Tag: suggested answers

Suggested Answers to the 2025 Bar Examinations (Labor Law)
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.¹
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.²
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.³
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 Philippines⁴ 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.
Jurisprudence⁵ 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.⁶ In this regard, the Supreme Court held in Philippine National Construction Corp. v. National Labor Relations Commission,⁷ 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.
Jurisprudence⁸ 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,⁹ the Labor Code of the Philippines¹⁰ 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.
Jurisprudence¹¹ 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.”¹²
Since jurisprudence¹³ 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.
Jurisprudence¹⁴ 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
Jurisprudence¹⁵ 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.¹⁶)
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,¹⁷ 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 Philippines¹⁸ 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.¹⁹
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.²⁰ )
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 law²¹ 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.
Jurisprudence²² 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.²³
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 Philippines²⁴ 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, jurisprudence²⁵ 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.²⁶
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.²⁷
Follow the Podcast:

Subscribe to the Channel:
2026 January 18
Suggested Answers to the 2024 Bar Examinations (Labor Law)
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.¹
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.² 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.³
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 were 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.⁴
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.⁵
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.⁶
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.⁷ 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.⁸
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.⁹ Jurisprudence strikes down as invalid any employer act that attempts to undermine workers’ tenurial security.¹⁰
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.¹¹
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.¹²
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.¹³
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.¹⁴ 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. ¹⁵
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.¹⁶
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.¹⁷ 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.¹⁸
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.¹⁹ 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 that 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.²⁰
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.²¹
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,²² 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.²³
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 three working days upon his return. A failure of the seafarer to comply with the mandatory reporting requirement shall result in his forfeiture of the right to claim benefits therein.²⁴ 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.²⁵
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),²⁶ jurisprudence teaches that the applicability of Section 20 (E) should be limited to the disability resulting from the concealed illness.²⁷
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.²⁸
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.²⁹
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.³⁰
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)
Follow the Podcast:

Subscribe to the Channel:
2025 April 09

Cookie	Duration	Description
cookielawinfo-checkbox-analytics	11 months	This cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookie is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Analytics".
cookielawinfo-checkbox-functional	11 months	The cookie is set by GDPR cookie consent to record the user consent for the cookies in the category "Functional".
cookielawinfo-checkbox-necessary	11 months	This cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookies is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Necessary".
cookielawinfo-checkbox-others	11 months	This cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookie is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Other.
cookielawinfo-checkbox-performance	11 months	This cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookie is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Performance".
viewed_cookie_policy	11 months	The cookie is set by the GDPR Cookie Consent plugin and is used to store whether or not user has consented to the use of cookies. It does not store any personal data.

Tag: suggested answers

Suggested Answers to the 2025 Bar Examinations (Labor Law)

1.

SUGGESTED ANSWER

2.

SUGGESTED ANSWER

3.

SUGGESTED ANSWER

4.

SUGGESTED ANSWER

SUGGESTED ALTERNATIVE ANSWER

5.

SUGGESTED ANSWER

6.

SUGGESTED ANSWER

7.

SUGGESTED ANSWER

8.

SUGGESTED ANSWER

9.

SUGGESTED ANSWER

10.

SUGGESTED ANSWER

11.

SUGGESTED ANSWER

12.

SUGGESTED ANSWER

13.

SUGGESTED ANSWER

14.

SUGGESTED ANSWER

15.

SUGGESTED ANSWER

16.

SUGGESTED ANSWER

17.

SUGGESTED ANSWER

18.

SUGGESTED ANSWER

19.

SUGGESTED ANSWER

20.

SUGGESTED ANSWER

Follow the Podcast:

Subscribe to the Channel:

Suggested Answers to the 2024 Bar Examinations (Labor Law)

1.

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

2.

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

3.

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

4.

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

5.

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

6.

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

SUGGESTED ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:

7.

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

SUGGESTED ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:

8.

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

9.

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

10.

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

11.

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

12.

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

13.

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

14.

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

15.

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

16.

SUGGESTED ANSWER: