NOTE: 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.

A, an extremely talented digital artist, was employed by XYZ Creatives as a graphic designer. One day, A accidentally side-swiped the company president’s BMW car. From then on, the president had been verbally humiliating her in front of her co-employees. Traumatized, A resigned. She also immediately filed a complaint for constructive dismissal. In turn, XYZ Creatives contended that A voluntarily resigned. Decide with reason(s).

SUGGESTED ANSWER

A was constructively dismissed from employment.

Constructive dismissal arises when continued employment is rendered impossible, unreasonable or unlikely; or when a clear discrimination, insensibility or disdain by an employer becomes unbearable to the employee. In such cases, the impossibility, unreasonableness, or unlikelihood of continued employment leaves an employee with no other viable recourse but to terminate his or her employment.¹Bartolome v. Toyota Quezon Avenue, Inc., G.R. No. 254465, (03 April 2024), 952 Phil 539-560

In the given question, although A resigned, she did so because of the trauma caused by repeated humiliation at the hands of the company president.

Since the disdain of the company president has rendered the employment of A impossible, unreasonable or unlikely, she is considered to have been constructively dismissed from employment.

2.

A filed a complaint against XYZ Corp. for unfair labor practice. A alleged that only workers who graduated from ABC University were given free breakfast and free lunch by the corporation. A, an alumnus of DEF University, was not entitled to this incentive. Is there unfair labor practice? Reason(s).

SUGGESTED ANSWER

There is no unfair labor practice.

The Supreme Court has ruled that the prohibited acts considered as unfair labor practices relate to the workers’ right to self-organization and to the observance of the collective bargaining agreement. These refer to acts that violate the worker’s right to organize. Without that element, the acts, even if unfair, are not unfair labor practice.²Asian Institute of Management Faculty Association v. Asian Institute of Management, Inc., G.R. No. 219025, 09 September 2020.

Furthermore, the Labor Code of the Philippines provides that discrimination becomes unfair labor practice only when it is intended to encourage or discourage membership in any labor organization.³Article 259 (e)

Since the element of self-organization is absent, XYZ Corp.’s grant of free breakfast and lunch to workers who graduated from ABC University, and not to others, is not unfair labor practice.

3.

A was hired on probationary basis by XYZ Industries. Upon the expiration of the probationary period of six months, A was informed that he failed to meet the required standards to be regularized. A begged that he be given a chance to improve his performance. The company agreed and extended the latter’s probationary period for another three months. A’s performance, however, did not improve. Thus, XYZ Industries terminated his employment at the end of the extended period. A filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, claiming that he already became a regular employee after the expiration of the original six-month probationary period. Is A correct? Reason(s).

SUGGESTED ANSWER

A is correct.

The Labor Code of the Philippines⁴Article 296 provides that a probationary employee who is allowed to work after the probationary period shall be considered a regular employee.

Upon the expiration of the 6-month probationary period, XYZ Industries informed A that he had failed to meet the required standards for regularization and allowed him to continue working for another 3 months.

The phrase “upon expiration” means that the agreed probationary period has ended. A has already become XYZ Industries’ regular employee by that point.

(NOTES: The extension should have been done prior to the expiration of the probationary period. The mere fact that the extension was at the instance of A does not validate the extension so as to make him a probationary employee again. Under the law, an employee who is allowed to work after his/her probationary period shall be considered a regular employee. Considering that A continued to work when his probationary employment ended, he has become a regular employee.)

4.

Employees of XYZ Bank, a government-owned or controlled corporation without an original charter, filed with the labor arbiter a case for illegal dismissal against XYZ Bank. XYZ Bank moved to dismiss the case on the ground of lack of jurisdiction, claiming that they were under the jurisdiction of the Civil Service Commission (CSC). Is the bank correct? Reason(s).

SUGGESTED ANSWER

The bank is not correct.

