Several students and examinees have asked my father and me how we would answer the questions in the Bar Examinations in Labor Law. We drafted a post for this.
While we’re here to share our take on the questions, consider the answers you read here as mere opinions from strangers you met online. Deploy critical thinking, and feel free to engage your own thoughts as you read on.
1.
Zhi Go (Zhi) is a non-resident Chinese national who plans to live and establish a career in the Philippines. Zhi went to the Philippines and applied with the Tarlac Agricultural Products (TAP) as an ordinary farm worker. The TAP hired Zhi because of her diverse set of farming skills. The TAP assigned Zhi in its Bamban Farm. Did TAP lawfully hire Zhi Go as a farm worker? Explain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No. TAP did not lawfully hire Zhi Go as a farm worker.
Under the Labor Code of the Philippines, any domestic or foreign employer who desires to engage an alien for employment in the Philippines shall obtain an employment permit from the Department of Labor and Employment.1Article 40
Here, TAP hired Zhi, a non-resident Chinese national, as an ordinary fam worker for its Bamban Farm.
As there was no showing that an employment permit was obtained from the Department of Labor and Employment, TAP cannot be said to have lawfully hired Zhi Go.
Refer to page 218, Labor Law 3: The Fundamentals of Labor Law Review (2021)
2.
Manila Yummy Restaurant (MYR) pays its receptionists PHP 500.00 a day. The receptionists contested the amount because the present minimum wage in the National Capital Region is PHP 645.00 for the nonagricultural sector. MYR countered that it is paying the receptionists a total of PHP 700.00 which is more than the required minimum wage. MYR explained that it provides the receptionists food and beverage worth PHP 200.00 per day in addition to the PHP 500.00 cash component of their wages. The food and beverage are given during lunch time to ensure that the receptionists will entertain guests instead of leaving their stations. Thus, the PHP 200.00 value of the food and beverage must be added to the PHP 500.00 cash component of their wage. May MYR lawfully add the value of the food and beverage as part of the wages of its receptionists? Explain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No. MYR may not lawfully add the value of the food and beverage as part of the wages of its receptionists.
Under the Labor Code of the Philippines, fair and reasonable value of facilities customarily furnished by the employer to the employee may be part of an employee’s wages.2Article 97(f) Furthermore, the Rules Implementing the Labor Code clarify that facilities do not include articles primarily for the benefit of the employer or necessary to the conduct of the employer’s business.3Sec. 2, Rule VII-A, Book III
Here, although food and beverage were provided by MYR to its receptionists, these were for the purpose of ensuring that receptionists will entertain guests instead of leaving their stations.
Since food and beverage was clearly given for the benefit of the employer and considered necessary for the conduct of its business, the value of the same cannot be added to the cash component of their wage.
Refer to page 137, Labor Law 3: The Fundamentals of Labor Law Review (2021)
3.
Lexi Enterprises always made sure that the salary of its supervisory employees is 70% higher than the wage of its rank-and-file workers. Later, the management of Lexi Enterprises realized that its business is highly dependent on rank-and-file workers because they spend more time in providing services to the clients. Thus, Lexi Enterprises significantly increased the wages of its rank-and-file workers such that they are only 10% behind the salary of the supervisory employees. Consequently, the supervisory employees demanded an increase in their salaries and alleged that Lexi Enterprises must correct the wage distortion. May the supervisory employees validly demand an increase in their salaries? Explain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No. The supervisory employees may not validly demand an increase in their salaries, there being no wage distortion.
A wage distortion, as contemplated under the Labor Code of the Philippines, requires the presence of several conditions, relevant of which is that such distortion be the result of a wage increase granted by virtue of a law or wage order.4Article 124
Here, the increase in wages (that drastically reduced the wage gap between supervisory employees and rank-and-file employees) was initiated solely by Lexi Enterprises.
As no law or wage order caused a wage distortion, the supervisory employees cannot validly demand that their salaries be increased.
Refer to pages 152-153, Labor Law 3: The Fundamentals of Labor Law Review (2021)
4.
The Philippines celebrates “Ninoy Aquino Day” every August 21 of the year as a special non-working holiday. Tyson Plastic Company (TPC) scheduled its machine shutdown on August 21, 2024 and informed the workers that the factory will be closed for maintenance. Later, the President of the Philippines issued Proclamation No. 665 moving the observance of “Ninoy Aquino Day” from August 21, 2024, Wednesday, to August 23, 2024, Friday, to promote domestic tourism in the country. The TPC announced that the machine shutdown will push through as scheduled and required the workers to report on August 23, 2024. Winslet is paid PHP 700.00 daily salary as a machine operator. Winslet reported for work on August 23, 2024 and claimed holiday premium pay. The TPC denied the claim and argued that Winslet already enjoyed the holiday on August 21, 2024 when the factory was closed. How much is Winslet entitled to for working on August 23, 2024? Explain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Winslet is entitled to the amount of PHP910.00 for working on August 23, 2024, based on the formula:
- Daily salary of PHP700 x 1.3 = PHP910.00
Under the Labor Code of the Philippines, work performed by employees on any special holiday shall be paid an additional compensation of at least thirty (30%) of their regular wage.5Article 93(c)
Refer to page 126, Labor Law 3: The Fundamentals of Labor Law Review (2021)
5.
Spouses Felix and Sarah have three minor children. In 2022, Felix was detained for committing a non-bailable offense. Sarah looked for a job to support her children. On May 18, 2024, Jared Corporation hired Sarah as a cashier. On August 18, 2024, Sarah claimed that she is a solo parent and applied for parental leave under Republic Act No. 11861 or the Expanded Solo Parents Welfare Act. Is Sarah entitled to parental leave? Explain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No. Sarah is not entitled to parental leave.
Under the Expanded Solo Parents Welfare Act, parental leave shall be granted to any solo parent employee who has rendered service of at least six (6) months.6Section 8
Since Sarah was shown in the given problem to be in the employ of Jared Corporation for only three (3) months, she is not entitled to parental leave under the Expanded Solo Parents Welfare Act.
6.
In August 2019, Vans Taste Restaurant (VTR) entered into a yearly and renewable service contract with Colin Consultancy Services (CCS) for the supply of professional advisors that will design action plans for the restaurant business. CCS has a capital of PHP 20,000,000.00 based on its audited financial statements. CCS hired Grayson, Oswald, and Peyton (Grayson, et. al.) and deployed them to VTR as professional advisors. CCS prescribed Grayson, et. al.’s daily work schedules and specific steps in designing the action plans. Whereas VTR required Grayson, et. al. to submit five action plans each month. In August 2024, the service contract expired without VTR and CCS renewing the agreement. VTR then no longer permitted Grayson, et. al. to enter the restaurant. Aggrieved, Grayson, et al. filed against VTR a complaint for regularization and illegal dismissal because they have been working as its professional advisors for five years. Grayson, et al. also claimed that CCS is a labor-only contractor since it has no investment in the form of tools, equipment, and machineries. Will the complaint for regularization and illegal dismissal prosper? Explain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The complaint for regularization will not prosper because CCS is an independent contractor as shown by the fact that it has an independent business (consultancy services) with substantial capital.
The contract between VTR and CCS not for the supply of manpower, but for services of professional advisors who will design action plans for the restaurant business. These professional advisors are not subject to the control of VTR because VTR does not interfere on how the professional advisors will perform their jobs. It is CCS who prescribes the steps to be taken in designing the action plans. Furthermore, CCS prescribes their work schedules. While it is true that VTR requires the professional advisors to submit five action plans each month, this matter pertains to results and not on how to achieve the action plan.
Under the circumstances, the complaint for regularization will not prosper.
SUGGESTED ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
Yes. The complaint for regularization and illegal dismissal will prosper.
