Last-minute Tips for the 2023 Labor Law Bar Examination
The employer claimed that it dismissed its employee for just cause because the latter assaulted a co-employee within company premises. Did the Supreme Court agree with the employer’s claim?
In its appeal, the employer in this case asserted that it was neither given summons relating to the employee’s amended complaint, nor notified of the scheduled hearings before the Office of the Labor Arbiter. Should it be allowed to present countervailing evidence on appeal?
The complainant presented pay slips and trip itineraries to support his assertion that he was an employee of the company. Were these sufficient to declare the company as his employer?
In one case, the Office of the Labor Arbiter ruled that the mandatory three-day reporting requirement for a post-employment examination under the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration Standard Employment Contract does not apply when the seafarer is repatriated due to expiration of his employment contract. Was this ruling sustained by the Supreme Court?
The local manning agent asserted that the OFW directly transacted with the principal without its knowledge. Did the Supreme Court excuse such agent from the money claims of the OFW?
The employer asserted that its business was slowing down and that it dismissed the complainant on the ground of redundancy. Was the complainant’s dismissal found valid?
In one case, the National Labor Relations Commission was unable to act on the Motion to Reduce Bond filed by the employer, but it proceeded to rule on said employer’s appeal. Was the Commission’s resolution of the substantive controversies in the appeal tantamount to an implied affirmance of the perfection of such appeal?
Why was the dismissal of this employee declared to be illegal despite proof of her violation of company policy?
In this case, why was constructive dismissal not declared by the Supreme Court?