Jurisprudence⁵Philippine National Oil Co.-Energy Development Corp. v. Leogardo, G.R. No. 58494, 05 July 1989. dictates that employees of a government-owned or controlled corporation incorporated under the general Corporation Law are subject to the provisions of the Labor Code of the Philippines.

Since XYZ Bank is a non-chartered government-owned or controlled corporation incorporated under the Corporation Code, its employees are governed by the Labor Code of the Philippines, not by the Civil Service Law.

SUGGESTED ALTERNATIVE ANSWER

The bank is not correct.

This is because under the Constitution, only government-owned or controlled corporations with original charters are covered by civil service laws.⁶Under paragraph 1 of Section 2, Article IX-B of the Constitution, the civil service embraces all branches, subdivisions, instrumentalities, and agencies of the Government, including government-owned or controlled corporations with original charters. In this regard, the Supreme Court held in Philippine National Construction Corp. v. National Labor Relations Commission,⁷G.R. No. 248401, 23 June 2021. that where a statute, by its terms, is expressly limited to certain matters, it may not, by interpretation or construction, be extended to others.

In the given question, XYZ Bank is a non-chartered government-owned or controlled corporation incorporated under the Corporation Code. Its employees are thus governed by the Labor Code, not by the Civil Service Law.

5.

XYZ Corporation entered into a Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) with ABC Union, containing a clause which required all employees of the company to be members of ABC Union. A questioned the validity of the clause, asserting that she did not want to be a member of a union supported by management. Is the clause valid? Reason(s).

SUGGESTED ANSWER

The clause is valid.

Jurisprudence⁸Bank of the Philippine Islands v. BPI Employees Union-Davao Chapter-Federation of Unions in BPI Unibank, G.R. No. 164301, 10 August 2010 teaches that an individual employee’s right not to join a union may be validly restricted by a union security clause in a collective bargaining agreement, and such a clause does not violate the employee’s constitutional right to freedom of association.

The given facts show that a union security clause in the CBA requires XYZ Corporation employees, including A, to join the ABC Union.

Applying prevailing jurisprudence, such a clause validly restricted A’s right not to join the said union.

6.

XYZ Company was engaged in the construction of luxury multi-storey homes and midrise condominiums. One of its projects was a three-storey mansion of Senator A. XYZ Company was about to do concrete pouring of slab and beams on the second floor of the mansion, and this process would take at least 20 hours straight with no interruption or break; otherwise, the structural integrity of the second floor and beams would be compromised. More, the process would need 25 workers to finish. B, one of the workers assigned to the project, refused to render overtime work, claiming that he cannot be compelled to do so. Is B correct? Reason(s).

SUGGESTED ANSWER

B is not correct.

Although employees cannot be compelled to render overtime work because it would violate the constitutional injunction against involuntary servitude,⁹Section 18 (2), Article III, Constitution. the Labor Code of the Philippines¹⁰Article 89 (e) provides that any employee may be required by the employer to perform overtime work where the completion or continuation of the work started before the eighth hour is necessary to prevent serious obstruction or prejudice to the business or operations of the employer.

The given facts show that XYZ Company was about to undertake 20 hours of concrete pouring for the slab and beams on the second floor of the mansion.

Since continuous work was necessary to prevent the structural integrity of the second floor and the beams from being compromised, B, a worker assigned to the project, cannot refuse overtime duty.

7.

XYZ Gym engaged A, B, and C as fitness trainers. They were paid fixed monthly salaries, commissions, and other statutory benefits. After two years, XYZ Gym reclassified them as freelance trainers. While they were still paid monthly salaries and commissions, the other statutory benefits were discontinued. A, B, and C opposed their reclassification, claiming they are regular employees since their work is essential to the business of XYZ Gym. However, XYZ Gym maintained that as freelance trainers, they are deemed to be independent contractors and their engagement by the company was only in consideration of their skill and expertise. Decide with reason(s).

SUGGESTED ANSWER

A, B, and C are correct.