Department of Labor and Employment Order No. 174, Series of 2017 defines “labor-only contracting” as an arrangement requiring the presence of certain elements, one of which is a situation where the contractor or subcontractor merely recruits, supplies or places workers to perform a job or work for a principal.7Section 3(h) In such a contracting arrangement, the Labor Code of the Philippines considers such contractor or subcontractor to be an agent of the employer who shall be responsible to the workers in the same manner and extent as if said workers were directly employed by him.8Article 106
Furthermore, the Labor Code of the Philippines protects the employee’s right to security of tenure by prohibiting the employer from terminating the services of an employee except for just or authorized causes.9ARTICLE 294 Jurisprudence strikes down as invalid any employer act that attempts to undermine workers’ tenurial security.10PJ Lhuillier, Inc. v. Camacho, G.R. No. 223073, 22 February 2017
In the given problem, CCS contracted itself to supply professional advisors for the restaurant business of VTR. Since CCS merely provided workers and not services, then Grayson, et al.’s complaint for regularization can prosper, as there is ground to consider VTR to be their employer.
Moreover, since there was no showing that any just or authorized cause attended the decision of VTR to disallow Grayson, et al. from working in the restaurant, there is reason to claim that their right to security of tenure was violated. Thus, their complaint for illegal dismissal should prosper.
Refer to pages 88-95 and 457, Labor Law 3: The Fundamentals of Labor Law Review (2021)
7.
Grand Duke Manila (GDM), a five-star world-class hotel, hired Zoey as a banquet server. GDM informed Zoey of its company rule against tattoos as part of grooming standards. The policy prohibits hospitality staff members from having tattoos due to their different cultural meanings that might offend foreign guests. Later, GDM discovered that Zoey had an existing tattoo on her nape which she concealed during the hiring process. After the required notices, GDM dismissed Zoey for violation of the company policy against tattoos. Is Zoey’s dismissal valid? Explain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The dismissal is valid because Zoey violated a company rule that prohibits hospitality staff members from having tattoos.
Zoey’s violation was deliberate because during the hiring process, she was informed of the rule, but she concealed the fact that she has a tattoo. The company rule against tattoos is part of the hotel’s grooming standards. It is the prerogative of an employer to promulgate rules and regulations, especially when they have a valid purpose. In this case, the purpose is valid, i.e., to prevent foreign guest from being offended especially from the point of view of their culture.
Therefore, the dismissal of Zoey is justified.
SUGGESTED ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
No. Zoey’s dismissal is not valid.
Jurisprudence has recognized the power to dismiss to be a formal prerogative of the employer. However, the same is not without limitations. To effect a valid dismissal, the law requires not only that there be just and valid cause; it must also be supported by evidence.11Verizon Communications Philippines, Inc. v. Margin, G.R. No. 216599, 16 September 2020
Here, although GDM decided to terminate Zoey’s employment, such decision was not anchored on a cause that was valid and supported by evidence. As the given problem narrates, the termination was based on a mere conjecture that tattoos might offend foreign guests.
Zoey’s right to security of tenure was violated. Thus, it cannot be said that her dismissal from employment was valid.
Refer to pages 457, 503, and 504, Labor Law 3: The Fundamentals of Labor Law Review (2021)
8.
Brent Therapy Clinic (BTC) engaged Franklin as a probationary physical therapist for a period of five months. BTC informed Franklin that he must obtain satisfactory grades in these criteria: (a) diagnosis of movement dysfunction; (b) therapeutic exercise techniques; (c) stimulation and healing massage; and (d) proper use of machines and equipment. After three months, BTC observed that Franklin cannot meet the minimum criteria. Franklin was unfamiliar with therapeutic exercise techniques and was unable to remember the use of therapy machines. The following day, the owner of BTC left a note on Franklin’s desk which reads:
Hi Franklin. I tried to guide and train you in the past months but there has been no improvement. The management is unhappy with your work performance. Thus, your probationary employment is terminated one week from notice for failure to meet the minimum standards for regularization. Aggrieved, Franklin questioned his termination for lack of procedural due process.
Is BTC required to comply with the twin-notice rule before terminating Franklin’s employment? Explain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No. BTC is not required to comply with the twin-notice rule before terminating Franklin’s employment.
In a situation where an employee fails to meet standards of regularization, the Rules Implementing the Labor Code require an employer to serve only a written notice within a reasonable time from the effective date of termination.12Sec. 2 (d), Rule I, Book VI, Rules Implementing the Labor Code, as amended by Department Order No. 10 series of 1997
The given problem shows that the employer decided to terminate Franklin’s employment because he failed to meet the minimum criteria for regularization.
Thus, compliance by BTC of the twin-notice rule is not required.
Refer to page 44, Labor Law 3: The Fundamentals of Labor Law Review (2021)
9.
Preston Salon and Spa (PSS) hired Nixon as a senior stylist in its Manila branch. Nixon signed an employment contract which provides that “employees shall not engage in or set up within the same locality a business similar or related to the company during their course of employment and for a period of one year after their tenure.” Thereafter, PSS received information that Nixon assisted his sister in establishing a new salon in Manila. Nixon admitted lending PHP 300,000.00 to his sister as capital and that he shall be entitled to 10% yearly profits of the new salon. Nixon also referred two former PSS employees as applicants to the new salon. After the required notices, PSS dismissed Nixon for violation of his employment contract. Is Nixon’s dismissal valid? Explain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes. Nixon’s dismissal is valid because of his willful disobedience of PSS’s order not to set up a competing business, as reflected in his employment contract.
Disobedience will constitute a valid cause for dismissal when:
(1) The disobedience is willful; and
(2) The order is reasonable, lawful, known to the employee, and work-connected.13Section 5.2(b), DOLE Department Order No. 147, S. 2015
In the given problem, PSS incorporated in the employment contract a reasonable and lawful order prohibiting Nixon to set up within the same locality a business similar or related to the company during the course of his employment. The prohibition was contained in an employment contract, which Nixon signed.
Despite the prohibition, Nixon:
- assisted his sister in establishing a new salon in Manila;
- lent PHP 300,000.00 to his sister as capital;
- demanded 10% yearly profits of the new salon; and
- referred two former PSS employees as applicants to the new salon.
Since Nixon committed a willful disobedience to a lawful order of PSS, his dismissal is valid.
Refer to page 518, Labor Law 3: The Fundamentals of Labor Law Review (2021)
10.
Ronin Airline Company (RAC) hired Orwell as a flight engineer. In January 2024, RAC and Orwell entered into a three-month overseas training agreement which reads: “the employer agrees to invest on the travel expenses and allowances of the employee abroad provided that he will remain in the company for two years after the training. Otherwise, the employee must reimburse the employer travel expenses and pay liquidated damages of PHP 30,000.00.” Orwell completed the training abroad and returned to the Philippines. In August 2024, Orwell tendered his irrevocable resignation. Aggrieved, RAC filed against Orwell a complaint for sum of money before the trial court. Orwell sought to dismiss the action for lack of jurisdiction and argued that it is the labor arbiter that has authority to decide money claims arising from employment relationship. Which between the trial court and labor arbiter has jurisdiction over the complaint? Explain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The trial court has jurisdiction over the complaint.
Jurisprudence teaches that in order for a dispute to fall within the jurisdiction of the Labor Arbiter, it must arise from employer-employee relationship or must at least have a reasonable causal connection with employer-employee relationship.14AFP Mutual Benefit Association v. NLRC, 267 SCRA 47; Tolosa v. NLRC, 401 SCRA 291 A claim is said to have a reasonable causal connection with employer-employee relationship if the principal relief sought can be resolved only by reference to the Labor Code or other labor laws and not by the general civil law. 15San Miguel Corporation v. NLRC, 161 SCRA 719
In the given problem, RAC’s claim arose from Orwell’s supposed breach of contract when the latter prematurely resigned from employment.
Since the claim is based on our law on contracts to which civil law should apply, it is the trial court that has jurisdiction over the complaint.
Refer to pages 720-733, Labor Law 3: The Fundamentals of Labor Law Review (2021)
11.
