2019 MOCK BAR EXAMINATION QUESTIONS IN LABOR LAW AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION

WITH SUGGESTED ANSWERS

1. What are the three (3) general classifications of labor statutes? Describe and give an
example of each classification. (5%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER: The three (3) general classifications of labor statutes are: a) Labor
Relations Laws; b) Labor Standards Laws; and c) Social Security Laws. LABOR RELATIONS
Laws are those labor statutes that deal with the relations of labor and management, like the laws
on unions, collective bargaining, unfair labor practices, strikes, lockouts and picketing. LABOR
STANDARDS Laws are those labor statutes that prescribe standards relating to minimum terms
and conditions of employment for compliance by employers, like the laws on hours of work,
weekly rest periods, holiday pay, wages, and laws dealing with women, minors, house-helpers,
and industrial home-workers. SOCIAL SECURITY Laws are those labor statutes that provide
protection not only to a worker but also to members of his family in case of loss of income or
when there is a need for medical care brought about by contingencies like sickness, disability,
death, and old age. Examples of social security laws are the Social Security Act, Revised
Government Service Insurance Act, and the Articles of the Labor Code on Employees
Compensation.

2. FACTS: Andres Procopio was one of more than one hundred (100) employees who were
terminated from employment due to the closure of ABC Construction Corporation (ABC). ABC
was a sister company of Centrota Construction, Inc. and XYZ Realty & Development
Corporation. All three (3) entities formed what came to be known as the Centrota Group of
Companies. The three (3) corporations were owned and controlled by members of the Centrota
Family; their incorporators and directors all belonged to the Centrota Family. The three (3)
corporations were engaged in the same line of business, under one management, and used the
same equipment including manpower services. Andres Procopio and his co-employees filed a
complaint with the Labor Arbiter against ABC, XYZ Realty and Centrota Construction to hold
them jointly and severally liable for backwages and separation pay. Centrota Construction, Inc.
and XYZ Realty & Development Corporation interposed a Motion to Dismiss contending that they
are juridical entities with distinct and separate personalities from ABC Construction Corporation
and therefore, they cannot be held jointly and severally liable for the money claims of workers
who are not their employees. Rule on the Motion to Dismiss. Should it be granted or denied?
Why? (5%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER: The Motion to Dismiss should be granted. It is very clear that even if
ABC Construction Corporation, Centrota Construction, Inc. and XYZ Realty & Development
Corporation all belong to the Centrota Family and are engaged in the same line of business under
one management and used the same equipment including manpower services, these
corporations were separate juridical entities. Thus, only the ABC Construction Corporation is the
employer of Andres Procopio. The other corporations do not have any employer-employee
relations with Andres Procopio. The case in question does not include any fact that would justify
piercing the veil of corporate fiction of the other corporations in order to protect the rights of
workers. In a case (Concept Builders, Inc. v. NLRC. 257 SCRA 149), the Supreme Court ruled
that it is a fundamental principle of corporation law that a corporation is an entity separate and
distinct from its stockholders and from other corporations to which it may be connected. But this
separate and distinct personality of a corporation is merely a fiction created by law for
convenience and to promote justice. So, when the notion of separate juridical personality is used
to defeat public convenience, justify wrong, protect fraud or defend crime, or is used as a device
to defeat labor laws, this separate personality of the corporation may be disregarded or the veil of
corporate fiction pierced.

ALTERNATIVE ANSWER: Motion to Dismiss should be denied. The Labor Arbiter would be
justified in piercing the corporate veil and in considering that the three (3) corporations are
actually one and the same entity as the employer of Andres Procopio. Based on the facts, the
“three corporations were owned and controlled by members of the same Centrota Family; their
incorporators and directors all belonged to the Centrota Family; and the three (3) corporations
were engaged in the same line of business, under one management, and used the same
equipment including manpower services”. Considering that the facts also show that "the notion of
legal entity is used to defeat public convenience, to justify wrong, protect fraud, or defend crime,
the law, thereupon, will regard all the three corporations as an association of juridical persons,
and will merge them into one entity”.