Jurisprudence¹¹Escauriaga v. Fitness First, Phil., Inc., G.R. No. 266552, 22 January 2024 teaches that when the status of the employment is in dispute, the employer bears the burden to prove that the person whose service it pays for is an independent contractor rather than a regular employee with or without fixed terms.

The given question raises an issue of employment status. However, XYZ Gym failed to present proof supporting the allegation that A, B, and C are independent contractors. Specifically, there was no showing that A, B, and C possessed “unique skills and talents which set them apart from ordinary employees and whose means and methods of work are free from the control of the employer.”¹²Escauriaga v. Fitness First, Phil., Inc., G.R. No. 266552, 22 January 2024

Since jurisprudence¹³Laurente v. Helenar Construction, G.R. No. 243812, 07 July 2021. also teaches that workers shall be presumed regular employees, A, B, and C shall be considered as such.

(NOTES: XYZ Gym’s reclassification of A, B, and C as freelance trainers was a scheme to prevent them from enjoying the rights and benefits under the Labor Code of the Philippines, as evidenced by the discontinuation of the statutory benefits they had previously enjoyed. Their regular status is further indicated by the fact that the activities they perform are usually necessary to XYZ Gym’s business. Under the circumstances, A, B, and C are regular employees of XYZ Gym.)

8.

XYZ International School, Inc. was a domestic educational institution established primarily for dependents of foreign diplomatic personnel and other temporary residents. It classified its teachers into two categories: (1) foreign hires; and (2) local hires. The salary of foreign hires was 25% higher than those of local hires. The local hires complained that this policy was allegedly discriminatory since both groups perform the same work. XYZ International School, Inc. countered that the policy was adopted to attract foreign hires and that the two groups are not similarly situated. Decide with reason(s).

SUGGESTED ANSWER

The local hires’ complaint has merit.

Jurisprudence¹⁴International School Alliance of Educators v. Quisumbing, G.R. No. 128845, 01 June 2000. dictates that persons who work with substantially equal qualifications, skill, effort, and responsibility, under similar conditions, should be paid similar salaries. This is in accordance with the long-honored legal truism of “equal pay for equal work.”

In the given question, although XYZ International School, Inc. claimed to have adopted a policy of attracting foreign hires, it was unable to present evidence supporting its allegation of a difference in the situations of foreign hires and local hires.

Thus, foreign and local hires should be treated similarly and paid the same salaries. XYZ International School, Inc.’s decision to pay foreign hires higher salaries was correctly viewed by the local hires as discriminatory.

9.

X, a cashier at ABC Mart, filed a complaint for illegal dismissal with prayer for reinstatement and payment of full backwages against ABC Mart. X alleged that one day, ABC Mart told her not to return to work anymore, thus, she was deemed to have been unlawfully dismissed. During the proceedings, ABC Mart countered that it was X who abandoned her post. Both the labor arbiter and the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) found, however, that what happened between X and ABC Mart was a mere misunderstanding and there was no dismissal or abandonment to speak of. Based on these findings, is X entitled to reinstatement and payment of full backwages? Decide with reason(s).

SUGGESTED ANSWER

X is not entitled to reinstatement and backwages

Jurisprudence¹⁵Rodriguez v. Sintron Systems, Inc., G.R. No. 240254, 24 July 2019. teaches that reinstatement restores the employee who was unjustly dismissed to the position from which he was removed, that is, to his status quo ante dismissal, while the grant of backwages allows the employee to recover from the employer that which he had lost by way of wages as a result of his illegal dismissal.

Since X was not found to have been dismissed from employment, there can be no reinstatement, as one cannot be reinstated to a position he is still holding. For the same reason, there can be no payment of backwages.

 (Note: The employee shall be directed to go back to his work and the employer must then accept him because the employment relationship between them was never actually severed.¹⁶Rodriguez v. Sintron Systems, Inc., G.R. No. 240254, 24 July 2019.)

10.