Athena Coffee Company (ACC) hired 300 coffee roasters under similar employment terms and conditions. ACC assigned these employees to its three roasting factories in Manila, Laguna, and Cavite. In August 2024, the AAC Manila Workers Organization (AAC-MWO) filed a petition for certification election to represent all coffee roasters including those in the unorganized Laguna and Cavite factories. AAC opposed the petition and argued that the three factories do not constitute an appropriate bargaining unit on account of their different geographical locations. May the coffee roasters in the three factories constitute an appropriate bargaining unit? Explain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes, the coffee roasters in the three factories constitute an appropriate bargaining unit.
Under the Rules Implementing the Labor Code, in order for a collective bargaining unit to exist, it must be shown that a group of employees shares mutual interests within a given employer unit.16Sec. 1 (e), Rule I, Book V, Rules Implementing the Labor Code, as amended by Department Order No. 40-03
In the given problem, since it was shown that the coffee roasters share similar employment terms and conditions within ACC, such workers may constitute an appropriate bargaining unit.
Refer to pages 364-365, Labor Law 3: The Fundamentals of Labor Law Review (2021)
12.
EXO Corporation, Inc. (ECI) and its exclusive bargaining agent Kami Labor Union (KLU) entered into a collective bargaining agreement effective from December 15, 2019 to December 14, 2024. The agreement prohibits KLU and its members from holding a strike and lockout. In May 2024, ECI and KLU negotiated the economic provisions of the agreement but ended in a deadlock. KLU filed a notice of strike. After the conciliation failed, KLU conducted a strike vote which obtained majority support. KLU reported the strike vote to the Department of Labor and Employment. KLU then went on strike after the mandatory cooling-off period. ECI questioned the validity of the strike for being contrary to the collective bargaining agreement. In contrast, KLU argued that it complied with the strict requirements for staging a strike. Is the strike legal? Explain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The strike was illegal because KLU did not strictly comply with all the requirements for staging a valid strike. Specifically, KLU failed to comply with the 7-day strike ban requirement.
Under the Labor Code of the Philippines, a union cannot strike during the 7-day period from submission of the strike vote report.17Article 278 This is because the provision requires a union to furnish the Department of Labor and Employment the results of the voting at least 7 days before the intended strike.
In the given problem, although KLU went on strike after the mandatory cooling-off period, there was no showing that it staged the strike after the lapse of the 7-day strike ban.
Since KLU failed to comply with the 7-day strike ban, the strike is illegal.
Refer to pages 422-423, Labor Law 3: The Fundamentals of Labor Law Review (2021)
13.
On May 31, 2024, the collective bargaining agreement between Gretel Corporation, Inc. (GCI) and Gretel Labor Union (GLU) expired. After several negotiations, GCI and GLU signed a new collective bargaining agreement on August 31, 2024, which obliged the company to pay a wage increase in favor of the employees. GLU then demanded salary differentials starting June 1, 2024. However, GCI argued that the provisions of the new collective bargaining agreement as to the wage increase shall be prospective in application beginning August 31, 2024. When shall the salary increase be reckoned? Explain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The salary increase should be reckoned from the agreed date of the effectivity of the collective bargaining agreement (CBA).
This is because under the Labor Code of the Philippines, if any such collective bargaining agreement is entered into beyond six months from the date of expiry of its term, the parties shall agree on the duration of effectivity thereof.18Article 265
Notes:
The CBA in the given problem is a new CBA, not a renegotiation before the 3rd year of effectivity. The terms thereof should be applied prospectively, unless the parties agree on retroactive application of some provisions.
Refer to pages 400-402, Labor Law 3: The Fundamentals of Labor Law Review (2021)
14.
In 2023, Star Maxima Corporation (SMC) and Astra Labor Union (ALU) executed a collective bargaining agreement covering the rank-and-file employees effective for five years. In 2024, Troy called for the removal of Andres as union president and obtained majority support of ALU members through signature campaign. Thereafter, Troy assumed the position of union president, changed the name of ALU to Stella Labor Organization (SLO), adopted new by-laws, and appointed other union officers. Andres informed SMC that ALU remained the exclusive bargaining agent. On the other hand, Troy demanded recognition of SLO and its new leadership to administer the collective bargaining agreement and to receive the union dues. Eventually, SMC turned over the collected union dues to the SLO treasurer. Aggrieved, Andres filed a complaint for unfair labor practice against SMC alleging gross violation of the collective bargaining agreement. Is SMC guilty of unfair labor practice? Explain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
SMC is guilty of unfair labor practice because it violated its duty to bargain collectively.
Under the Labor Code of the Philippines, it is unlawful for an employer to violate the duty to bargain collectively.19Article 259 Jurisprudence teaches that if a union seeking to bargain collectively is not certified by the Department of Labor and Employment as the collective bargaining agent of the employees, the employer has no obligation to bargain with it.
In the given problem, ALU remains to be the certified bargaining agent, and therefore, SMC must continue to deal with it. SMC cannot deal with SLO because it is not a certified bargaining agent.
Considering that SMC dealt with SLO by turning over the union dues to the SLO Treasurer, SMC violated its duty to bargain collectively, and therefore, it is guilty of unfair labor practice.
Notes:
The removal of Andres as union president is anomalous because it was not done in accordance with the constitution and by-laws of the union. The ousting of Andres was done through a signature campaign only. Likewise, the assumption by Troy of the presidency, the appointment of union officers, the change of name from ALU to SLO, and the adoption of new by-laws are all irregular. Thus, SLO and its officers are not legitimate officers. Such being the case, SLO and its officers have no personality to deal with SMC.
Refer to pages 300-302, Labor Law 3: The Fundamentals of Labor Law Review (2021)
15.
Thalia, the owner of Quinn Karaoke Club (QKC), hired Darrence as an accountant. On January 19, 2023, QKC’s owner verbally informed Darrence to look for another job and banned him from the club. Darrence filed against QKC a complaint for illegal dismissal. Meantime, Darrence was hired as an accountant in another company on February 14, 2023. In its answer, QKC countered that Darrence abandoned his work in favor of a better paying job. On June 22, 2024, QKC ceased business. In due course, the Labor Arbiter declared Darrence unjustly dismissed from work and awarded him full backwages computed from January 19, 2023, when he was verbally dismissed, until June 22, 2024, when QKC stopped operations. Thalia sought reconsideration and invoked the principles of “no work no pay” and “unjust enrichment.” Thalia argued that Darrence’s salaries earned from another employer should be deducted from the award of backwages. The Labor Arbiter granted the motion and recomputed backwages from January 19, 2023, Darrence’s date of illegal dismissal, until February 14, 2023, when another employer hired him. Is the Labor Arbiter correct in limiting the period for computing the award of backwages? Explain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The Labor Arbiter was not correct in limiting the period for computing the award of backwages.
Jurisprudence teaches backwages to be awarded to an illegally dismissed employee, should not, as a general rule, be diminished or reduced by the earnings derived by him elsewhere during the period of his illegal dismissal. The underlying reason for this ruling is that the employee, while litigating the legality (illegality) of his dismissal, must still earn a living to support himself and family, while full backwages have to be paid by the employer as part of the price or penalty he has to pay for illegally dismissing his employee.20Bustamante v. National Labor Relations Commission, G.R. No. 111651, 28 November 1996
Following prevailing jurisprudence, Darrence is entitled to backwages from January 19, 2023, when he was verbally dismissed, until June 22, 2024, when QKC stopped operations.
Refer to page 481, Labor Law 3: The Fundamentals of Labor Law Review (2021)
Notes:
A further reason why the Labor Arbiter is not correct is that he/she should not have entertained the motion for reconsideration (of the decision of the Labor Arbiter) since the same is a prohibited pleading.21Sec. 5(f) Rule V, 2011 NLRC Rules of Procedure, as amended
Refer to page 746, Labor Law 3: The Fundamentals of Labor Law Review (2021)
16.