3. Banco de Laguna and the Mazzipag Janitorial and Pest Control Agency entered into an
Independent Contractor Agreement with the usual stipulations: specifically, the absence of
employer-employee relationship, and the relief from liability clauses. Can the Bank, as a client,
and the Agency, as an independent contractor, stipulate that no employer-employee relationship
exists between the Bank and the employees of the Agency who may be assigned to work in the
Bank? Reason. (2%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER: Yes, they can so stipulate if the relationship is indeed one of Job
contracting. Yet, the stipulation cannot prevail over the facts and the laws. The existence of
employer-employee relationship is determined by the facts and the law and not by stipulation of
the parties. (Insular Life Assurance Co.. Ltd. v. NLRC. 287 SCRA 476 (1998); Tabas v. California
Manufacturing Co. Inc., 169 SCRA 497 (1989)].

1
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER: Yes, they can stipulate provided that the contract of Independent
Contractorship is valid in accordance with Article 106 of the Labor Code.

4. What property right is conferred upon an employee once there is an employer-employee

relationship? Discuss briefly. (2%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER: His employment is not merely a contractual relationship. One's

employment is a property right within the mantle of constitutional protection (Callanta v. Carnation
Phil., No. L-70615, October 28, 1986). Hence, the employee enjoys security of tenure and he
cannot be dismissed except for cause and only after due process. The worker is thus protected
and insulated against any arbitrary deprivation of his job (Philips Semi Conductors [Phils.] v.
Fadriquela, G.R. No. 141717, April 14, 2004).

5. Swiss-Phil Company, Inc., a domestic corporation engaged in the optics business, imported
from Sweden highly sophisticated and sensitive instruments for its laboratory. To install the
instruments and operate them, the company intends to employ Novac Jocovic, a Swedish
technician sojourning as a tourist in the Philippines. As lawyer of the company, what measures
will you take to ensure the legitimate employment of Novac Jocovic and at the same time protect
Philippine labor. Discuss fully. (3%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER: To ensure the legitimate employment of Novac Jocovic, a non-resident

alien, I will apply at the Department of Labor and Employment for the issuance of an Alien
Employment Permit claiming that there is no one in the Philippines who can do the work that
Jocovic is being asked to do. At the same time, to protect Philippine labor, I will see to it that
Jocovic will have an understudy who will learn, by working with Jocovic, how to install and
operate the highly sophisticated and sensitive instruments from Sweden.

6. What are the rights of an employer and an employee?(3%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER: The 1987 Philippine Constitution in Art. XIII, Section 3, provides for the
following rights of employers and employees: Employers have the right to a reasonable return on
investments, and to expansion and growth, while Employees have the right to a just share in the
fruits of production; right to self-organization, collective bargaining and negotiations and peaceful
concerted activities, including the right to strike in accordance with law; right to security of tenure,
humane conditions of work, and a living wage; and to participate in policy and decision-making
processes affecting their rights and benefits as may be provided by law.

ALTERNATIVE ANSWER: In an employer-employee relationship, it is the right of the employer

to use the services of an employee who is under his (employer's) orders as regards the
employment. On the other hand, it is the right of the employee to receive compensation for the
services he renders for the employer.

7. At any given time, approximately ninety percent (90%) of the production workforce of a
semiconductor company are females. Seventy-five percent (75%) of the female workers are
married and of child-bearing years. It is imperative that the Company must operate with a
minimum number of absences to meet strict delivery schedules. In view of the very high number
of lost working hours due to absences for family reasons and maternity leaves, the Company
adopted a policy that it will employ married women as production workers only if they are at least
thirty-five (35) years of age. Is the policy violative of any law? [3%]

SUGGESTED ANSWER: Yes, it is violative of Article 138 (formerly Article 140) of the Labor
Code which provides that no employer shall discriminate against any person in respect to terms
and conditions of employment on account of his or her age.

ANOTHER SUGGESTED ANSWER: The policy of the company to employ married women as
production workers only if they are at least thirty-five (35) years of age is valid. There is no
prohibition in the Labor Code for such an employer to exercise this management function. There
is a justifiable basis for the company policy, i.e., the need for continuity of production with
minimum absences because of the peculiar business conditions and needs of the company, i.e.,
very tight delivery schedules. The company respects the institution of marriage as shown by the
fact that it employs married women. There is no violation of the stipulation against marriage (Art.
134, formerly Article 136), and prohibited acts (Art. 135, formerly Article 137) of the Labor Code.

STILL ANOTHER SUGGESTED ANSWER: It may be noted that the policy is directed only to
married women. This may violate the spirit of Article 134 of the Labor Code which provides that it
shall be unlawful for an employer to require as a condition of employment or continuation of
employment that a woman shall not get married.

8. Montevista View Hotel has an existing Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) with the
union of rank-and-file employees consisting, among others, of bartenders, waiters, roomboys,
housemen and stewards. During the lifetime of the CBA, Montevista View Hotel, for reasons of
economy and efficiency, decided to abolish the position of housemen and stewards who do the
cleaning of the hotel's public areas. Over the protest of the Union, the Hotel contracted out the
aforementioned job to the Super Service Janitorial Company, a bonafide independent contractor
which has a substantial capital in the form of Janitorial tools, equipment, machineries, and
competent manpower. Is the action of the Montevista View Hotel legal and valid? (3%)

2
SUGGESTED ANSWER: The action of Montevista View Hotel is legal and valid. The valid
exercise of management prerogative, discretion and judgment encompasses all aspects of
employment, including hiring, giving of work assignments, working methods, time, place and
manner of work, tools to be used, processes to be followed, supervision of workers, working
regulations, transfer of employees, work supervision, lay-off of workers, and the discipline,
dismissal and recall of workers, except as provided for, or limited by special laws. Company
policies and regulations are, unless shown to be grossly oppressive or contrary to law, generally
binding and valid on the parties and must be complied with until finally revised or amended
unilaterally or preferably through negotiation or by competent authority. (San Miguel Corporation
vs. Reynaldo R. Ubaldo and Emmanuel Noel A. Cruz, Chairman and Member respectively of the
Voluntary Arbitration Panel, et al G.R No. 92859, 1 February 1993. J. Campos, Jr., 218 SCRA
293).

ALTERNATIVE ANSWER: a) The action of the Montevista View Hotel is legal and valid.
CONTRACTING OUT SERVICES or functions being performed by union members is not illegal
per se. In fact, it is the prerogative of management to adopt cost-saving measures to ensure
economy and efficiency. Contracting out of services or functions being performed by Union
members becomes illegal only when it interferes with, restrains, or coerces employees in the
exercise of their right to self-organization. b) The action of Montevista View Hotel would, at first
glance, appear to be an unfair labor practice under Article 258(c), e.g.. "to contract out services or
functions being performed by union members if such will interfere with, restrain or coerce
employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization." Considering, however, that in the
instant case, there is no showing that the contracting out of services would violate the
employees’ right to self-organization, it is submitted that the hotel's action is a valid exercise of its
management prerogatives and the right to make business judgments in accordance with law.

9. Laguna Medical Hospital (LMH) entered into a Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) with
its Union, wherein it is expressly stipulated in the Management Prerogative Clause that LMH
shall, in the exercise of its management prerogatives, have the sole and exclusive right to
promulgate, amend and modify rules and regulations for the employees within the bargaining unit.
A year after the contract was signed, LMH issued its Revised Rules and Regulations and
furnished a copy thereof to the Union for dissemination to all employees covered by the CBA. The
Union wrote LMH demanding that the Revised Rules and Regulations be first discussed with
them before its implementation. LMH refused. So, the Union filed an action for unfair labor
practice (ULP) against LMH. 1. Is the Union correct? 2. Assuming that the CBA was signed "or
executed before the 1987 Constitution was ratified, would your answer to the preceding question
be different? (3%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER: 1) The Union is correct. A provision in the collective bargaining

agreement concerning management prerogatives, may not be interpreted as cession of the
employees’ right to participate in the deliberation of matters which may affect their right and the
formulation of policies relative thereto, such as the formulation of a Code of Discipline. A line
must be drawn between management prerogatives regarding business operations per se and
those which affect the rights of the employees, and in treating the latter, management should see
to it that its employees are at least properly informed of its decisions or modes of action. The
attainment of a harmonious labor management relationship and the existing state policy of
enlightening workers concerning their rights as employees demand no less than the observance
of transparency in managerial moves affecting employees' rights. [Philippine Airlines, Inc. vs.
National Labor Relations Commission, et al, G.R No. 85985, 13 August 1993. J. Melo. 225 SCRA
258, 301.)
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER: a) The Union is correct. Workers have the right to participate in policy
and decision-making processes affecting their rights, benefits and welfare. (Art. 266, formerly
Article 255). b) Yes. The Union is correct in asking for discussion of the revised rules prior to their
effectivity. The reason is Art. XIII, Sec. 3 of the 1987 Constitution, allowing workers the right to
participate in policy and decision-making on matters related to their welfare and benefits. The
Union's remedy however should not be to file a ULP case but to initiate a GRIEVANCE
proceeding, and if unresolved, submit the matter to voluntary arbitration.

SUGGESTED ANSWER: 2) The answer would be the same even if the CBA was signed or
executed before the ratification of the 1987 Constitution because it has always been the policy of
the State to promote the enlightenment of workers concerning their rights and obligations as
employees. (PAL vs. NLRC, GR 85985, August 13, 1993)

10. Distinguish between "job contracting" and "labor only contracting." (3%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER: When a person, not being an employer, contracts with an independent
contractor for the performance of any work, task, job or project, there is "JOB CONTRACTING."
When the independent contractor does the work that is contracted out, he is not under the control
of the person who contracted out the work to be done. In "LABOR-ONLY CONTRACTING", a
person supplies workers to an employer. Said person does not have substantial capital or
investments in the form of tools, equipment, machineries, work premises, among others, and the
workers recruited and placed by such person are performing activities related to the principal
business of the employer to whom the workers are supplied.

11. Distinguish clearly but briefly between Consent election and Certification election. (3%)

3
SUGGESTED ANSWER: A certification election and a consent election are both elections held to
determine through secret ballot the sole and exclusive representative of the employees in an
appropriate bargaining unit for the purpose of collective bargaining or negotiations. There is this
difference, however: a CERTIFICATION ELECTION is ordered by the Department of Labor and
Employment while a CONSENT ELECTION is voluntarily agreed upon by the parties, with or
without the intervention of the Department of Labor and Employment.

12. A supervisor's union filed a petition for certification election to determine the exclusive
bargaining representative of the supervisory employees of Progressive Bank. Included in the list
of supervisory employees attached to the petition are the Department Managers, Branch
Managers, Cashiers and Comptrollers. Progressive Bank questioned this list arguing that
Department Managers, Branch Managers, Cashiers and Comptrollers inherently possess the
powers enumerated in Art. 219, par. (m), of the Labor Code, i.e., the power and prerogative to lay
down and execute management policies and/or to hire, transfer, suspend, lay-off, recall,
discharge, assign or discipline employees. 1) Is the contention of Progressive Bank correct?
Discuss fully. (3%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER: The contention of the Progressive Bank is not correct, if, on
examination of the actual powers exercised by the Department Managers, Bank Managers,
Cashiers and Comptrollers, they are not vested with powers or prerogatives to lay down and
execute management policies or to hire, transfer, suspend, lay-off, recall, discharge, assign or
discipline employees. But this may be noted: The Bank officials mentioned in the case, have
control, custody and/or access to confidential matters. Thus, they are confidential employees and
in accordance with earlier Supreme Court decisions, as confidential employees, the Branch
Manager, Cashier, and Controller are disqualified from joining or assisting the supervisor's union
of the Bank.

ALTERNATIVE ANSWER: The contention of the Progressive Bank is partially correct. The
Department managers and Branch managers, if they in fact have the powers implied by their
titles, are managerial personnel. In accordance with the Labor Code, managerial personnel are
not eligible to join and form labor unions. On the other hand, cashiers who are in charge of money
received or expended, and comptrollers who examine and supervise expenditures, are not
managerial personnel, and if they supervise personnel, they could be supervisors, and are
therefore to be included in the bargaining unit of supervisors.

13. Is a corporation, seventy percent (70%) of the authorized and voting capital of which is
owned and controlled by Filipino citizens, allowed to engage in the recruitment and placement of
workers, locally or overseas? Explain briefly. (3%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER: No. A corporation, seventy percent (70%) of the authorized and voting
capital stock of which is owned and controlled by Filipino citizens cannot be permitted to
participate in the recruitment and placement of workers, locally or overseas, because Article 27 of
the Labor Code requires at least seventy five percent (75%).

14. Worldwide Travel and Tours Agency (WTTA) is a well-known travel agency and an
authorized sales agent of the Philippine Air Lines. Since majority of its passengers are overseas
workers, WTTA applied for a license for recruitment and placement activities. It stated in its
application that its purpose is not for profit but to help Filipinos find employment abroad. Should
the application be approved? (3%)

ALTERNATIVE ANSWER: The application should be disapproved, as it is prohibited by Article

26 of the Labor Code, to wit: "Article 26. Travel agencies and sales agencies of airline companies
are prohibited from engaging in the business of recruitment and placement of workers for
overseas employment whether for profit or not”. Rule I, Part II, POEA Rules and Regulations
Governing the Recruitment and Employment of Land-Based Workers disqualifies any entity
having common directors or owners of travel agencies and sales agencies of airlines, including
any business entity, from the recruitment and placement of Filipino workers overseas, whether
they derive profit or not.

ALTERNATIVE ANSWER: No. Section 6 of RA No. 8042 considers the following act as illegal
recruitment: "(j) For an officer or agent of a recruitment agency to become an officer or member of
the Board of any corporation engaged in travel agency or to engage directly or indirectly in the
management of a travel agency."

15. Paulo Pascual, a salesman of Medico Chemical Company (MEDICO), was reported to have
committed some serious anomalies in his sale and distribution of company products. MEDICO
designated its Chief Legal Officer to investigate Paulo. Instead of submitting to the investigation,
Paulo filed a petition to enjoin the investigation on the ground that MEDICO would appear to be
his accuser, prosecutor and judge at the same time. Will the petition to enjoin the investigation
prosper? Discuss fully. (2%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER: The petition to enjoin the investigation will not prosper. It is inevitable
that in disciplinary cases, the employer would appear to be accuser, prosecutor, and judge at the
same time since it is the employer who charges an employee for the commission of an offense.
He is also the person who directs the investigation to determine whether the charge against the
employee is true or not and he is the one who will judge if the employee is to be penalized or not.

4
But if the employee is given ample opportunity to defend himself, he could not enjoin the
employer from conducting such investigation.

16. What are the objectives of the Secretary of Labor and Employment in certifying a labor
dispute to the NLRC for compulsory arbitration? Explain. (3%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER: The objectives of the Secretary of Labor and Employment in certifying
a labor dispute to the NLRC for compulsory arbitration is to prevent a work stoppage that may
adversely affect the national interest and to see to it that a labor dispute is expeditiously settled.

