URDANETA CITY UNIVERSITY
ACTIVITY # 2: LABOR STANDARDS
(By: Atty. Herbert C. Navarro)
INSTRUCTIONS: Answer the following QUESTIONS AND DIGEST THE LISTED
CASES. You will be graded according to legal application (20%), presentation (10%),
grammar (20%), and logical answers and/or digest (50%). Observe proper margin and
single strike erasures. Quizzes and digested cases should be handwritten in
composition notebooks and record books respectively. Once done, take clear (per page)
photographs of your work and submit via direct message through a single set of
attachment. The activity should be accomplished for three (3) hours maximum and no
submissions will be accepted later than 9:00 PM. Deductions will be made in
accordance with the stated percentage and failure to comply with the foregoing
instructions.
1. Fully distinguish between apprentices and learners base on the following
criteria:
A. As to Contents of the Agreement (10%)
B. As to Duration (2.5%)
C. As to necessity for Theoretical Instructions (2.5%)
D. As to Commitment to hire (2.5%)
E. As to the Focus of Training (2.5%)
F. As to DOLE approval (2.5%)
G. As to exhaustion of Administrative remedies (2.5%)
II
During the 15th day of his employment as an apprentice, Pedro was dismissed
due to false charges of malicious destruction of company property fabricated by the
employer himself. Is his dismissal legal? (5%)
III
After working for three months as an apprentice, Pedro had a quarrel with his
wife and this resulted in their separation. Since he could not concentrate on his work,
he terminated the apprenticeship agreement. Is Pedro liable for damages? (5%)
IV
In order to minimize immorality among its female employees, a call center
agency lays down a rule that any unmarried female employee who gets pregnant shall
be dismissed.
A. Is this rule valid? Why? (5%)
B. Will your answer remain the same if the line of business where the company
is involved is the manufacturing of contraceptives? Why? (5%)
V
Gracia was hired as a cashier on a probationary basis by Roheim Corporation.
In her job application form, she indicated that she was single although she had
contracted marriage a few months earlier. As Roheim Incorporated had a policy of not
hiring married women, Gracia was dismissed, just as she was about to complete her
probationary employment due to dishonesty in concealing her true marital status.
A. Is the dismissal of Gracia lawful? Explain fully. (5%)
B. Would your answer remain the same if what Gracia concealed was not her
marriage status but the fact that she was previously convicted of estafa?
Why? (5%)
VI
Your favorite relative, Tita Nilda, approaches you and seeks your advice on her
treatment of her kasambahay, Noray. Tita Nilda shows you a document called a
"Contract of Engagement" for your review. Under the Contract of Engagement, Noray
shall be entitled to a rest day every week, provided that she may be requested to work
on a rest day if Tita Nilda should need her services that day. Tita Nilda also claims
that this Contract of Engagement should embody all terms and conditions of Noray's
work as the engagement of a kasambahay is a private matter and should not be
regulated by the State.
A. Is Tita Nilda correct in saying that this is a private matter and should not be
regulated by the State? (5%)
B. Is the stipulation that she may be requested to work on a rest day legal?
(5%)
C. Are stay-in family drivers included under the Kasambahay Law? (5%)
VII
Nena worked as an Executive Assistant for Nesting, CEO of Now Corporation.
One day, Nesting called Nena into his office and showed her lewd pictures of women in
seductive poses which Nena found offensive. Nena complained before the General
Manager who, in turn, investigated the matter and recommended the dismissal of
Nesting to the Board of Directors. Before the Board of Directors, Nesting argued, that-
since the Anti- Sexual Harassment Law requires the existence of “sexual favors,” he
should not be dismissed from the service since he did not ask for any-sexual favor
from Nena. Is Nesting correct? (5%)
VIII
Digest the following cases:
Atlanta, Inc. vs. Sebolino, et. al. G.R. No. 187320, January 26, 2011 (10%)
Atienza vs. Saluta, G.R. No. 233413, June 17, 2019 (10%)
Duncan Association v. Glaxo Inc., G.R. No. 162994, September 17, 2004 (10%)
