not less than Php 1,000 per employment overseas instrumentality employing
month and not over 60 years of A covered employee who was separated from workers in the Philippines
age and their employers; employment who continues to pay his or her or employing Filipinos
Self-employed persons as may be contributions; outside of the Philippines,
determined by the commission; Self-employed who realizes no income for a except those already
All sea-based, and land-based certain month; and covered by their
OFWs not over 60 years of age Filipino permanent migrants, including Filipino respective civil service
immigrants, permanent residents and retirement systems.
naturalized citizens of their host countries.
(Sec 9(b) RA 11199 - Social Security Act)

42. Who are excluded from the compulsory coverage of SSS?

a. Services where there is no employer-employee relationship in accordance with existing labor laws,
rules, regulations, and jurisprudence;
b. Services performed in the employ of the Philippine Government or instrumentality or agency thereof;
c. c. Services performed in the employ of a foreign government or international organization, or their
wholly-owned instrumentality; and
d. d. Such other services performed by temporary and other employees which may be excluded by
regulation of the Commission.
(Sec. 8 (j), R.A. No, 11199)

43. May the officers or religious ministers who are ecclesiastics commissioned, ordained, and
appointed by AAA, an international evangelical Christian Church and social welfare organization,
be considered as ordinary employees making their coverage under the SSS law mandatory?
Yes. It is the existence of the employer-employee relationship that determines the status and triggers
mandatory coverage under the SSS law. The term "employer" as used in the Social Security Law is
"sufficiently comprehensive enough as to include religious and charitable institutions or entities not
organized for profit" particularly as they are not included in the list of exceptions expressly stated under
the same law. (The Salvation Army vs. Social Security System, G.R. No. 230095, September 15, 2021, Landmark Case)

44. What is the coverage and exclusion of the GSIS Law?

Covered Excluded
GSIS covers all government workers irrespective of a. Members of the Judiciary and Constitutional
their employment status. Commissions who are covered by separated
retirement laws;
b. Contractual employees who have no
employee-employer relationship with their
agencies; and
c. Uniformed members of the Armed Forces of
the Philippines and the Philippine National
Police, including the Bureau of Jail
Management and Penology and the Bureau of
Fire Protection.
(Sec. 3, R.A. No. 8291)

46. What will happen if a seafarer knowingly conceals a pre-existing illness or condition in the
Pre-Employment Medical Examination (PEME)?
A seafarer who knowingly conceals a pre-existing illness or condition in the Pre-Employment Medical
Examination (PEME) shall be liable for misrepresentation and shall be disqualified from any compensation
and benefits. (Loue B. Mutia v. C.F. Sharp Crew Mgt., Inc., G.R. No. 242928, June 27, 2022, J. Lopez)

47. What is fraudulent concealment?

A finding of fraudulent concealment means that a person failed to disclose the truth and that the
non-disclosure is deliberate and for a malicious purpose. The fraudulent concealment must be coupled
with an intent to deceive and profit from that deception. (Loue B. Mutia v. C.F. Sharp Crew Mgt., Inc., G.R. No. 242928,
June 27, 2022, J. Lopez)

48. When is Section 20 (E) of the 2010 POEA-SEC which provides that a seafarer who knowingly
conceals a pre-existing illness or condition in the Pre-Employment Medical Examination (PEME)
shall be liable for misrepresentation and shall be disqualified from any compensation and benefits
applicable?
Section 20(E) of the 2010 POEA-SEC is applicable if the following conditions are met: (1) the seafarer is
suffering from a pre-existing illness or injury as defined under Item 11 (b) of the 2010 POEA-SEC, (2) the
seafarer intentionally concealed the illness or injury, (3) the concealed pre-existing illness or injury has a
 9
causal or reasonable connection with the illness or injury suffered during the seafarer's contract. Under
the last condition, it is enough that the concealed illness or injury contributed to the seafarer's disability. In
the absence of these conditions, the employers remain liable for work-related injury or illness consistent
with their duties to provide a seaworthy ship and to take precautions to avoid the seafarer's accident,
injury, or sickness. (Loue B. Mutia v. C.F. Sharp Crew Mgt., Inc., G.R. No. 242928, June 27, 2022, J. Lopez)

49. AAA was hired as an oiler by NYK-FIL. AAA felt dizzy and suffered abdominal pain while
performing his duties inside the engine room. It was found that his kidneys were not functioning
well, and was repatriated. The company-designated physician diagnosed him with Severe Acute
Cholangitis, and concluded it was not work-related. NYK Fil and NYK Shipmanagement
shouldered all the treatment costs. AAA filed a complaint for total and permanent disability
benefits, sickness allowance, reimbursement of medical and hospital expenses, as well as moral
and exemplary damages, and attorney’s fees. Can a disputable presumption that an illness of a
seafarer is work-related arise?
Yes. Under Section 20 (A) of the POEA-SEC, the disputable presumption of work-relatedness provided in
par. 4 above arises only if or when the seafarer suffers from an illness or injury during the term of the
contract and the resulting disability is not listed in Section 32 of the POEA-SEC. AAA’s illness manifested
or was discovered during the term of his contract. AAA’s medical condition is disputably presumed as
work-related although not listed as an occupational disease. As such, it becomes incumbent upon the
respondents to prove otherwise. (Joemar Bacabac v. NYK-FIL Shipmanagement Inc, et.al, G.R. No. 228550, July 28, 2021,
J. Lopez)

50. What are the rules on the prescribed period for company-designated physicians to issue a final
medical assessment and the consequences for failure to observe such periods?
The Court has summarized the rules as follows:
Incident Circumstance/Period Effect
Post-employment Within three (3) working The absence of a post­-employment medical examination,
medical examination days upon his return. without the fault of the seafarer, cannot bar his claim for
by a disability benefits and sickness allowance.
company-designate Exception: Physically
d physician. incapacitated to do so, Failure of the seafarer to comply with the mandatory reporting
in which case, a written requirement shall result in his forfeiture of the right to claim the
notice to the agency above benefits.
within the same period
is deemed as
compliance.
Medical assessment Within a period of 120 If the medical assessment is unsatisfactory to the seafarer, he
of the days from the date of may seek the medical assessment of his own physician.
company-designate the seafarer's
d physician. repatriation.
Failure to give medical The seafarer's disability becomes permanent and total.
assessment within the
120-day period, without
any justification.
Failure to give medical Extended for another 120 days or a period of not more than 240
assessment within the days from the date of the seafarer's repatriation.
120-day period, with
justification (e.g. the
seafarer required
further medical
treatment or that the
seafarer was
uncooperative).
Within the 120-day If the medical assessment is unsatisfactory to the seafarer, he
extended period. may seek the medical assessment of his own physician.
Failure to give medical The seafarer's disability becomes permanent and total,
assessment within the regardless of any justification.
240-day period.
Medical assessment Seasonably consulting If a doctor appointed by the seafarer disagrees with the
of his own physician. another physician. assessment, a third doctor may be agreed jointly between the
Employer and the seafarer.

Note: The Court considered the lapse of seven or eight months

between the time the seafarer was declared fit to work and when
the seafarer's doctor of choice examined him to be significant
and sufficient to render the seafarer's doctor's assessment to be
unreliable.
Failure to consult his The medical assessment of the company-designated physician
own physician. shall be final and binding on both parties.
 10
Incident Circumstance/Period Effect
Medical assessment The seafarer shall The third doctor's decision shall be final and binding on both
of third doctor signify his intention to parties.
agreed upon by the resolve the conflict by
parties. the referral of the Failure of the seafarer to signify – It is the company­designated
conflicting assessments doctor whose assessment should prevail if there is no referral to
to a third doctor. a third doctor.

Upon notification, the Exception: The findings of the company-designated physician

company carries the have no scientific basis or are not supported by medical records
burden of initiating the of the seafarer.
process for the referral
to a third doctor Failure of the company to refer the matter to a third doctor – The
commonly agreed company-designated doctors' assessment is not binding.
between the parties.
(Skanfil Maritime Services, Inc., et.al., v. Centeno, G.R. No. 227655, April 27, 2022, J. Lopez; Celestino, v. Pacific Ocean Manning,
Inc., et.al., G.R. No. 220657,March 16, 2022, J. Lopez; Doehle Philman Manning Agency, Inc., et al. v. Gatchalian, G.R. No. 207507,
February 17, 2021, J. Lopez)

51. Must the seafarer’s ailment be a necessary consequence or directly connected to the cause of his
medical repatriation to be compensable?
No. A seafarer may claim disability benefits arising from (1) an injury or illness that manifests or is
discovered during the term of the seafarer's contract, which is usually while the seafarer is still on board
the vessel; or (2) an illness that manifests, or is discovered after the contract, which is when the seafarer
has disembarked from the vessel. (Blue Manila, Inc. and/or Oceanwide Crew Manila, Inc. v. Antonio R. Jamias, G.R. No.
230919, January 20, 2021, J. Lopez)

52. What are the rules on the third doctor rule when there is conflict between the medical assessment
of the company-designated physician and the seafarer’s own physician?
A. Out-of-court proceedings
Incident Circumstance/Period Effect
The seafarer Reasonable period of time. The employer is required to make and send a
shall signify his Seafarer attached to the written request or written reply to the written request or demand.
intention. demand the medical report or the medical
abstract of his physician or indicating
therein the contents thereof.
Seafarer failed to attach – considered The employer has the option to refuse, or even
invalid and as if none had been requested. ignore the written request or demand, without
violating the pertinent provision of the
POEA-SEC.

The seafarer can then file a complaint.

The company is Within ten (10) days upon receipt of the Employer agrees – The parties should be given a
required to send seafarer's written request or demand. specific period to complete the third doctor
a written reply. referral procedure.

Employer disagrees to the written request Filing of complaint.

or demand, fails or refuses to send a
written reply or sends a reply beyond the
10-day period.
Third doctor Secure services – Within fifteen (15) days.
Referral Medical assessment – Within thirty (30)
Procedure days.

B. In-court proceedings (Complaint and Mandatory Conference)

Incident Circumstance/Period Effect
Without valid written Parties agree. Third doctor Referral Procedure shall apply.
request or demand
Failure of both parties to The labor tribunals and the courts should make
Labor Arbiter refers the mutually agree. conclusive between the patties the findings of the
seafarer’s condition to a company­designated physician.
third doctor
Exception: It is clearly biased.
With valid written Seafarer refuses to give The labor tribunals and the courts should make
request or demand heed to such directive. conclusive between the patties the findings of the
company­designated physician.
Labor Arbiter refers the
seafarer’s condition to a Exception: It is clearly biased.
third doctor Company refuses to give The labor tribunals should make conclusive between
heed to such directive. the parties the findings of the seafarer's physician of
Failure of both parties to choice.
mutually agree.
 11
Incident Circumstance/Period Effect
Exception: It is clearly biased.
Third doctor Referral Secure services – Within
Procedure fifteen (15) days.
Medical assessment –
Within thirty (30) days.
(Bunayog v. Foscon Shipmanagement, G.R. No. 253480, April 25, 2023, Landmark Case)

53. How to determine if there is a pre-existing illness or condition under 2010 POEA-SEC?
Under the 2010 POEA-SEC, there is a “pre-existing illness or condition" if prior to the processing of the
POEA contract, any of the following is present: (a) the advice of a medical doctor on treatment was given
for such continuing illness or condition; or (b) the seafarer has been diagnosed and has knowledge of
such illness or condition but failed to disclose it during the pre-employment medical examination, and
such cannot be diagnosed during such examination. (Trans-Global Maritime Agency, Inc. et al. v. Magno T. Utanes,
G.R. No. 236498, September 16, 2020, J. Lopez)

54. What are the conditions that a seafarer must satisfy before he can claim disability benefits for an
occupational illness listed under Section 32-A of the POEA-SEC?
To be entitled to disability benefits for an occupation illness listed under Section 32-A of the POEA-SEC, a
seafarer must show compliance with the following conditions: a. The seafarer's work must involve the risk
described therein; b. The disease was contracted as a result of the seafarer's exposure to the described
risks; c. The disease was contracted within a period of exposure and under such other factors necessary
to contract it; and d. There was no notorious negligence on the part of the seafarer. In effect, the table of
illnesses and the corresponding nature of employment in Section 32-A only provide the list of occupational
illnesses. It does not exempt a seafarer from providing proof of the conditions under the first paragraph of
Section 32-A in order for the occupational illness/es complained of to be considered as work-related and,
therefore, compensable. (Trans-Global Maritime Agency, Inc. et al. v. Magno T. Utanes, G.R. No. 236498, September 16, 2020,
J. Lopez)