17. When is there a wage distortion? (3%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER: A WAGE DISTORTION arises when an increase in prescribed wage

rates results in the elimination or severe contraction of intentional quantitative differences in wage
or salary rates between and among employee groups in an establishment as to effectively
obliterate the distinctions embodied in such wage structure based on skills, length of service, or
other logical bases of differentiation (Article 124, Labor Code of the Philippines).

ALTERNATIVE ANSWER: There is wage distortion when the following four elements concur: a)
An existing hierarchy of positions with corresponding salary rates; b) A significant change in the
salary rate of a lower pay class without a concomitant increase in the salary rate of a higher one;
c) The elimination of the distinction between the two levels; and d) The existence of the distortion
in the same region of the country.

18. How should a wage distortion be settled? (3%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER: In organized establishments, the wage distortion shall be resolved

through the GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE under their collective bargaining agreement, and if it
remains unresolved, through VOLUNTARY ARBITRATION. On the other hand, in establishments
where there are no collective bargaining agreements or recognized labor unions, the employers
and workers shall endeavor to correct such distortion. Any dispute arising therefrom shall be
settled through the National Conciliation and Mediation Board, and if it remains unresolved after
ten (10) calendar days of conciliation, shall be referred to the appropriate branch of the National
Labor Relations Commission for COMPULSORY ARBITRATION (Article 124, Labor Code of the
Philippines).

19. Can the issue of wage distortion be raised in a notice of strike? Explain. (3%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER: No. Section 16, Chapter I of Rules Implementing RA 6727 provides
that "Any dispute involving wage distortions shall not be a ground for strike/lockout." Article 124 of
the Labor Code, as amended by Republic Act 6727 prescribes a procedure for the correction of a
wage distortion, implicitly excluding strikes or lockouts or other concerted activities as modes of
settlement of the issue. The legislative intent that wage distortion shall be solved by voluntary
negotiation or arbitration is made clear in the rules (Ilaw at Buklod ng Manggagawa v. NLRC,
G.R. No. 91980, June 27, 1991).

20. A Division Manager of a company taunted a union officer two days after the union submitted
to the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) the result of the strike vote. The division
manager said: The union threat of an unfair labor practice strike is phony or a bluff. Not even ten
percent (10%) of your members will join the strike." To prove union member support for the strike,
the union officer immediately instructed its members to cease working and walk out. Two hours
after the walkout, the workers voluntarily returned to work. A) Was the walkout a strike? And if so,
was it a valid activity? B) Can the union officer who led the short walkout, but who likewise
voluntarily led the workers back to work, be disciplined by the employer?(5%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER: a) Yes, it was a strike because there was a work stoppage by
concerted action and there is an existing labor dispute. It was not a valid activity because the
requisites for a valid strike were not observed, (Art. 219, (o), Labor Code) b) Yes, the employer
may discipline the union officer. An illegal strike is a cause for the union officer to be declared to
have lost his employment status. [Art 277 (c), (d),(e), (f); Art 278 (a), Labor Code].

21. If due to the prolonged strike, WONDERLAND Corporation hired replacements, can it refuse
to re-admit back the replaced strikers? (3%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER: No. While present law recognizes the right of the employer to continue
his business in the course of an economic strike, it assures the right of the strikers to return to
their former positions at the expense of the replacements. Art. 278(a) of the Labor Code provides
that mere participation of a worker in a lawful strike shall not constitute sufficient ground for
termination of his employment, even if a replacement had been hired by the employer during
such lawful strike (PT&T v. NLRC, G.R. No. 109281, December 7, 1995; Diwa ng Pagkakaisa v.
Filtex International Corporation, Nos. L-23960 & L-23961, February 26, 1968).