On her first day of work, A filed an application for membership with Samahan ng Mga Magsasaging (SMM), the sole and exclusive bargaining agent of the plantation workers in XYZ Farms. But the union president, X, disapproved her application, claiming that she was not yet qualified to join the union in view of her probationary status. Did the union president validly disapprove A’s application? Reason(s).

SUGGESTED ANSWER

The union president’s disapproval of A’s application for union membership is not valid.

Article 292(c) of the Labor Code of the Philippines provides that any employee shall, beginning on his first day of service, be considered an employee for purposes of membership in any labor union.

In the given question, A commenced working for XYZ Farms and applied for membership with SMM.

Applying the law, X has already qualified for union membership on the first day of her employment. No justification supports the union president’s disapproval of A’s application.

11.

X and Y have five children. In order to keep the embers of love burning, they took an annual trip together as a couple. A month later, X got pregnant with their sixth child. She applied for maternity leave with her employer, ABC Corp., which had  previously granted her five rounds of maternity leaves for her first five children. This time, ABC Corp. refused to grant her a sixth round of maternity leave for her sixth pregnancy, claiming that she had already exhausted the maximum availment of maternity leaves under the law. Decide with reason(s).

SUGGESTED ANSWER

X is still entitled to maternity leave.

Under the 105-Day Expanded Maternity Leave Law,¹⁷Section 3 maternity leave is available of for every instance of pregnancy, miscarriage, or emergency termination of pregnancy, regardless of frequency.

In the given question, notwithstanding the fact that the pregnancy is X’s 6th, she is still entitled to maternity leave.

12.

ABC Corporation, a legitimate job contractor engaged in the construction business, hired X as a plumber. Under a service agreement, ABC Corporation undertook to provide workers for the construction project of XYZ Corporation, a company engaged in real estate development. X was among those assigned by ABC Corporation to the project. While the construction project was ongoing, X filed a complaint for underpayment of wages against both ABC Corporation and XYZ Corporation. XYZ Corporation denied liability, claiming that ABC Corporation, as the true employer of X, should be solely liable for the underpayment of wages of X. Is XYZ Corporation correct? Reason(s).

SUGGESTED ANSWER

XYZ Corporation is not correct.

The Labor Code of the Philippines¹⁸Article 106 provides that in the event the contractor or subcontractor fails to pay the wages of his employees, the employer shall be jointly and severally liable with his contractor or subcontractor to such employees to the extent of the work performed under the contract.

In the given question, ABC Corporationunderpaid the wages of its employee, X.

Applying the law, ABC Corporation (a legitimate contractor) and XYZ Corporation (its principal) are thus solidarily liable for underpayment (or non-payment) of X’s wages.

13.

The workers of a government corporation went on a mass leave because of its refusal to increase their salaries. They invoked Article XIII, Section 3 of the Constitution which provides that the State “shall guarantee the rights of all workers to self-organization, collective bargaining and negotiations, and peaceful concerted activities, including the right to strike in accordance with law[,]” as well as Section 2 of Executive Order No. 180, series of 1987, which provides that “[a]ll government employees can form, join or assist employees’ organizations of their own choosing for the furtherance and protection of their interests.” Is the mass leave lawful? Reason(s).

SUGGESTED ANSWER

The mass leave is not lawful.

Jurisprudence dictates that while the right to self-organization is absolute, the right of government employees to collective bargaining and negotiation is subject to limitations. Employees in the civil service may not resort to strikes, walkouts and other temporary work stoppages to pressure the Government to accede to their demands.¹⁹Social Security System Employees Association v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 85279, 28 July 1989.

In the given question, the employees of a government corporation implemented a temporary work stoppage through mass leave due to the corporation’s refusal to increase their salaries.

Applying prevailing case law, although the employees of a government corporation possess the right to self-organization, such right is limited in that they cannot pressure the Government to accede to their demand for a salary increase. Their mass leave is thus unlawful.