55. Maryville deployed Lloyd, a seafarer, who was then held hostage for a period of time by Somali
pirates along with the other crews. Lloyd was repatriated. Maryville re-hired Lloyd to work on
board for nine months. However, he was repatriated after seven months. Lloyd filed a complaint
for total and permanent disability benefits alleging mental health issues stemming from the
hostage incident. He was diagnosed with various mental health disorders by a clinical
psychologist who certified that the condition started when Lloyd and his co-seafarers suffered
from punishments, including deprivation from food, water, and liberty from Somalian pirates. In its
defense, Maryville claimed Lloyd voluntarily disembarked. Is Lloyd entitled to total and permanent
disability benefits?
No. The entitlement to total and permanent disability benefits depends on whether the seafarer suffered
an illness or injury that manifested or was discovered during or after the term of the employment contract.
The illness may either be (1) an occupational illness, or (2) an illness not listed as an occupational illness
but is reasonably linked to the work of the seafarer. In this case, there is no evidence of medical
repatriation. There is likewise no substantial evidence of the link between Lloyd's supposed illnesses and
the nature of work. Piracy is a risk confronting all seafarers while in voyage, but the clinical report only
made general statements on punishments and deprivation of food, water and liberty. The relationship of
the risk and the diseases was not fairly established. Moreover, Lloyd's actions after the hostage incident
are incompatible with the clinical psychologist's findings. Lloyd was repatriated on May 5, 2011, but he
applied again and was deployed on January 10, 2012. This means that Lloyd passed the pre-employment
medical examination and was cleared for re-employment. (Maryville Manila, Inc., v. Lloyd C. Espinosa, G.R. No.
229372, August 27, 2020, J. Lopez)

VI. MANAGEMENT PREROGATIVE

56. What does the doctrine of management prerogative entail?

The doctrine of management prerogative asserts that every employer possesses an inherent right to
regulate, at their own discretion and judgment, all aspects of employment. This includes matters such as
hiring, work assignments, working methods, the time, place, and manner of work, work supervision,
employee transfers, lay-offs, disciplinary actions, dismissals, and employee recalls. This right must be
respected and upheld as long as it is exercised in good faith, with the genuine intent to promote the
employer's interests and not with the purpose of undermining or evading the rights of employees protected
under special laws or valid agreements (Peckson v. Robinsons Supermarket, G.R. No. 198534, July 3, 2013; Coca-Cola
Bottlers, PHL, Inc., v. Kapisanan ng MalayangManggagawa sa Coca-Cola-FFW, G.R. No. 148205, February 28, 2005).

57. Is an employer’s “Exogamy Policy” which prohibits spouses from working in the same company
unlawful?
General Rule Exception
A “no-spouse Unless the employer can prove that the reasonable demands of the business require a
employment policy” distinction based on marital status and there is no better available or acceptable policy which
is unlawful. would better accomplish the business purpose, an employer may not discriminate against an
employee based on the identity of the employee's spouse. This is known as the bona fide
occupational qualification exception.
 12
General Rule Exception
The employer must prove two factors:
1. that the employment qualification is reasonably related to the essential operation of the job
involved; and
2. that there is a factual basis for believing that all or substantially all persons meeting the
qualification would be unable to properly perform the duties of the job.
Example:
The no-spouse qualification is not reasonably related to the bank's essential operation of its
business. Moreover, there is no factual basis to conclude that all of their employees who marry
each other would be unable to perform their duties, entailing one's dismissal. Friends, lovers,
and couples share secrets. Any bank employee may potentially craft elaborate schemes to
embezzle the bank's funds. While a bank must observe high standards of diligence, enforcing
an arbitrary no-spouse employment rule that directs the immediate dismissal of an employee
who marries a co-worker cannot be justified.
(Dela Cruz-Cagampan vs. One Network G.R. 217414, June 22, 2022; Dela Cruz-Cagampan vs. One Network G.R. 217414, June 22,
2022 Landmark Cases)

58. When does a benefit provided by an employer to an employee, ripen into a company practice?
To be considered a company practice, the benefit must be consistently and deliberately granted by the
employer over a long period of time. It requires an indubitable showing that the employer agreed to
continue giving the benefit knowing fully well that the employee is not covered by any provision of law or
agreement for its payment. The burden to establish that the benefit has ripened into a company practice
rests with the employee. (Home Credit Mutual Building and Loan Association et.al v. Ma. Roulette Prudente, G.R. No. 200010,
August 27, 2020, J. Lopez)

VII. POST-EMPLOYMENT

59. What are the grounds to validly terminate the services of an employee?
Just Causes Authorized Causes
Grounds 1. Serious misconduct or willful disobedience by the 1. Installation of labor-saving devices;
employee of the lawful orders of his employer or 2. Redundancy;
representative in connection with his work 3. Retrenchment (reduction of costs) to
2. Gross and habitual neglect by the employee of his prevent losses;
duties; 4. The closing or cessation of operation or
3. Fraud or willful breach by the employee of the trust business;
reposed in him by his employer or duly authorized 5. Employers are allowed to terminate
representative; employees found suffering from any
4. Commission of a crime or offense by the employee disease and whose continued
against the person of his employer or any immediate employment is prohibited by law or is
member of his family or his duly authorized prejudicial to his health as well as to the
representatives; and health of his co-workers:
5. Other causes analogous to the foregoing Note: The employer must obtain from a
competent public health authority a
certification that the employee’s disease is
of such a nature and at such a stage that it
can no longer be cured within a period of
six (6) months even with medical attention.
Definition A just cause dismissal implies that the employee has Authorized cause dismissal is a form of
committed, or is guilty of, some violation against the terminating employer-employee
employer, that is, the employee has committed some relationship with a liability on the part of the
serious misconduct, is guilty of fraud against the employer to pay separation pay as
employer or he has neglected his duties such as mandated by law. It does not necessarily
abandonment. Thus, the employee himself initiated the imply delinquency or culpability on the part
dismissal process. of the employee. Instead, the dismissal
process is initiated by the employer's
exercise of his management prerogative
such as installation of labor saving devices,
closure of business, or implementing a
retrenchment program.
Monetary Payment of separation pay, as a rule, is not required in In case of termination due to the installation
Claims just cause dismissal. However, where the employee is of labor-saving devices or redundancy, the
dismissed for causes other than serious misconduct or worker affected thereby shall be entitled to
those reflecting on his moral character, separation pay a separation pay equivalent to at least his
may be allowed as a measure of social justice. one (1) month pay or to at least one (1)
month pay for every year of service,
Where the dismissal is for a just cause the lack of statutory whichever is higher.
due process will not nullify the dismissal, or render it illegal
or ineffectual. The employer will not be required to pay the
employee back wages. However, the employer should
indemnify the employee for the violation of his statutory
right in the form of nominal damages in accordance with
prevailing jurisprudence.
Standards Requirements: Dismissals based on authorized causes
of Due a. First written notice containing the specific cause or involve the following:
Process grounds for termination under the Labor Code, and
 13
Just Causes Authorized Causes
company policies, if any, detailed narration of the facts a. Submission of a written notice of
and circumstances that will serve as basis for the dismissal to the employee specifying
charge, and a directive to submit a written explanation the grounds for dismissal at least 30
within a reasonable period; days before the date of termination; and
b. The employer should afford the employee ample b. A copy of the notice which shall be
opportunity to be heard and to defend himself; and provided to the Regional Office of the
c. The employer shall serve the employee a written Department of Labor and Employment
notice of termination indicating that all circumstances (DOLE) where the employer is located.
involving the charge against the employee have been
considered and the grounds have been established to
justify the severance of his employment.
(Arts. 279, 282, 283, 284, 297, 298 Labor Code of the Philippines; Poquiz, 2012; Jaka Food v. Pacot, G.R. No. 151378, 28 Mar. 2005,
Bicol Isarog Transport System, Inc.v. Relucio, G.R. No. 234725, Sep 16, 2020, J. Lopez; Wilfredo T. Mariano v. G.V. Florida
Transport, G.R. No. 240882, September 16, 2020, J. Lopez)

62. AAA and BBB, who were employed as dispatchers of a warehouse, were dismissed from their
employment on ground of Gross and Habitual Neglect because of the missing/loss of several
appliances in the warehouse under their watch, which amounted to P448,056.00. Were they
illegally dismissed considering that they were not among those who actually stole the
appliances? Is preventive suspension a violation of the twin notice rule?
No. An employer has free reign over every aspect of its business, including the dismissal of his
employees as long as the exercise of its management prerogative is done reasonably, in good faith, and
in a manner not otherwise intended to defeat or circumvent the rights of workers. Here, AAA and BBB
both acted as dispatchers and the company lost several valuable items during their watch. It is the
common duty and responsibility of the two to thoroughly check all items that are dispatched from the
bodega. Thus, they cannot just make a general denial and wash their hands clean, so to speak from any
responsibility arising from said incident. Had they exercised due care or even ordinary diligence in the
performance of their duties to protect the company's property, no loss would have been incurred. It is
immaterial that they were not among those who actually stole the appliances.

Preventive suspension is not the dismissal from employment contemplated under the provisions of the
Labor Code which would require compliance with the twin notice rule. It is merely a disciplinary measure
within the ambit of the management's exercise of prerogative pending the conduct of investigation for an
employee's possible infractions. (Nilo Lafuente and Billy Panaguiton vs. Davao Central Warehouse Club, Inc., G.R. No.
247410, March 17, 2021, Landmark Case).

63. What is the difference between resignation and constructive dismissal?

Resignation Constructive Dismissal
The formal pronouncement or relinquishment of a position or An involuntary resignation resorted to when
office. It is the voluntary act of an employee who is in a continued employment is rendered impossible,
situation where he believes that personal reasons cannot be unreasonable, or unlikely; or when there is a
sacrificed in favor of the exigency of the service, and he has demotion in rank and/or a diminution in pay. It exists
then no other choice but to disassociate himself from when there is a clear act of discrimination,
employment. The intent to relinquish must concur with the insensibility, or disdain by an employer, which makes
overt act of relinquishment; hence, the acts of the employee it unbearable for the employee to continue his/her
before and after the alleged resignation must be considered employment. In cases of constructive dismissal, the
in determining whether he in fact intended to terminate his impossibility, unreasonableness, or unlikelihood of
employment. In illegal dismissal cases, it is a fundamental continued employment leaves an employee with no
rule that when an employer interposes the defense of other viable recourse but to terminate his or her
resignation, he necessarily rests the burden to prove that the employment.
employee indeed voluntarily resigned.
Voluntary Involuntary or forced resignation
Not entitled to separation pay unless it is a company Entitled to either reinstatement or separation pay
practice or provided in the CBA. and back wages
The burden of proving voluntariness is on the employer. The burden of proving constructive dismissal is on
the employee.
(Tacis vs. Shields Security Services, Inc., G.R. No. 234575. July 7, 2021; Intertrod Maritime, Inc. v. NLRC, G.R. No. 81087, 19 June
1991; The University of Immaculate Conception v. NLRC, G.R. No. 181146, 26 Jan. 2011; Hanford Philippines Inc. v. Shirley Joseph,
G.R. No. 158251, March 31, 2005)

64. AAA, was deployed by Bison, a recruitment agency, in Saudi Arabia as a cleaning laborer under a
2-year contract. After working for 15 months, AAA underwent a routine medical examination and
was found positive for HIV. On this basis, his foreign employer terminated the employment of AAA
because, under the laws of Saudi Arabia, an HIV+ individual is considered unfit to work. AAA filed
a complaint for illegal dismissal against Bison. Is termination on the ground of a positive HIV test
result valid under Philippine law?
No. The Constitutional guarantee of security of tenure extends to Filipino overseas contract workers.
Jurisprudence provides that the labor relationship between an OFW and his or her foreign employer is
much affected with public interest and that the applicable Philippine laws and regulations cannot be
rendered illusory by the parties agreeing upon some other law to govern their relationship. RA 11166
makes it unlawful for an employee to be terminated from work on the sole basis of their HIV status. Since
 14
the Philippines categorically prohibits the use of a person’s HIV+ condition as a ground for dismissal, there
is no valid cause to terminate AAA, and that doing so is tantamount to illegal dismissal. (Bison Management
Corporation v. AAA, G.R. No. 256540, February 14, 2024, Landmark Case)