22. The Secretary of Labor assumed jurisdiction over a strike under Art. 277(g) of the Labor
Code and issued a return-to-work order. The Union defied the return-to-work order and continued
the strike. The Company proceeded to declare all those who participated in the strike as having
lost their employment status. 1) Was the Company's action valid? 2) Was the Company still duty

5
bound to observe the requirements of due process before declaring those who participated in the
strike as having lost their employment status? (5%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER: 1) The Company's action is valid. Any declaration of a strike after the
Secretary of Labor has assumed jurisdiction over a labor dispute is considered an illegal act, and
any worker or union officer who knowingly participates in a strike defying a return-to-work order
may consequently be declared to have lost his employment status and forfeited his right to be
readmitted, having abandoned his position, and so could be validly replaced. The moment a
worker defies a return-to-work order, he is deemed to have abandoned his job, as it is already in
itself considered as knowingly participating in an illegal act, otherwise the worker will simply
refuse to return to his work and thereby cause a standstill in company operations. (St.
Scholastica's College vs. Hon. Ruben Torres, Secretary of Labor, etal., G.R. No. 100158. 29 June
1992.)

ANOTHER SUGGESTED ANSWER: 2) Considering that the workers who defied the return-to-
work order are deemed to have abandoned their employment, the only obligation required of an
employer is to serve notices declaring them to have lost their employment status at the worker's
last known address. (Sec. 2 Rule XIV, Book V, Rules Implementing the Labor Code)

23. Soledad Banal is a clerk-typist in the Hospicio de San Jose, a charitable institution
dependent for its existence on voluntary contributions and donations from well wishers and
benefactors. She renders work eleven (11) hours a day but has not been given overtime pay
since her place of work is a charitable institution. Is Socorro entitled to overtime pay? Explain
briefly. (3%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER: Yes. Soledad Banal is entitled to overtime compensation. She does not
fall under any of the exceptions to the coverage of Art. 82, under the provisions of Hours of Work.
The Labor Code is equally applicable to non-profit institutions. A covered employee who works
beyond eight (8) hours is entitled to overtime compensation.

24. 1) Distinguish between the substantive and the procedural requirements for the dismissal of
an employee. (3%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER: 1) This is the SUBSTANTIVE REQUIREMENT for the valid dismissal of
an employee: there should be a just cause for the termination of an employee or that the
termination is authorized by law. This is the PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENT: The employer
should furnish the employee whose employment is sought to be terminated a written notice
containing a statement of the causes for termination and the employer should afford the
employee to be terminated ample opportunity to be heard and to defend himself with the
assistance of his representative if he so desires. (Arts. 291 (b), 292, and 293, Labor Code)

25. During their probationary employment, ten (10) employees were berated and insulted by
their supervisor. In protest, they walked out. The supervisor shouted at them to go home and
never to report back to work. Later, the personnel manager required them to explain why they
should not be dismissed from employment for abandonment and failure to qualify for the positions
applied for. They filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against their employer. As a Labor Arbiter,
how will you resolve the case? (5%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER: As a Labor Arbiter, I will resolve the case in favor of the ten (10)
probationary employees due to the following considerations: 1) Probationary employees also
enjoy security of tenure (Biboso v. Victoria Milling, G.R. No. L- 44360, March 31, 1977). 2) In all
cases involving employees on probationary status, the employer shall make known to the
employee at the time he is hired, the standards by which he will qualify for the position applied
for. 3) The filing of the complaint for illegal dismissal effectively negates the employer's theory of
abandonment (Rizada v. NLRC, G.R. No. 96982, September 21, 1999). 4) The order to “go home
and not to return to work” constitutes dismissal from employment. 5) The ten (10) probationary
employees were terminated without just cause and without due process. In view of the foregoing,
I will order reinstatement to their former positions without loss of seniority rights with full
backwages, plus damages and attorney fees.

26. SPO4 Oscar Ubayalde, a policeman, was on leave for a month. While resting in their house,
he heard two of his neighbors fighting with each other. Ubayalde rushed to the scene intending to
pacify the protagonists. However, he was shot to death by one of the protagonists. Eufemia, a
housemaid, was Ubayalde’s surviving spouse whom he had abandoned for another woman years
back. When she learned of Ubayalde’s death, Eufemia filed a claim with the GSIS for death
benefits. However, her claim was denied because: (a) when Ubayalde was killed, he was on
leave; and (b) she was not the dependent spouse of Ubayalde when he died. Resolve with
reasons whether GSIS is correct in denying the claim. (5%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER: Yes, GSIS is correct in denying the claim, because under the law, a
dependent is one who is a legitimate spouse living with the employee. (Article 173[i], Labor Code)
In the problem given, Eufemia had been abandoned by Ubayalde who was then living already
with another woman at the time of his death.Moreover, Ubayalde was on leave when he was
killed. The 24-hour duty rule does not apply when the policeman is on vacation leave.
(Employees' Compensation Commission v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 121545, November 14,
1996) Taking together jurisprudence and the pertinent guidelines of the ECC with respect to
claims for death benefits, namely: (a) that the employee must be at the place where his work

6
requires him to be; (b) that the employee must have been performing his official functions; and (c)
that if the injury is sustained elsewhere, the employee must have been executing an order for the
employer, it is not difficult to understand then why Eufemia's claim was denied by the GSIS.
(Tancinco v. Government Service Insurance System, G.R. No. 132916, November 16, 2001) In
the present case, Ubayalde was resting at his house when the incident happened; thus, he was
not at the place where his work required him to be. Although at the time of his death Ubayalde
was performing a police function, it cannot be said that his death occurred elsewhere other than
the place where he was supposed to be because he was executing an order for his employer.

27. Ms. Clara Mahinhin is an unwed mother with three children from three different fathers. In
2017, she became a member of the Social Security System. In August 2019, she suffered a
miscarriage, also out of wedlock, and again by a different father. Can Ms. Mahinhin claim
maternity benefits under the Social Security Law? Reason. (3%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER: Yes, she can claim maternity benefit. Entitlement thereto is not
dependent on the claimant's being legally married. (Sec. 14-A, Social Security Act of 1997).

28. How many times may a male employee go on Paternity Leave? Can he avail himself of this
benefit, for example, fifty (50) days after the first delivery by his wife? (3%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER: A male employee may go on Paternity Leave up to four (4) children
(Sec. 2, RA 8187). On the question of whether or not he can avail himself of this benefit fifty (50)
days after the delivery of his wife, the answer is: Yes, he can because the Rules Implementing
the Paternity Leave Act says that the availment should not be later than 60 days after the date of
delivery.

29. The Collective Bargaining Agreement of the Majestic Corporation Inc. and the Majestic
Corporation Workers Union provides a package of welfare benefits far superior in comparison
with those provided for in the Social Security Act of 1997. The welfare plan of the company is
funded solely by the employer with no contributions from the employees. Admittedly, it is the best
welfare plan in the Philippines. The company and the union jointly filed a petition with the Social
Security System for exemption from coverage. Will the petition for exemption from coverage
prosper? Reason. (5%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER: No, because coverage under the SSS is compulsory where employer-
employee relations exist. However, if the private plan is superior to that of the SSS, the plan may
be integrated with the SSS plan. Still, it is integration and not exemption from SSS law.
(Philippine Blooming Mills Co., Inc. v. Social Security System, 17 SCRA 107(1966); RA. No. 1161
as amended by RA No. 8282}.

30. What is the extent of an employer's intervention in the compensation process and the
payment of benefits to employees under the State Insurance Fund? Explain. (3%)
.
SUGGESTED ANSWER: The new law establishes a State Insurance Fund built up by the
contributions of employers based on the salaries of their employees. The employer does not
intervene in the compensation process and it has no control over the payment of benefits. Unlike
in the previous regime under the Workmen's Compensation Act, employers are now no longer
directly liable for the income and medical and related benefits that are to be paid to covered
employees if they should suffer from work-connected injury or sickness or death. The payment of
employees compensation comes from the State Insurance Fund which is constituted from the
contributions collected from employers.