(NOTE: The terms and conditions of employment of government employees are fixed by the legislature;  thus,  the negotiable matters in the public sector are limited to terms and conditions of employment that are not fixed by law.²⁰GSIS Family Bank Employees Union v. Villanueva, G.R. No. 210773, 23 January 2019. )

14.

The Regional Tripartite Wages and Productivity Board (RTWPB) of Region V issued Wage Order No. 16, providing an increase in the Cost-of-Living Allowance (COLA) for workers in the private sector. XYZ Corporation implemented the COLA increase in favor of its employees in its Naga Branch (Region V). ABC Union, as the exclusive bargaining agent of XYZ Corporation, demanded that the increase be extended to its employees outside Region V. According to the union, the implementation of the wage order created a wage distortion in the salary structure of rank-and-file employees in its Naga Branch vis-à-vis the other branches of XYZ Corporation. Is ABC Union correct? Reason(s).

SUGGESTED ANSWER

ABC Union is not correct.

A wage distortion, as contemplated under the Labor Code of the Philippines, requires the presence of several conditions, relevant of which is that the resulting distortion must be in the same establishment within the region.

In the given question, ABC union claims that wage distortion happened in the salary structure of rank-and-file employees in its Naga Branch vis-à-vis the other branches of XYZ Corporation.

Since the difference in wages between employees in the same pay scale in different regions is not the mischief sought to be banished by the law²¹Prubankers Association v. Prudential Bank and Trust Co., G.R. No. 131247, 25 January 1999 ABC Union’s claim of wage distortion is not correct.

15.

In G.R. No. 123456, the Supreme Court declared ABC Company liable for illegal dismissal when it terminated the services of X without just or authorized cause. Following the finality of the decision, X filed a petition for computation of backwages and separation pay to be reckoned from the date he got illegally terminated until the finality of the decision in G.R. No. 123456. ABC Company, however, argued that the computation should be reckoned from the date of termination of employment until the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) rendered its judgment finding that X was illegally dismissed. Decide with reason(s).

SUGGESTED ANSWER

X’s petition should be granted.

Jurisprudence²²Bani Rural Bank v. De Guzman, G.R. No. 170904, 13 November 2023. teaches that when separation pay is ordered in lieu of reinstatement, backwages is computed from the time of dismissal until the finality of the decision ordering separation pay.

In the given question, the Supreme Court ruled in G.R. No. 123456 that X is entitled to separation pay and backwages. Such being the case, the entitlement of X to the same should stop upon the finality of the same.

The petition should thus be granted.

(NOTE: The reason is that when there is an order of separation pay, the employment relationship is terminated only upon the finality of the decision ordering the separation pay. The finality of the decision cuts-off the employment relationship and represents the final settlement of the rights and obligations of the parties against each other. Hence, backwages no longer accumulate upon the finality of the decision ordering the payment of separation pay since the employee is no longer entitled to any compensation from the employer by reason of the severance of his employment.)

16.

A was engaged as a delivery personnel by a luxury optical store. In his two years of employment, he had twice served a one-month suspension for losing clients’ reading glasses. This time, he was tasked to deliver a pair of luxury eyeglasses worth PHP 250,000.00 to a client. On the way to the client’s address, A passed by his girlfriend’s house for coffee where he lost the eyeglasses. Consequently, the optical store dismissed A for gross and habitual neglect of duty. Is the dismissal of A valid? Reason(s).

SUGGESTED ANSWER

The dismissal of A is valid.

In order for gross and habitual neglect of duty to be a valid ground for termination, the neglect must be both gross and habitual in character.²³Section 5.2 (c), DOLE Department Order No. 147, Series of 2015.

In the given question, A’s neglect is considered gross, as he was found to have lost the eyeglasses of clients of the luxury optical store. Such neglect is also habitual, since he was likewise found to have lost luxury eyeglasses 3 times.

Since A is grossly and habitually neglectful of his duty, his dismissal is thus valid.

17.