65. AAA, a URC machine operator since 1997, used company-provided alcohol to clean his
motorcycle. The bottle, still in his bag, was found by a security guard on March 26, 2015. AAA was
charged with qualified theft and was placed under preventive suspension. In an administrative
hearing, AAA admitted that he took the bottle but denied stealing, which URC did not believe. The
criminal case was dismissed, but AAA filed an illegal dismissal case against URC. Was the act
done by AAA proportionate to the penalty of dismissal?
No. The following factors should be considered in determining whether theft of company property by an
employee warrants the penalty of dismissal: (a) period of employment and existence of a derogatory
record; (b) value of the property involved; (c) cost of damage to the employer; (d) effect on the viability of
employer's operation or company's interest; and (e) employee's position. Here, AAA had been in URC's
employ for 18 years. The bottle of ethyl alcohol is very minimal. URC did not lose anything as the bottle
was timely retrieved. (Universal Robina Corporation v. Roberto De Guzman Maglalang, G.R. No. 255864, July 06, 2022, J.
Lopez)

66. What are the conditions to justify a valid dismissal based on loss of trust and confidence?
To justify a valid dismissal based on loss of trust and confidence, the concurrence of two (2) conditions
must be satisfied:
a. the employee concerned must be holding a position of trust and confidence; and
b. there must be an act that would justify the loss of trust and confidence.
(Noel M. Manrique v. Delta Earthmoving, Inc., et. al., G.R. No. 229429, November 09, 2020, J. Lopez)

67. AAA, a supervisor, was charged with sexual harassment. He was first served a notice containing a
summary of the alleged incident between him and a flight attendant. He was later served a memo
and notified of a scheduled administrative hearing in Pasay, which he did not attend. Another
hearing was scheduled in Cebu where he appeared with his lawyers. He refused to testify and
walked out of said conference. AAA claims that his right to due process was violated because his
request for a transcript of the Pasay hearing was denied. Was AAA’s right to due process
violated?
No. Due process is not violated when a person is not heard because he has chosen not to be heard. As
long as the party was afforded the opportunity to defend his interests in due course, there is no denial of
due process. Here, AAA was notified of the incident report. AAA was advised of the hearing in Pasay City.
Yet, AAA still did not appear at the scheduled hearing. Another hearing was scheduled to give AAA the
opportunity to present his side, but AAA and his counsel staged a walk out. Since it was AAA who refused
to attend the scheduled hearings, he cannot, later on, complain that he was unduly silenced. (Philippine
Airlines v. Frederick Yañez, G.R. No. 214662, March 02, 2022, J. Lopez)

68. What are the remedies available to an employee who was found to be illegally terminated?
The employee is entitled to reinstatement without loss of seniority rights and other privileges. However, if
actual reinstatement is no longer possible, the employee becomes entitled to separation pay in lieu of
reinstatement. Reinstatement is not feasible:
a. In cases where the dismissed employee's position is no longer available;
b. The continued relationship between the employer and the employee is no longer viable due to the
strained relations between them; and
c. When the dismissed employee opted not to be reinstated, or the payment of separation benefits would
be for the best interest of the parties involved. In these instances, separation pay is the alternative
remedy to reinstatement.
The payment of separation pay and reinstatement are exclusive remedies. While an illegally dismissed
employee is entitled to payment of full backwages, there are exceptions to the said rule. This is on account
of: (1) the fact that dismissal of the employee would be too harsh of a penalty; and (2) that the employer
was in good faith in terminating the employment. Only employees discriminatorily dismissed are entitled to
backpay. (Verizon Communications v. Laurence C. Margin, G.R. No. 216599, September 16, 2020, J. Lopez)

69. AAA was hired as an Orthodontist in Saudi Arabia for a contract period of two years. She signed
an employment contract approved by the POEA. After 5 months of employment, the employer
asked AAA to execute a new employment contract for the purpose of insurance and to comply
with the KSA’s Ministry of Health requirement. It alleged that the new contract was not intended to
alter the terms of the original contract. AAA refused to sign. She faced harassment by her
employer. She left her job and was repatriated. She then filed a labor case against her employer
and the agency for constructive dismissal. Was she constructively dismissed by her employer?
Yes, AAA was constructively dismissed. The law recognizes situations wherein the employee must leave
his or her work to protect one's rights from the coercive acts of the employer. The employee is considered
to have been illegally terminated because he or she is forced to relinquish the job due to the employer's
unfair or unreasonable treatment. The test of constructive dismissal is whether a reasonable person in the
employee's position would have felt compelled to give up his position under the circumstances. In this
case, AAA was harassed after she refused to sign the second employment contract. Thus, prompting her
 15
to resign from her job in Saudi. (Fil-Expat Placement Agency, Inc., v. Maria Antoniette Cudal Lee, G.R. No. 250439,
September 22, 2020, J. Lopez)

70. How to determine whether one is an employee or an independent contractor?

There are several factors that may be considered by the courts, but the right to control remains the
dominant factor in determining whether one is an employee or an independent contractor. The control test
is based on the extent of control the hirer exercises over a worker. The greater the supervision and control
of the hirer exercises, the more likely the worker is deemed an employee. The converse holds true as well
- the less control the hirer exercises, the more likely the worker is considered an independent contractor.
Control is the most important element of an employer-employee relationship. (Tiangco vs. ABS-CBN Corporation,
G.R. No. 200434, December 06, 2021, Landmark Case)

71. Dominga does business under Kem’s Sarisari Store. Espina started working as a tindera at the
store on April 10, 2010, with a salary of P2,500.00 a month. It was increased to P3,000.00 a month
in 2011 and to P3,500.00 a month in 2012. She tended the store from 5:00 a.m. to 12:00 midnight
on Monday to Sunday. In November 2012, Dominga advised Espina to take a leave of absence and
just wait for Dominga to call for her to resume work. In February 2013, Espina went to the store
and found that there was already a new tindera. Espina filed a complaint for illegal dismissal,
underpayment of salary, and non-payment of benefits. How would the computation for
backwages, salary differentials, 13th-month pay, and separation pay be conducted if Espina was
illegally dismissed?
Considering that petitioner's store is a barangay micro business enterprise, as confirmed by her
registration on June 24, 2013, and considering further the discussion on the informality of a sari-sari store
operation, petitioner is exempt from the payment of minimum wage. Thus, the judgment award should be
recomputed as a matter of equity. Respondent's money claims from November 11, 2012, should be at the
rate of her last salary, or P3,500.00. Separation pay should be at the rate of one month salary for every
year of service.Salary differentials and attorney's fees should also be deleted. Workers in the informal
sector are no less deserving of protection than those in the formal sector. However, labor tribunals must
always find a way to balance the rights and interests of even those that are often overlooked and
underserved. It cannot expect a tindahan with minuscule profits to apply the same labor conditions as a
multi-national corporation. The State's protection should not come at the expense of impoverishing those
who rely on minuscule profits to get by. (Dominga Cabu-os v. Teresita Espina, G.R. No. 228719, August 8, 2022, Landmark
Case)

72. Differentiate the types of retirement under Article 302 of the Labor Code.
With CBA/Contract Absence of a Retirement Plan or Agreement
Any employee may be retired upon reaching the In the absence of a retirement plan or agreement providing for
retirement age established in the collective retirement benefits of employees in the establishment, an
bargaining agreement or other applicable employee upon reaching the age of sixty (60) years or more, but
employment contract. not beyond sixty-five (65) years which is hereby declared the
compulsory retirement age, who has served at least five (5)
years in the said establishment, may retire and 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.
In case of retirement, the employee shall be Unless the parties provide for broader inclusions, the term
entitled to receive such retirement benefits as he one-half (1/2) month salary shall mean fifteen (15) days plus
may have earned under existing laws and any one-twelfth (1/12) of the 13th month pay and the cash equivalent
collective bargaining agreement and other of not more than five (5) days of service incentive leaves.
agreements:

Provided, however, retirement benefits under any

collective bargaining and other agreements shall
not be less than those provided therein.
An underground mining employee upon reaching the age of fifty
(50) years or more, but not beyond sixty (60) years which is
hereby declared the compulsory retirement age for underground
mine workers, who has served at least five (5) years as
underground mine worker, may retire and shall be entitled to all
the retirement benefits provided for in this Article.
Retail, service and agricultural establishments or operations employing not more than ten (10) employees or workers
are exempted from the coverage of this provision.
(Art. 302 Labor Code of the Philippines)

VIII. LABOR RELATIONS

73. Who cannot join a labor organization?

The following cannot join labor organizations: a. Supervisors cannot join a rank-and-file union, co-mingling
is prohibited; b. Employees-members of a cooperative cannot join a labor organization. An employee
cannot bargain with himself or his co-owner; c. Confidential employees performing managerial functions; d.
Confidential employees who have access to confidential matters of persons who exercise managerial
functions in the field of labor relations; e. In the government sector, the following cannot form or join a
 16
rank-and-file union: (i. Members of the AFP, PNP, BJMP, BFP; and ii. High-level employees exercising
managerial function); f. Alien employees, unless their country extends the right to self-organization and join
or assist labor unions for purposes of collective bargaining to Filipino workers; and g. Managerial
employees. (NATU vs. Torres, G.R. No. 93468, December 29, 1994; Executive Order 180; D.O. 40-03; Article 251, Labor Code)

74. What are modes to acquire status as Sole and Exclusive Bargaining Agent (SEBA)?
The modes are:
Certification Election Consent Run Off Election Re-run Election
Election
The process of determining through secret Refers to an election between When a certification, consent or
ballot the sole and exclusive representative of the labor unions receiving the run-off election results to a tie
the employees in an appropriate bargaining two (2) highest number of between the two (2) choices, the
unit for purposes of bargaining or negotiation. votes in a certification or election officer shall immediately
Supervisory employees are those who, in the consent election with three (3) notify the parties of a re-run
interest of the employer, effectively recommend or more choices, where such election. The election officer shall
such managerial actions if the exercise of such a certified or consent results cause the posting of the notice of
authority is not merely routinary or clerical in in none of the three (3) or re-run election within five (5) days
nature but requires the use of independent more choices receiving the from the certification, consent or
judgment. majority of the valid votes run-off election. The re-run election
cast; provided, that the total shall be conducted within ten (10)
number of votes for all days after the posting of notice.
contending unions is at least The choice receiving the highest
fifty percent (50%) of the votes cast during the re-run
number of votes cast. election shall be declared the
winner and shall be certified
accordingly.
Ordered by the Department Voluntarily agreed
of Labor and Employment. upon by the
parties, with or
without the
intervention by
the Department
(Section 1(h), Rule I, D.O. No. 40-03; Section 1(ss), Rule I, D.O. No. 40-03; Section 16, D.O. No. 40-I-15)

75. What is the concept of check-off?

A check-off is a process or device whereby the employer, on agreement with the Union,
Definition
recognized as the proper bargaining representative, or on prior authorization from its employees,
deducts union dues or agency fees from the latter's wages and remits them directly to the union.
1. Collection of union dues, special assessments, and fees such as attorney’s fees, negotiation
Requirement
fees or any other extraordinary fees by the SEBA from its members.
for Written
The first kind mentioned above requires for its validity, the execution by the employees of
Authorization
individual written authorization which should specifically state the amount, purpose and
beneficiary of the deduction.
2. Collection of agency fees from nonmembers of the SEBA but covered by and included in the
Collective Bargaining Unit who accept the benefits provided in the CBA.
The second kind does not require any such authorization since the law itself recognizes
and allows it upon the non-SEBA member’s acceptance of benefits resulting from the
CBA.
Being an intra-union dispute, the Regional Director of DOLE has jurisdiction over check off
Jurisdiction
disputes.
(ABS-CBN Supervisors Employees Union Members v ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corp., G.R. No. 106518, March 11, 1999; Holy Cross
of Davao College, Inc. vs. Joaquin, G.R. No. 110007, October 18, 1996)

76. What are the procedural requirements for a valid strike and lockout?
Requisites of a Valid Strike Requisites for a Valid Lockout
a. It must be based on a valid and factual ground. a. It must be based on a valid and factual ground.
b. A notice of strike must be filed with the NCMB-DOLE. b. A notice of lockout must be filed with the
NCMB-DOLE.
c. A notice must be served to the CMB-DOLE at least c. A notice must be served to the NCMB-DOLE at least
twenty-four (24) hours prior to the taking of the strike twenty-four (24) hours prior to the taking of the lockout
vote by secret balloting, informing said office of the vote by secret balloting, informing said office of the
decision to conduct a strike vote, and the date, place, decision to conduct a lockout vote, and the date, place,
and time thereof. and time thereof.
d. A strike vote must be taken where a majority of the d. A lockout vote must be taken where a majority of the
members of the union obtained by secret ballot in a members of the Board of Directors of the corporation
meeting called for the purpose, must approve it. or association or of the partners in a partnership
obtained by secret ballot in a meeting called for the
purpose, must approve it.
e. A strike vote report should be submitted to the e. A lockout vote report should be submitted to the
NCMB-DOLE at least seven (7) days before the NCMB-DOLE at least seven (7) days before the
intended date of the strike. intended date of the lockout.
f. Except in cases of union-busting, the cooling-off f. The cooling-off period of 15 days, in case of
period of 15 days, in case of unfair labor practices of the
 17
Requisites of a Valid Strike Requisites for a Valid Lockout
employer, or 30 days, in case of collective bargaining unfair labor practices of the labor organization, or 30
deadlock, should be fully observed. days, in case of collective bargaining deadlock, should
be fully observed.
g. The 7-day waiting period/strike ban reckoned after g. The 7-day waiting period/lockout ban reckoned after
the submission of the strike vote report to the the submission of the lockout vote report to the
NCMB-DOLE should also be fully observed in all cases. NCMB-DOLE should also be fully observed in all
All the foregoing requisites, although procedural in cases.
nature, are mandatory and failure of the union to comply
with any of them would render the strike illegal.
(Chan, Last Minutes Pre-Week Notes for the 2019 Bar Exam in Labor Law)

IX. JURISDICTION AND REMEDIES

77. Dela Cruz was FIBECO’s general manager. Concerned employees of FIBECO initiated an
administrative complaint against him for grave offenses, including nepotism, insubordination,
misuse of FIBECO properties/funds, and gross incompetence. Dela Cruz filed illegal dismissal
cases before the Labor Arbiter (LA), where the Court upheld National Electrification
Administration’s jurisdiction over the termination dispute. Pending finality of the termination
dispute before the NEA, Dela Cruz reached the compulsory retirement age. Believing that he is
entitled to the retirement package pursuant to FIBECO Board Resolution, Dela Cruz filed an
application for retirement benefits with FIBECO, but to no avail. He pursued his claim before the
LA. Does the LA have jurisdiction over Dela Cruz’s retirement benefit claims?
No. PD No. 269, as amended, clearly provides that the NEA has the authority to supervise the
management and operations of all electric cooperatives. Here, Dela Cruz alleges that he filed an
application for his retirement benefits with FIBECO, but to no avail. As the law vested the NEA with
jurisdiction over all administrative matters involving officers of electric cooperatives, FIBECO's denial of, or
inaction on Dela Cruz's claim should have been brought to the NEA's disposal in accordance with the
retirement policy. (Engr. Jose S. Dela Cruz v. First Bukidnon Electric Cooperative, Inc. (Fibeco), G.R. No. 254830, June 27, 2022,
J. Lopez)

78. Do the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA) and Labor Arbiter (LA) have
concurrent jurisdiction?
No. The Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995, as amended by Republic Act (RA) No.
10022, provides that the LA shall have original and exclusive jurisdiction to hear and decide the claims
arising out of an employer-employee relationship or by virtue of any law or contract involving Filipino
workers for overseas deployment including claims for actual, moral, exemplary, and other forms of
damage. On the other hand, Rule X of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of RA No. 10022,
provides that the POEA exercises administrative jurisdiction arising out of violations of rules and
regulations and administrative disciplinary jurisdiction over employers, principals, contracting partners, and
overseas Filipino workers. (U R Employed International Corporation and Pamela T. Miguel, v. Mike A. Pinmiliw, Murphy P.
Pacya, Simon M. Bastog, And Ryan D. Ayochok, G.R. No. 225263, March 16, 2022, J. Lopez)

79. Differentiate the jurisdiction of the Labor Arbiter and the jurisdiction of the DOLE Regional
Director.
Labor Arbiter DOLE Regional Director
Except as otherwise provided under the labor code, the The DOLE Regional Directors have original and
Labor Arbiters shall have original and exclusive exclusive jurisdiction over the following cases:
jurisdiction to hear and decide, within thirty (30) 1. Visitorial (inspection) in cases under Article 37 of
calendar days after the submission of the case by the the Labor Code referring to the inspection of the
parties for decision without extension, even in the premises, books of accounts and records of any
absence of stenographic notes, the following cases person or entity covered by the Title I, Book 1, of
involving all workers, whether agricultural or the Labor Code.
non-agricultural: 2. Visitorial (inspection) and enforcement cases
1. Unfair labor practice cases; under Article 128 (either routine or initiated through
2. Termination disputes; a complaint).
3. If accompanied with a claim for reinstatement, 3. Visitorial cases under Article 289 [274] involving
those cases that workers may file involving wages, examination of books of accounts if independent
rates of pay, hours of work and other terms and unions, local chapters/ chartered locals and
conditions of employment; workers’ associations.
4. Claims for actual, moral, exemplary and other 4. Occupational and safety and health violations.
forms of damages arising from the 5. Small money claims cases arising from labor
employer-employee relations; standards violations in an amount not exceeding
5. Cases arising from any violation of Article 264 of P5,000.00 not accompanied with a claim for
this Code, including questions involving the legality reinstatement under Article 129.
of strikes and lockouts; and 6. Cases related to private recruitment and
6. Except claims for Employees Compensation, placement agencies for local employment
Social Security, Medicare and maternity benefits, 7. Cases submitted for voluntary arbitration in their
all other claims arising from employer-employee capacity as Ex-Officio Voluntary Arbitrators under
relations, including those of persons in domestic or DO No. 83-07, Series of 2007.
household service, involving an amount exceeding 8. Union registration-related cases, such as: a.
 18

five thousand pesos (P5,000.00) regardless of Applications for union registration of independent
whether accompanied with a claim for unions, local chapters and workers’ associations.
reinstatement. b. Petitions for denial of application for registration
of said unions. c. Petitions for revocation or
cancellation of registration of said unions.
9. Notice of merger, consolidation, affiliation and
change of name of said unions and or petition for
denial thereof.
10. CBA-related cases such as: a. Application for
registration of single-enterprise CBAs or petition
for deregistration thereof b. Petition for denial of
registration of single-enterprise CBAs or denial of
petition for deregistration thereof.
11. Request for SEBA certification when made in an
unorganized establishment with only 1 legitimate
union.
(Arts. 37, 128, 289, 129 of the Labor Code; DO No. 83-07, Series of 2007)

80. What are the instances wherein the bond requirement on appeal involving monetary awards under
the Labor Code may be relaxed?
These cases include instances in which: a. there was substantial compliance with the Rules; b.
surrounding facts and circumstances constitute meritorious grounds to reduce the bond; c. a liberal
interpretation of the requirement of an appeal bond would serve the desired objective of resolving
controversies on the merits; or d. the appellants, at the very least, exhibited their willingness and/or good
faith by posting a partial bond during the reglementary period. (Abelardo Salazar v. Albina Simbajon, et.al, G.R. No.
202374, June 30, 2021, J. Lopez)

81. The DORELCO Employees Union-ALU TUCP and Don Orestes Romualdez Electric Cooperative,
Inc. submitted for arbitration before the National Conciliation and Mediation Board (NCMB) the
issue on whether the rank and file employees are entitled to salary adjustments. On September 22,
2017, the voluntary arbitrator ruled in favor of the Company. This decision was received by the
Union on October 3, 2017. A motion for reconsideration was filed assailing said decision, which
was denied on November 9, 2017. A copy of the resolution was received by the Union on
November 27, 2017. It was only on December 12, 2017 – where the Union filed an appeal to the
Court of Appeals. Was the appeal filed beyond the reglementary period and that the decision of
the Voluntary Arbitrator has already become final and executory?
No. The 10-day period stated in Article 276 should be understood as the period within which the party
adversely affected by the ruling of the Voluntary Arbitrators or Panel of Arbitrators may file a motion for
reconsideration. Only after the resolution of the motion for reconsideration may the aggrieved party appeal
to the CA by filing the petition for review under Rule 43 of the Rules of Court within 15 days from notice
pursuant to Section 4 of Rule 43. Here, the records reveal that the Union received the voluntary arbitrator's
resolution denying its motion for reconsideration on November 27, 2017. As such, the Union had 15 days
or until December 12, 2017 within which to perfect an appeal. Verily, the Union filed a petition for review
within the prescribed period. (Dorelco Employees Union-Alu-Tucp V. Don Orestes Romualdez Electric Cooperative (Dorelco),
Inc., G.R. No. 240130, March 15, 2021, J. Lopez)

82. Discuss the procedure and remedies from the decisions of the Labor Arbiter, Med-Arbiter,
Regional Director, and in Grievance Machinery.
 19

REGIONAL GRIEVANCE
LABOR ARBITER MED-ARBITER
DIRECTOR MACHINERY
NLRC BLR DIRECTOR DOLE SECRETARY VOLUNTARY
ARBITRATOR
Within 10 days from Within 10 days from Within 10 days from
receipt of decision. receipt of decision. receipt of decision Grievances
unresolved within 7
Note: Med-arbiter Note: days will be
decisions for 1. RD decisions referred to
inter-union disputes involving small voluntary
are directly money claims arbitration
appealable to DOLE are appealable
Secretary. to the NLRC
2. RD decisions
for voluntary
arbitration
rendered in their
capacity as
ex-officio
voluntary
arbitrator are
appealable to
CA by petition
under Rule 43.
Motion for Reconsideration
Within 10 days
COURT OF APPEALS COURT OF
APPEALS
Petition under Rule 65
Petition for Review
Within 60 days from notice of judgment, order, or resolution; or from under Rule 43
notice of denial of MR within 15 days from
notice of the award,
judgment, final
order, or resolution
SUPREME COURT
Petition under Rule 45
Within 15 days
(Rules 43, 45, 65 of Rules of Court)

83. LA and NLRC both ruled that Jose, a seafarer, is fit to work based on the assessment made by the
doctor designated by Jose’s company. CA, on the other hand, ruled that the latter is unfit to work
due to the fact of his unemployment. Upon appeal to the Supreme Court, can the latter directly
review the facts of the case as to Jose’s fitness to work?
Yes. Generally, the principle that the Supreme Court is not a trier of facts applies with greater force in labor
cases. The question of whether the seafarer was properly declared fit to work is one of fact, hence, is
beyond the ambit of this Court’s jurisdiction in a petition for review on certiorari. However, when there is a
conflict in the factual findings of the LA and NLRC as opposed to that of the CA, it behooves the Court to
review and re-evaluate the questioned findings in the exercise of its equity jurisdiction. Here, both the LA
and the NLRC gave credence to the fit-to-work assessment made by the company-designated doctor. On
the contrary, the CA rejected the fit-to-work assessment and reversed the labor tribunals’ ruling on the
ground that Jose had not been employed by petitioners despite being declared fit to work. (Doehle Philman
Manning Agency, Inc., et al. v. Gatchalian, G.R. No. 207507, February 17, 2021, J. Lopez)

84. Does the DOLE Secretary have the power to determine the existence of an employer-employee
relationship?
Yes. The Mediator-Arbiter and the DOLE Secretary are sufficiently empowered to make their own
independent finding as to the existence of such relationship, without having to rely and wait for such a
determination by the labor arbiter or the Commission in a separate proceeding. Certainly, We have long
recognized the ample authority of the Mediator-Arbiter and the DOLE Secretary to determine the
relationship between the parties in a petition for certification election, without the need to rely on a prior
determination by the Commission (NLRC) on the matter. (ABS-CBN IJM Workers Union v. ABS-CBN, G.R. No.
202131, September 21, 2022, Landmark Case)

85. What are the prescriptive periods under the Labor Code?
Nature Prescriptive Period
All criminal offenses penalized under the Labor Three (3) years from the time of commission thereof
Code and the Rules to Implement the Labor Code
Criminal cases arising from ULP One (1) year from the time the acts complained of were
committed
 20
Nature Prescriptive Period
Money claims Three (3) years from date when the act constituting a
violation of the rights of the workers to the benefits
being claimed was committed.
Claims for allowances and other benefits If it is established that the benefits being claimed have
been withheld from the employee for a period longer than
three (3) years, the amount pertaining to the period
beyond the three-year prescriptive period is barred by
prescription.
Action for illegal dismissal Four (4) years from accrual of cause of action
Illegal recruitment for Migrant Workers (Sec. 12, Five (5) years
R.A. 8042)
Illegal recruitment for Migrant Workers involving Twenty (20) years.
economic sabotage (Sec. 12, R.A. 8042)
Illegal recruitment for Local employment Three (3) years
(Art. 305, Art. 306, Labor Code of the Philippines; Art. 1146, Civil Code of the Philippines, Arriola v. Pilipino Star Ngayon, Inc., G.R.
No. 175689, August 13, 2014)

SOAR HIGH, HERON!