1.

No, the denial of the claim of Odu by GSIS on the ground that he was on official leave at the time of his
death is incorrect.

Under the 24-hour Duty Rule, a policeman is considered a round-the-clock employee because of the
peace-keeping nature of his job. Regardless if he is on leave, when he engaged himself in the performance of
his official function and duty as a police officer, he may stilled be considered on tour of duty in consideration of
the claim of death benefits that may be left to his heirs.

Here, Odu, the policeman who is on leave, intended to pacify his two neighbors who are fighting with
each other but he was shot to death. He engaged himself in the performance of his official function or duty as a
peace-keeping officer. Thus, he may stilled be considered on tour of duty in consideration of the claim of death
benefits that may be left to his heirs.

Hence, the denial of the claim by GSIS is not correct.

2.

No, the contention of Jeffrey that he acquired the status of a regular employee is incorrect.

Under the Law on Labor Standards, a fixed-term employment contract is an employment arrangement
between the employer and the employee wherein the latter will perform work for a certain period of time.

Here, the St. Andrew Field School Inc as the employer and Jeffrey as the employee have mutually
agreed that the employment term will be for a period of five years. The contention of Jeffrey he is elevated to
the status of a regular employee because his services were necessary and desirable in the usual business of
his employer is of no moment because the employment contract between them clearly intends that his
employment will be for a fixed-term.

As such, the contention of Jeffrey is not correct.

3.

No, the Executive Director is not correct in saying that Packro, Bardag and Buog were not entitled to
employment benefits on the basis of the stipulation in the contract that they are independent contractor.

Under the Law on Labor Standards, an independent contractor is one who is not subject to control as to
the means and methods employed for the performance of a job.

Here, Packro, Bardag and Buog were required to maintain specific work schedules as determined by
Dr. Boie Lado. The rehabilitation center also monitored their work through Dr. Lado, who gave them specific
instructions on how to manage the rehabilitation of the patients who suffer from back and neck injuries,
fractures, neurological disorders, work or sports-related injuries, and other conditions, such acts absorbed
within the power to control.

Thus, the Executive Director is not correct.

4.

Yes, Amex Corporation is liable as to wages of the employees of Janitorial and Allied Services.

Under the Law on Labor Standards, the relationship of the principal employer and the employees of a
legitimate job contractor is limited only as to the payment of salaries or wages of the such employees. As such,
the principal employer may held jointly and severally liable with the legitimate job contractor in case of non-
payment of wages of the employees.

Here, Kardo, the proprietor of Janitorial and Allied Services, absconded with the money leaving the
employees unpaid. Amex Corporation may held jointly and severally liable for the non-payment of wages of the
employees.

Hence, Amex Corporation is liable.

 5.

Yes, the Court of Appeals is correct in dismissing the petition for certiorari for being an improper
remedy.

Under the Labor Code, decisions of voluntary arbitrators are appealable to the Court of Appeals under
Rule 43 which includes appeals from quasi-judicial agencies.

Here, the remedy availed is a petition for certiorari instead of appeal under Rule 43, hence, an improper
remedy.

As such, the Court of Appeals is correct.

6.

Bank of the Philippine Archipelago has the right over the P 40,000,000.00.

Under a recent jurisprudence, it has been held that the Labor Code should be applied in relation to the
provisions of the Civil Code as to the preference and classification of credits where the claims of the creditors
may be adjudicated in an insolvency and liquidation proceeding in relation to their credit rights in a foreclosed
property.

Here, there is no insolvency and liquidation proceeding. Thus, there is no credit classification to speak
of. This will normally be treated a transaction or settlement between the mortgagor and the mortgage, between
Acme Corporation and Bank of Philippines Archipelago, respectively.

Hence, Bank of the Philippine Archipelago has the right over the P 40,000,000.00.

7.

No, Cardo’s complaint for illegal dismissal should not be dismissed.

The Supreme Court has held that placing an employee on off-detail and floating status is legally
permitted and a valid exercise of management prerogative, provided such period must not exceed six (6)
months. Beyond such period, the off-detail and floating status of such employee will be tantamount to
constructive dismissal.

Here, Cardo was on "off detail" and "floating status" for 7 months already. His being in such status is
already tantamount to constructive dismissal.

Thus, Cardo’s complaint for illegal dismissal should not be dismissed.

8.

No, the Labor Arbiter has no jurisdiction over the case.

Under the Law on Labor Standards, the jurisdiction of the Labor Arbiter lies in termination disputes
arising from a bilateral and direct employer and employee relationship.

Here, there is a trilateral relationship between Unicorn Security Services (USSI), Philippine Airlines
(PAL) and the guards of USSI. PAL, being an indirect employer, has only a limited relationship with the guards
and that is the solidarity liability with USSI of the payment of wages of the guards. This does not extend to the
retirement benefits of the guards. USSI remains the employer of the guards. There is no bilateral and direct
employer and employee relationship between PAL and the guards of USSI.

Hence, the Labor Arbiter has no jurisdiction over the case.

9.

No, the Secretary of Labor’s action is not correct.

Under the Law on Labor Standards, the Secretary of Labor has the enforcement power to issue a
stoppage-of-work order when there is an imminent danger to the health and safety of the employees which
could be reasonably expected as a serious physical harm or death.
 Here, there being no imminent danger to health and safety of the employees which could be reasonably
expected as a serious physical harm or death, the issuance of stoppage-of-work order by the Secretary of
Labor is not proper.

Thus, the Secretary of Labor’s action is not correct.

10.

Yes, the completion of the house is a valid cause for the termination of Cesar’s employment.

Under the Law on Labor Standards, a project employee is one whose term of employment is dependent
upon the completion of the project or projects which he was contracted.

Here, Cesar’s employment is dependent upon the completion of the building of a house in Capitol Hills
which he was contracted.

As such, the completion of the house is a valid cause for the termination of Cesar’s employment.

11.

The jurisdiction over the complaint of Errolito against Pullgoso is with the Regional Trial Court.

The Supreme Court has held that if the cause of action of a petitioner did not arose from violation of the
provisions of Labor Code or its implementing rules and regulations, jurisdiction is vested to the regular courts
or to the proper court as the case may be.

Here, the cause of action of Errolito is civil in nature. Thus, Labor Code provisions should not be
applied.

Hence, the jurisdiction over the complaint of Errolito against Pullgoso is with the Regional Trial Court.

12.

a. Yes, the closure of a business is allowed by law.

Under the Law on Labor Standards, the management prerogative includes the right to closure and
cessation of the business operations due to severe losses and financial reverses. Hence, the action of
CJDDAM Industrial Corporation is valid.

As counsel of the corporation, I will serve a written notice one (1) month before the intended date of
closure.

b. No, the employees are not entitled to separation pay.

The Supreme Court has held that if the closure and cessation of the business operations is due to
severe or serious losses, the business is no longer liable to pay separation pay to its affected employees as
the employer has no longer the capacity to do so.

Here, the cause of closure is because of serious losses, thus it is no longer liable to pay separation
pay to its employees.

13.

a. No, the employer is not correct.

Under the Batas Kasambahay, deductions on the salary of a helper is prohibited unless there is
written agreement between the helper and the employer.

Here, there is only a verbal agreement between Nena and her employer as to the salaries that would
be deducted corresponding to the number of days that she would be absent, thus, is not a valid.

As such, the employer is not correct.

 b. A househelper is domestic helper engaged in household work whereas, a homeworker is engaged
in an industrial work.

A househelper does his or her job at the place designated by the employer, usually at the employer’s
residence whereas, a homeworker does his or her job at home.

The rights and privileges of a househelper is governed by the Batas Kasambahay whereas, it is Labor
Code for homeworker.

14.

No, Manny did not commit acts of sexual harassment in a work-related or employment environment.

Under the Anti-Sexual Harassment Act, sexual harassment is committed by an employer who having
authority or moral ascendency, over another in a work-related environment by performing an act or series of
acts of unwelcomed sexual advances, request or demand that is sexual in nature, whether or not such demand
is accepted.

Here, Manny asked Rosa for her cell phone number, invited her to go out with him for dinner, ballroom
dancing and to accompany him to Tagaytay. There being no element of sexual advancement, request or
demand, there could be no sexual harassment in the case at bar.

Hence, Manny did not commit acts of sexual harassment.

15.

Yes, Arkady’s dismissal on the ground of conflict of interest was proper.

The Supreme Court has held that dismissal of employees due to violation of a conflict-of-interest
provision in the employment contract is proper to safeguard the confidential and proprietary information of the
employer.

Here, Arkady violated the conflict-of-interest provision in the employment contract by marrying Olga
who is an employee of a competing drug Company. Thus, the dismissal of Arkady was proper to safeguard the
confidential and proprietary information of the employer.

As such, Arkady’s dismissal on the ground of conflict of interest was proper.

16.

I will advise her that Manila Development Corporation may be held liable for damages to SSS due to its
failure to timely remit Bruno’s SSS monthly contributions.

Under the Social Security Act, an employer may be held liable for damages to SSS due to its failure to
timely remit an employee’s SSS monthly contributions.

Thus, Manila Development Corporation may be held liable for damages.