Zoe Enterprises hired Celine as a machine operator. In January 2024, Celine was medically diagnosed with tuberculosis and declared “unfit to continue working.” Zoe Enterprises dismissed Celine because of serious illness and gave her separation pay of one month salary per year of service which she used for her hospitalization and medical expenses. In April 2024, Celine was cleared of tuberculosis and was issued a medical certificate that she is medically fit to work. Celine demanded reinstatement from Zoe Enterprises but was refused. Aggrieved, Celine filed a complaint for illegal dismissal. Zoe Enterprises countered that Celine was validly dismissed because she was suffering from a contagious disease. Is Zoe Enterprises liable for illegal dismissal? Explain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Zoe Enterprises is liable for illegal dismissal.
Under the Labor Code of the Philippines, an employer is authorized to terminate the services of an employee who has been found to be suffering from any disease and whose continued employment is prohibited by law or is prejudicial to his health as well as to the health of his co-employees,22Article 299 However, the decision to terminate employment must be supported by a certification by a competent public health authority that the disease is incurable within a period of six (6) months even with proper medical treatment.23Section 5.4(e), DOLE Department Order No. 147, S. 2015
In the given problem, the refusal of Zoe Enterprises to reinstate Celine was not supported by a medical certificate issued by a competent public health authority attesting to the fact that Celine’s illness cannot be cured within 6 months. Although the given problem mentions a medical certificate, it was not issued by a public health authority, and it merely states that Celine was unfit to continue working. Furthermore, Zoe Enterprises’ assertion that tuberculosis is contagious does not merit termination of employment because tuberculosis is curable, as in fact Celine was cured in 4 months.
The absence of such a medical certificate issued by a competent public health authority thus rendered the dismissal of Celine illegal.
Refer to page 1289, Labor Law 3: The Fundamentals of Labor Law Review (2021)
17.
Mabuhay Travels, Inc. (MTI), a local manning agency acting for its principal Carousel Cruise Corporation (CCC), deployed Elizabeth as waitress on board the vessel M/S Carnival Miracle. Elizabeth finished the contract and prepared for repatriation. Upon arrival in Manila, Elizabeth complained of episodic chest and neck pains. Elizabeth consulted a cardiologist and was diagnosed of “mitral regurgitation, allergic rhinitis, and thyroid pathology.” The chest and neck pains of Elizabeth persisted that rendered her unfit for sea service. Elizabeth then filed a complaint for disability benefits against MTI and CCC. The Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint because Elizabeth did not undergo a post-employment medical examination with the company-designated physician within three working days from arrival in the Philippines. Is the Labor Arbiter correct in dismissing the complaint for failure of Elizabeth to comply with the mandatory three-day reportorial requirement? Explain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The Labor Arbiter was correct in dismissing the complaint for failure of Elizabeth to comply with the mandatory 3-day reportorial requirement.
The POEA Standard Employment Contract requires a seafarer to submit himself to a post-employment medical examination by a company-designated physician within 3 working days upon his return.24Section 20 (3), POEA Memorandum Circular No. 10-10 Jurisprudence dictates that this requirement subsists regardless of the cause of his repatriation, in order for the company-designated physician to ascertain if the seafarer is really suffering from a work-related injury or illness.25Cabatan v. Southeast Asia Shipping Corp., G.R. No. 219495, 28 February 2022.
In the given problem, Elizabeth came back to the Philippines upon finishing her contract. However, there was no showing that she submitted herself to medical examination by the company-designated physician within three (3) working days from her arrival.
In view of such a failure, the Labor Arbiter’s dismissal of the complaint is proper.
18.
Fabio entered into a contract of overseas employment as a seafarer with Gibson Ship Management (GSM), a local manning agency acting in behalf of its principal Blythe Tankers Company (BTC). On board the vessel, Fabio suffered lower back pains while performing his assigned task. Despite therapy and medication, Fabio continued to suffer severe lower back pains. The company-designated physician diagnosed Fabio with “Lumbar Strain T/C Slipped Disc.” Fabio then filed a complaint for disability benefits before the Labor Arbiter. GSM and BTC countered that Fabio is disqualified from claiming disability benefits because he concealed his urinary tract infection and hypertension during his preemployment medical examination. Is Fabio entitled to disability benefits even if he concealed pre-existing medical conditions? Explain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Fabio is entitled to disability benefits even if he concealed pre-existing medical conditions.
Although the POEA Standard Employment Contract disqualifies a seafarer who knowingly conceals a pre-existing illness or condition in the Pre-Employment Medical Examination (PEME),26Section 20 (E) jurisprudence teaches that the applicability of Section 20 (E) should be limited to the disability resulting from the concealed illness.27Mutia v. C.F. Sharp Crew Mgt., Inc., G.R. No. 242928, 27 June 2022
In the present case, the company-designated physician claimed that Fabio concealed his urinary tract infection and hypertension during his PEME.
However, since the disability of which Fabio was repatriated was not caused by urinary tract infection and hypertension, but by “Lumbar Strain T/C Slipped Disc,” his entitlement to disability benefits thus remained.
19.
Virgie and Nina are neighbors. Virgie requested her house helper Sandro to help Nina with the upkeep of her house for two days each month. Sandro agreed and rendered general household work in Nina’s house. Nina paid Sandro PHP 1,000.00 per day of work. Virgie learned about this additional compensation. Thus, Virgie deducted from Sandro’s monthly wage the amount corresponding to his wage for two days. Can Virgie lawfully make deductions from Sandro’s monthly wage? Explain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Virgie cannot lawfully deduct the amount paid by Nina to Sandro.
Under the Domestic Workers Act, an employer is prohibited from making deductions from the wages other than those mandated by law or unless allowed by the domestic worker through a written consent.28Section 25
In the given problem, there was no showing that the deductions made by Virgie were mandated by law. Neither was there a showing that Sandro allowed in writing the deductions made to his salary.
Thus, the deductions made by Virgie are not lawful.
20.
Lottie, Mathie, and Cachie asked Homer if he is interested to work in Indonesia. Homer inquired about the available job and Lottie told him that he will work as a restaurant entertainer. Mathie said that Homer only needs a passport. Cachie added that a certain Mr. Park will finance Homer’s travel expenses. After a week, Cachie gave a ticket to Homer and informed him that he can now leave for Indonesia. Homer, together with Lottie and Mathie, boarded a boat which transported them to Miangas Island. Lottie and Mathie brought Homer to a restaurant and introduced him to Mr. Park. A vehicle fetched Homer and took him to a club. The driver said that the place is a prostitution den. Inside the club, Homer was forced to have sexual intercourse with customers every night. Later, the police authorities rescued Homer and repatriated him to the Philippines. Homer filed against Lottie, Mathie, and Cachie criminal complaints for illegal recruitment and human trafficking. In her counter-affidavit, Cachie claimed that she cannot be convicted of illegal recruitment and human trafficking because she was not part of the group that transported Homer to Miangas Island. Is Cachie criminally liable for both illegal recruitment and human trafficking? Explain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Cachie is criminally liable for illegal recruitment and human trafficking.
Illegal recruitment pertains to recruitment activities carried out by a person who is not a holder of a license or authority, including those who engage in recruitment activities while their license is suspended.29People v. Navarra, 352 SCRA 84
Furthermore, under the Expanded Anti-Trafficking in Persons Act of 2022, it is unlawful for any person to recruit a person for the purpose of prostitution.30Section 4(a)
In the given problem, Cachie conspired with Lottie and Mathie in the commission of a recruitment activity without the requisite license or authority by offering employment to Homer. Cachie was the one who gave Homer his ticket and informed him that he could now leave for Indonesia. Cachie was also the one who informed Homer that that a certain Mr. Park would finance his travel expenses. Moreover, Cachie was part of the conspiracy that recruited Homer to work in a prostitution den.
Cachie is thus criminally liable for illegal recruitment and human trafficking.
Refer to pages 50,51, and 62, Labor Law 3: The Fundamentals of Labor Law Review (2021)