X, a kasambahay of A for five years, filed an application for leave for five days to visit her family in the province. A approved the leave. X returned after the end of her leave. When she received her salary for the month, she was surprised that A deducted five days’ worth of her salary. X complained, claiming that she was entitled to service incentive leaves with pay. A, however, countered that the principle of “no work, no pay” should be followed. Decide with reason(s).

SUGGESTED ANSWER

X is entitled to service incentive leaves with pay.

Under Section 29 of the Domestic Workers Act, a domestic worker who has rendered at least one (1) year of service shall be entitled to an annual service incentive leave of five (5) days with pay.

In the given question, X, a kasambahay of A for 5 years, took 5 days of leave.

The no-work-no-pay principle will not apply, and X’s leaves should be with pay as expressly stated under the law.

18.

X, an employee of DEF Company, openly criticized the incumbent exclusive bargaining representative of the rank-and-file employees, ABC Union, for its alleged weak leadership. On June 10, 2025, X, together with her co-employees, formed and registered XYZ Union to challenge ABC Union. Meantime, a Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) between ABC Union and DEF Company was executed, effective for five years beginning August 1, 2025. On September 1, 2025, X and her co- employees, through their newly formed union, challenged ABC Union to submit to a certification election. Is the action of XYZ Union correct? Reason(s).

SUGGESTED ANSWER

The act of XYZ Union is correct.

Although the Labor Code of the Philippines²⁴Article 238 bars a petition for certification election or any other action which may disturb the administration of a duly registered existing collective bargaining agreement (CBA) affecting the parties, jurisprudence²⁵Associated Labor Unions v. Ferrer-Calleja, G.R. No. 77282, (05 May 1989. teaches that such a bar will not apply if the CBA is not duly registered.

In the given question, the CBA between ABC Union and DEF Company was merely executed, and there was no showing that it was duly registered with the Department of Labor and Employment.

XYZ Union can thus challenge the majority representation of ABC Union because the contract-bar rule will not apply.

19.

X, Y, and Z, employees of ABC Security Agency, were security guards assigned in Sta. Clara, Lamitan, Basilan. On October 1, 2024, ABC Security Agency instructed them to report by October 15, 2024 to its head office in Manila for reassignment to its other clients. X, Y, and Z did not comply with the directive since they were not given sufficient time to prepare for this new assignment. Too, they were residents of Basilan, have families in Basilan, and ABC Security Agency did not even give them fare money. Consequently, ABC Security Agency dismissed them for insubordination and willful disobedience to lawful orders. Is the dismissal valid? Reason(s).

SUGGESTED ANSWER

The dismissal is not valid.

For willful disobedience or insubordination to be a valid ground for termination, certain elements must be established, the relevant one being that the order violated must be reasonable, lawful, and made known to the employee.²⁶Section 5.2 (b), DOLE Department Order No. 147, Series of 2015.

In the given question, the directive from ABC Security Agency for X, Y, and Z to report to its head office in Manila for reassignment is unreasonable, as revealed by the following circumstances:

• X, Y, and Z were not provided sufficient time to prepare for the new assignment; and
• They were not given fare money for their travel to Manila from Basilan.

Since willful disobedience or insubordination was not proven, the dismissal of X, Y, and Z from employment is not valid.

20.

According to the World Health Organization, “burnout” is a workplace syndrome marked by exhaustion, mental detachment from work, and reduced performance. Recognizing this, the Court launched the Judicial Burnout Scale App to detect the warning signs of burnout in judges, which impairs their judgment, decision-making, and well-being as part of its plan to take better care of judges in accordance with the Strategic Plan for Judicial Innovations 2022-2027 (SPJI). Which of the Guiding Principles and Outcomes under the SPJI are relevant to the Judicial Burnout Scale App? Briefly explain your answer.

SUGGESTED ANSWER

Technology Adaptive Management. The Judiciary must utilize the limitless potentials of technology to bolster efficiency, access to justice, accountability, and transparency.²⁷SPJI 2022-2027 Digital Booklet.

Follow the Podcast:

Subscribe to the Channel: