I
Narciso filed a complaint against Norte University for the
payment of retirement benefits after having been a part-time professional
lecturer in the same school since 1974. Narciso taught for two semesters and a
summer term for the school year 1975, took a leave of absence from 1975 to
1977, and resumed teaching until 2003. Since then, his contract has been
renewed at the start of every semester and summer, until November 2005 when he
was told that he could no longer teach because he was already 75 years old.
Norte University also denied Narciso’s claim for retirement benefits stating
that only full-time permanent faculty, who have served for at least five years
immediately preceding the termination of their employment, can avail themselves
of post-employment benefits. As part-time faculty member, Narciso did not
acquire permanent employment status under the Manual of Regulations for Private
Schools, in relation to the Labor Code, regardless of his length service.
(a) Is Narciso entitled to retirement benefits? (2.5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes, Narciso is entitled to retirement benefits. A
part-time lecturer, with a fixed-term employment, who did not attain permanent
status, is entitled to retirement pay. This was ruled by the Supreme Court in
De La Salle Araneta University v. Bernardo, G. R. No. 190809, February 13, 2017
as follows: Republic Act No. 7641 states that "any employee may be retired
upon reaching the retirement age x x x;" and "[i]n case of retirement,
the employee shall be entitled to receive such retirement benefits as he may
have earned under existing laws and any collective bargaining agreement and
other agreements." The Implementing Rules provide that Republic Act No.
7641 applies to "all employees in the private sector, regardless of their
position, designation or status and irrespective of the method by which their
wages are paid, except to those specifically exempted x x x." And
Secretary Quisumbing' s Labor Advisory further clarifies that the employees
covered by Republic Act No. 7641 shall "include part-time employees,
employees of service and other job contractors and domestic helpers or persons
in the personal service of another."
(b) If he is entitled to retirement benefits, how should
retirement pay be computed in the absence of any contract between him and Norte
University providing for such benefits? (2.5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The retirement will be 22.5 days salary, exclusive of leave
conversion benefits. According to
Capitol Wireless, Inc. v. Honorable Secretary Ma. Nieves R. Confessor, G.R. No.
117174, November 13,1996:
For purposes of computing compulsory sand optional
retirement benefits and to align the current retirement plan with the minimum
standards of Art. 287 of the Labor Code, as amended by R.A. 7641, and Sec. 5
(5.2) of its implementing rules, “1/2 month salary” means 22.5 days salary,
exclusive of leave conversion benefits.
xxx xxx xxx
Unless the parties provide for broader inclusions, the term
‘one-half (1/2) month salary’ shall mean fifteen (15) days plus one-twelfth
(1/12) of the 13th month pay and the cash equivalent of not more than five (5)
days of service incentive leaves x x x x (italics supplied).
II
Nayon Federation issued a charter certificate creating a
rank-and-file Neuman Employees Union. On the same day, New Neuman Employees
filed a petition for certification election with the Department of Labor and
Employment (DOLE) Regional Office, attaching the appropriate charter
certificate.
a) The employer, Neuman Corporation, filed a motion to
dismiss the petition for lack of legal personality on the part of the
petitioner union. Should the motion be granted? (2.5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The motion should be denied. For purposes of filing a
petition for certification election, New Neuman Employees has legal personality from the time it was
issued with a charter certificate. This clear under the Labor Code, which provides, The chapter shall acquire
legal personality only for purposes of filing a petition for certification
election from the date it was issued a charter certificate. (Article 241
[234-A], As inserted by Section 2, Republic Act No. 9481 which lapsed into law
on May 25, 2007 and became effective on June 14, 2007) b) The employer likewise
filed a petition for cancellation of union registration against New Neuman
Employees Union, alleging that Nayon Federation already had a chartered local
rank-and-file union, Neuman Employees Union, pertaining to the same bargaining
unit within the establishment. Should the petition for cancellation prosper?
(2.5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Under Article 247 of the Labor Code, the following are the
relevant grounds for cancellation of union registration:
(a) Misrepresentation, false statement or fraud in
connection with the adoption or ratification of the constitution and by-laws or
amendments thereto, the minutes of ratification, and the list of members who
took part in the ratification;
(b) Misrepresentation, false statements or fraud in
connection with the election of officers, minutes of the election of officers,
and the list of voters;
(c) Voluntary dissolution by the members.
Unless the employer can prove that any of the foregoing
grounds are present the petition for cancellation will not prosper.
III
Due to his employer’s dire financial situation, Nicanor was
prevailed upon by his employer to voluntarily resign. In exchange, he demanded
payment of salary differentials, 13th month pay, and financial assistance, as
promised by his
employer. Management promised to pay him as soon as it is able to pay off all
retrenched rank-and-file employees. Five years later, and before management was
able to pay Nicanor the amount promised to him, Nicanor died of a heart attack.
His widow, Norie, filed a money claim against the company before the National
Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), including interest on the amount of the
unpaid claim. She also claimed additional damages arguing that the supposed
resignation letter was obtained from her spouse through undue pressure and
influence. The employer filed a motion to dismiss on the ground that (A) the
NLRC did not have jurisdiction over money claims, and (B) the action has
prescribed.
(a) Does the NLRC have jurisdiction to award money claims including
interest on the amount unpaid? (2.5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Jurisdiction will depend on the amount being claimed by
Nicanor’s surviving spouse. If the amount exceeds Five Thousand Pesos
(PhP5,000.00) as provided in Article 224 (a [6]) of the Labor Code then
jurisdiction belongs to the Arbitration Branch of the NLRC. However, if the amount did not exceed Five
Thousand Pesos (PhP5,000.00) and then jurisdiction belongs to the Regional
Director under Article 129 of the Labor Code involving recovery of wages,
simple money claims and other benefits.
Either of the said quasi-judicial body can award interest in the concept of actual and
compensatory damages in accordance. The award of interest in money claim was
explained in Limlingan v. Asian Institute Management, Inc., G.R. No. 220481,
February 17, 2016, that the rate of interest in the concept of actual and
compensatory damages as well as its accrual are as follows:
1. When the obligation is breached, and it consists in the
payment of a sum of money, i.e., a loan or forbearance of money, the interest
due should be that which may have been stipulated in writing. Furthermore, the
interest due shall itself earn legal interest from the time it is judicially
demanded. In the absence of stipulation, the rate of interest shall be 6% per
annum to be computed from default, i.e., from judicial or extrajudicial demand
under and subject to the provisions of Article 1169 of the Civil Code.
2. When an obligation, not constituting a loan or
forbearance of money, is breached, an interest on the amount of damages awarded
may be imposed at the discretion of the court at the rate of 6% per annum. No
interest, however, shall be adjudged on unliquidated claims or damages, except
when or until the demand can be established with reasonable certainty.
Accordingly, where the demand is established with reasonable certainty, the
interest shall begin to run from the time the claim is made judicially or
extrajudicially (Art. 1169, Civil Code), but when such certainty cannot be so
reasonably established at the time the demand is made, the interest shall begin
to run only from the date the judgment of the court is made (at which time the
quantification of damages may be deemed to have been reasonably ascertained).
The actual base for the computation of legal interest shall, in any case, be on
the amount finally adjudged.
3. When the judgment of the court awarding a sum of money
becomes final and executory, the rate of legal interest, whether the case falls
under paragraph 1 or paragraph 2, above, shall be 6% per annum from such
finality until its satisfaction, this interim period being deemed to be by then
an equivalent to a forbearance of credit.(b) Assuming that the NLRC has
jurisdiction, has the action prescribed? (2.5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The action has not prescribed. This is because Nicanor’s
surviving spouse’s cause of action will accrue upon the categorical denial of
the claim. In this case, there was demand for its payment, however, the
management had promsied to pay as soon as it is able to pay off all retrenched
rank-and-file employees. However, it is was only after five (5) years that the
management was able to pay. Moreover, there was no denial of the claim.
Therefore, prescription did not set in. In the Degamo v. Avantgarde Shipping
Corp., G.R. No. 154460, November 22, 2005 and Serrano v. Court of Appeals, G.R.
No. 139420, August 15, 2001, following cases, the Supreme Court explained the
accrual of a cause of action under Article 306 [291].(c)
May Nicanor’s spouse successfully claim additional damages
as a result of the alleged undue pressure and influence? (2.5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes, Nicanor’s spouse can successfully claim additional
damages as a result of the alleged undue pressure and influence. This is
provided under Article 224 (a [4] of the Labor Code which provides for claims
for actual, moral, exemplary and other forms of damages arising from
employer-employee relationship within the jurisdictional authority of the
Arbitration Branch of the NLRC.
In the alternative, it can be argued that Nicanor’s spouse
cannot successfully claim additional damages because it is the jurisdictional
authority of the Arbitration Branch of the NLRC. The employer-employee
relationship is only incidental and the cause of action arises from other
sources like torts and damages. Therefore, jurisdiction belongs to the regular
courts.
IV
Natasha Shoe Company adopted an organizational streamlining
program that resulted in the retrenchment of 550 employees in its main plant.
After having been paid their separation benefits, the retrenched workers
demanded payment of retirement benefits under a CBA between their union and
management Natasha Shoe Company denied the workers’ demand.
(a) What is the most procedurally peaceful means to resolve
this dispute? (2.5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Since this is a money claim involving the interpretation
and implementation of the CBA, the
retrenched workers can refer the matter to the grievance machinery and
if it remained unresolved within seven (7) days from the date of its submission
the same shall be automatically referred to the voluntary arbitration
prescribed in the CBA.
In the alternative it can be argued, that since this is a
dispute between the retrenched workers and the employer the same cannot be a
subject matter of grievance and voluntary arbitration. This is because only
disputes between the union and the company as ruled in Tabique v. International
Copra Export Corporation, G. R. No.
183335, December 23, 2009, shall be referred to grievance machinery or voluntary
arbitrators. Thus, the dispute should be resolved by way of mandatory
conciliation-mediation in accordance with Article 234 of the Labor Code.
(b) Can the workers claim both separation pay and
retirement benefits. (2.5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes, the workers can claim both separation pay and
retirement benefits. This was settled
rule in the case of Goodyear v. Marina Angus, G.R. No. 185499, 14 November 2014
where it was ruled that in the absence of an express or implied prohibition
against it, collection of both retirement benefits and separation pay upon
severance from employment is allowed. This is grounded on the social justice
policy that doubts should always be resolved in favor of labor rights. (Aquino
v. National Labor Relations Commission, G.R. No. 87653, February 11, 1992)
V
Nelda worked as a chambermaid in Hotel Neverland with a
basic wage of PhP560.00 for an eight-hour workday. On Good Friday, she worked
for one (1) hour from 10:00 PM to 11:00 PM. Her employer paid her only PhP480
for each 8-hour workday, and PhP70.00 for work done on Good Friday. She sued
for underpayment of wages and non-payment of holiday pay and night shit
differential for working on a Good Friday. Hotel Neverland denied the alleged
underpayment, arguing that based on long-standing unwritten tradition, food and
lodging costs were partially shouldered by the employer and partially paid for
by the employee through salary deduction. According to the employer, such valid
deduction caused the payment of Nelda’s wage to be below the prescribed minim
m. The hotel also claimed that she was not entitled to holiday pay and night
shift differential pay hotel workers have to work on holidays and may be be
assigned to work at night.
(a) Does the hotel have valid legal grounds to deduct food
and lodging costs from Nelda's basis salary? (2.5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
As held in Mabeza v. National Labor Relations Commission,
G.R. No. 118506, April 18, 1997: Granting that meals and lodging were provided
and indeed constituted facilities, such facilities could not be deducted
without the employer complying first with certain legal requirements. Without
satisfying these requirements, the employer simply cannot deduct the value from
the employee’s wages. First, proof must be shown that such facilities are
customarily furnished by the trade. Second, the provision of deductible
facilities must be voluntarily accepted in writing by the employee. Finally,
facilities must be charged at fair and reasonable value. (Labor Code, Art. 97
[f])
Applying the above, unless the hotel can comply with the
legal requirements it has no valid
legal grounds to deduct food and lodging costs from Nelda's basis salary.
(b) Applying labor standards law, how much should Nelda be
paid for work done Good Friday? Show the computation in your test booklet and
encircle your final answer. (2.5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
It can be argued:
The rule in order to be paid regular holiday like two
successive holidays provides as follows,
Where there are two (2) successive regular holidays, like Holy Thursday
and Good Friday, an employee may not be paid for both holidays if he absents
himself from work on the day immediately preceding the first holiday, unless he
works on the first holiday, in which case he is entitled to his holiday pay on
the second holiday.(Section 10, Rule IV, Book III, Rules to Implement the Labor
Code)
Applying the above rule, unless Nelda had complied with the
rules on absences she is not entitled for her holiday pay for work done on Good
Friday.
However, on the assumption that she complied with the rules
Nelda should be paid as follows: P560 x
200%=P1,120.00 or since he only worked for one hour the pay should be as
follows: 70 x 200% = P140.00
VI
A certification election was conducted in Nation
Manufacturing Corporation, whereby 55% of eligible voters in the bargaining
unit cast their votes. The results were as follows:
Union Nana : 45 votes
Union Nada : 40
votes
Union Nara : 30 votes
No Union : 80 votes
Union Nana moved to be declared as the winner of the
certification election.
a) Can Union Nana be declared as the winner? (2.5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Union Nana cannot be declared as the winner. This is
because the said union did not obtain the majority of the valid votes casts as
provided under Article 268 of the Labor Code.
b) Assume that the eligibility of 30 voters was challenged
during pre-election conference. The ballots of the 30 challenged voters were
placed inside an envelope sealed by the DOLE Election Office. Considering the
said envelope remains sealed, what should be the next course of action with
respect to the said challenged votes? (2.5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The procedure in the Challenge of Votes provides as
follows:
The ballot of the voter who has been property challenged
during the Pre-Election conferences, shall be placed in an envelope which shall
be sealed by the Election Officer in the presence of the voter and the
representatives of the contending unions. The election Officer shall indicate
on the envelope the voter’s name, the
union challenging the voter, and the ground for the challenged. The sealed
envelope shall then be signed by the
Election Officer and the representatives
of the contending unions. The Election
Officer shall note all challenges in the minutes of the election
proceedings and shall have custody of all envelops containing the challenged
votes. The envelopes shall be opened and the question of eligibility shall be
passed upon by the Mediator-Arbiter only if the number of segregated votes will
materially alter the results of the election. (Section 11, Rule IX, Book V,
Rules to Implement the Labor Code, as amended by Department Order No. 40-F-03,
Series of 2008 and renumbered by Department Order No. 40-I-15, Series of 2015)
Applying the said procedure, if the number of segregated
votes will materially alter the results of the election the next course of
action with respect to the said challenged votes is to open the said envelopes
and the question of eligibility shall be passed upon by the Mediator-Arbiter. VII
Nico is a medical representative engaged in the promotion
of Pharmaceutical products and medical devices for North Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
He regularly visits. physicians' clinics to inform them of the chemical
composition and benefits of his employer's products. A the end of everyday, he
receives a basis wage of PhP700.00 plus a PhP150.00 "productivity
allowance." For purposes of computing Nico's 13th month pay, should the
daily "productivity allowance" be included? (2.5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
For purposes of computing Nico's 13th month pay his daily
"productivity allowance" cannot be included.
In Philippine Spring
Water Resources, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 205278, June 11, 2014,
clarified as to when a commission forms part of basic salary to be considered
in the computation of 13th month pay. The High Court said: It is
well-established in jurisprudence that the determination of whether or not a
commission forms part of the basic salary depends upon the circumstances or
conditions for its payment. In Phil Duplicators, Inc. v. NLRC, G.R. No. 110068,
November 11, 1993, 227 SCRA 747, the Court held that commissions earned by
salesmen form part of their basic salary. The salesmen’s commissions,
comprising a pre-determined percentage of the selling price of the goods sold
by each salesman, were properly included in the term basic salary for purposes
of computing the 13th month pay. The salesmen’s commissions are not overtime
payments, nor profit-sharing payments nor any other fringe benefit, but a
portion of the salary structure which represents an automatic increment to the
monetary value initially assigned to each unit of work rendered by a salesman.
On the other hand, in Boie-Takeda Chemicals, Inc. v. De la Serna, G.R. Nos.
92174 and 102552, December 10, 1993, 228 SCRA 329, the so-called commissions
paid to or received by medical representatives were excluded from the term
basic salary because these were paid to the medical representatives and
rank-and-file employees as productivity bonuses, which were generally tied to
the productivity, or capacity for revenue production, of a corporation and such
bonuses closely resemble profit-sharing payments and had no clear direct or
necessary relation to the amount of work actually done by each individual
employee.
Applying the above rule, the productivity allowance cannot
be included.
NOTE: The foregoing answer can be found in page 492 of the
book entitled Principles and Cases Labor Standards and Social Legislation,
Second Edition 2018. Question involving the same subject matter was given during the 2011 Bar
Examination. An alternative answer can be given by stating that it will depend
as to whether the productivity bonus form part of the salary. In fine, whether
or not the productivity bonus forms part of the basic salary depends upon the
circumstances or conditions for its payment, which indubitably are factual in
nature. If the productivity bonuses were because they were generally tied to
the productivity, or capacity for revenue production it will not form part of
the salary. However, if has a clear direct or necessary relation to the amount
of work actually done by each individual employee then it form part of the
salary. This was the distinction given by the case of Reyes v. NLRC, G.R. No.
160233, August 8, 2007 citing the cases of
Phil Duplicators, Inc. v. NLRC, G.R. No. 110068, November 11, 1993 and
monetary value initially assigned to each unit of work rendered by a salesman.
On the other hand, in Boie-Takeda Chemicals, Inc. v. De la Serna, G.R. Nos.
92174 and 102552, December 10, 1993.
VIII
Nathaniel has been a salesman assigned by Newmark
Enterprises (Newmark) for nearly two years at the Manila office of Nutrition
City, Inc. (Nutrition City). He was deployed pursuant to a service agreement
between Newmark and Nutrition City, the salient provisions of which were as
follows:
a) the Contractor (Newmark) agrees to perform and provide
the Client (Nutrition City), on a non-exclusive basis, such tasks or activities
that are considered contractible under existing laws, as may be needed by the Client
from time to time;
b) the Contractor shall employ the necessary personnel like
helpers, salesmen, and drivers who are determined by the Contractor to be
efficiently trained;
c) the Client may request replacement of the Contractor’s
personnel if quality of the desired result is not achieved;
d) the Contractors personnel will comply with the Client's
policies, rules, and regulations; and
e) the Contractor’s two service vehicles and necessary
equipment will be utilized in carrying out the provisions of this Agreement.
When Newmark fired Nathaniel, he filed an illegal dismissal
case against the wealthier company, Nutrition City, Inc., alleging that he was
a regular employee of the same. Is Nathaniel correct? (2.5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Nathaniel is correct in so far as the existence of
employer-employee relationship between him and the principal.
The rules requires that the Service Agreement between the
principal and the contractor shall include the following:
i. The specific description of the job or work being
subcontracted, including its term or duration.
ii. The place of work and terms and conditions governing
the contracting arrangement, to include the agreed amount of the contracted job
or work as well as the standard administrative fee of not less than ten percent
(10%) of the total contract cost; and
iii. A provision on the issuance of the bond/s defined
under Section 3(a) renewable every year. (Section 11, D.O. No. 174, Series of
2017)
On the other hand, a finding of violation of 11 shall
render the principal the direct employer of the employees of the contractor or
subcontractor, pursuant to Article 109 of the Labor Code, as amended. (Section
12, D.O. No. 174, Series of 2017)
Applying the above rules, since Newmark and Nutrition City
violated the required terms to be stated in the Service Agreement then
Nutrition City is the direct employer of Nathaniel.
As to whether Nathaniel is a regular employee of Nutrition
City, the rules are as follows:
Regular employees are further classified into: (1) regular
employees by nature of work; and (2) regular employees by years of service. (E.
Ganzon, Inc. vs. National Labor Relations Commission, G.R. No. 123769, 22
December 1999, 321 SCRA 434, 440) The former refers to those employees who
perform a particular activity which is necessary or desirable in the usual
business or trade of the employer, regardless of their length of service; while
the latter refers to those employees who have been performing the job,
regardless of the nature thereof, for at least a year. (Pangilinan vs. General
Milling Corporation, G.R. No. 149329, 12 July 2004)
Tested from the nature of his work and the activity of the
principal Nathaniel could be a regular employee while if it is tested on the
length of service then Nathaniel is a regular employee as he has been employed
with the principal for a least a year. In fact he was employed for nearly two
years.
NOTE: The foregoing answer can be found in page 561 of the
book entitled Principles and Cases Labor Standards and Social Legislation,
Second Edition 2018, and page 676 of the book entitled Principles and Cases
Labor Relations, Second Edition 2018, by Atty. Voltaire T. Duano. Questions
involving the same subject matter were
given during the 2009 (on terms of Service Agreement) and 22013 and 2008 (on
regular employees) Bar Examinations. An alternative answer can be given by
characterizing the relationship of the principal with the contractor as to
whether it is a job contracting or LOC.
Then as to who would be the direct employer and extent of liability can
be determined or concluded.
IX
Sgt. Nemesis was a detachment non-commissioned officer of
the Armed Forces of the Philippines in Nueva Ecija. He and some other members
of his detachment sought permission from their Company Commander for an
overnight pass to Nueva Vizcaya to settle some important matters. The Company
Commander orally approved their request and allowed them to carry their
firearms as the place they were going to was classified as a “critical place.”
They arrived at the place past midnight; and as they were alighting from a
tricycle, one of his companions accidentally dropped his rifle, which fired a
single shot, and in the process hit Sgt. Nemesis fatally. The shooting was
purely accidental. At the time of his death, he was still legally married_to
Nelda but had been separated de facto from her for 17 years. For the last 15
years of his life, he was living in with Narda, with whom he has two minor
children. Since Narda works as a kasambahay, the two children lived with their
grandparents, who provided their daily- support. Sgt. Nemesis and Narda only
sent money to them every year to them for their school tuition.
Nelda and Narda, both for themselves and the latter, also
on behalf of her minor children, separately filed claims for compensation as a
result of the death of Sgt. Nemesis. The Line of Duty Board of the AFP declared
Sgt. Nemesis’ death to have been “in line of duty’, and recommended that all
benefits due to Sgt. Nemesis be given to his dependents. However, the claims
were denied by GSIS because Sgt. Nemesis was not in his workplace nor
performing his duty as a soldier of the Philippine Army when he died.
(a) Are the dependents of Sgt. Nemesis entitled to
compensation as a result of his death? (2.5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The death of Sgt. Nemesis is compensable because it is
work-connected. However, in so far as entitlement of the dependents of Sgt.
Nemesis for compensation as a result of his death the dependent spouse cannot claim compensation.
The law requires that the dependent
spouse should be a legitimate spouse
living with the employee. (Article 173 [i], Labor Code).
In this case, the legitimate spouse Nelda is not entitled
because she is not living with Sgt. Nemesis while Narda will not qualify as
dependent spouses as she is not a legitimate spouse of Sgt. Nemesis although
she is living with the latter. On the other hand, in so far as the dependent
child the law requires that the dependent child be legitimate, legitimated,
legally adopted or xxx, who is unmarried, not gainfully employed, not over 21
years of age provided he is incapacitated and incapable of self-support due to
physical or mental defect which is congenital or acquired during minority. The two minor children are therefore
qualified as dependent children. Hence, entitled to compensation.
(b) As between Nelda and Narda, who should be entitled to
the benefits? (2.5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Nelda and Narda are
not entitled to the benefits because they failed to qualify within the
definition (Article 173 [i], Labor Code) of dependent spouse.
X
Nonato had been continuously employed and deployed as a
seaman who performed services that were necessary and desirable to the business
of N-Train hipping, through its local agent, Narita Maritime Services (Agency),
in accordance with the 2010 Philippine Overseas Employment Administration
Standard Employment Contract (2010 POEA-SEC). Nonato's last contract (for ye
months) expired on November 15, 2016. Nonato was then repatriated due to
"finished contract." He immediately reported to the Agency and
complained that e had been experiencing dizziness, weakness, and difficulty in
breathing. The agency referred him to Dr. Neri, who examined, treated, and
prescribed him with medications. After a few months of treatment and consultations,
Nonato was declared fit to resume work as a seaman. Nonato went back to the
Agency to ask for re-deployment but the Agency rejected his application. Nonato
filed an illegal dismissal case against the Agency and its principal, with a
claim for total disability benefits based on the ailments that he developed on
board N-Train hipping-vessels. The claim was based on the certification of his
own physician, Dr. Nunez, that he was unfit for sea duties because of his
hypertension and diabetes.
a) Was Nonato a regular employee of N-Train Shipping?
(2.5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Nonato is not a regular employee of N-Train Shipping. The
fact that seafarers are not regular employees is already a settled rule.
In Petroleum Shipping Limited (formerly Esso International Shipping
(Bahamas) Co., Ltd.) v. NLRC, G.R. No. 148130, June 16,2006, the Supreme Court
said that the issue on whether seafarers are regular employees is already a
settled matter. Thus, the High Court said:
It was in Ravago v. Esso Eastern Marine, Ltd., G.R. No.
158324, 14 March 2005, 453 SCRA 381 where the Honorable Supreme Court traced
its ruling in a number of cases that seafarers are contractual, not regular,
employees. Thus, in Brent School, Inc.
v. Zamora, G.R. No. 48494, 5 February 1990, 181 SCRA 702 the Supreme Court
cited overseas employment contract as an example of contracts where the concept
of regular employment does not apply, whatever the nature of the engagement and
despite the provisions of Article 280 of the Labor Code. In Coyoca v. NLRC, G.R. No. 113658 March 31,
1995, the Supreme Court held that the agency is liable for payment of a
seaman’s medical and disability benefits in the event that the principal fails
or refuses to pay the benefits or wages due the seaman although the seaman may
not be a regular employee of the agency.
The Supreme Court squarely passed upon the issue in
Millares v. NLRC, G.R. No. 110524, July
29, 2002, where one of the issues raised was whether seafarers are regular or
contractual employees whose employment are terminated every time their
contracts of employment expire. The
Supreme Court explained:
[I]t is clear that seafarers are considered contractual
employees. They can not be considered as
regular employees under Article 280 of the Labor Code. Their employment is governed by the contracts
they sign everytime they are rehired and their employment is terminated when
the contract expires. Their employment
is contractually fixed for a certain period of time. They fall under the exception of Article 280
whose employment has been fixed for a specific project or undertaking the
completion or termination of which has been determined at the time of
engagement of the employee or where the work or services to be performed is
seasonal in nature and the employment is for the duration of the season. We need not depart from the rulings of the
Court in the two aforementioned cases which indeed constitute stare
decisis with respect to the employment
status of seafarers.
b) Can Nonato successfully claim disability benefits
against N-Train Shipping and its agent Narita Maritime Services? (2.5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The claim for disability benefits of Nonato against N-Train
Shipping and its agent Narita Maritime Services will not prosper for
prematurity.
The Supreme Court laid down the procedures for filing
disability benefits and its effect in case of failure to comply with the
procedures in Daraug v. KGJS Fleet Management Manila, G.R. No. 211211, January
14, 2015. Thus, in denying the claim for disability benefits due to prematurity
the Supreme Court ruled:
Petitioner Did Not Comply With The Procedures
In Vergara v. Hammonia Maritime Services, Inc.31 (Vergara),
it was stated that the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE), through the
POEA, has simplified the determination of liability for work-related death,
illness or injury in the case of Filipino seamen working on foreign oceangoing
vessels. Every seaman and the vessel owner (directly or represented by a local
manning agency) are required to execute the POEA Standard Employment Contract
(POEA-SEC) as a condition sine qua non prior to the deployment of the seaman
for overseas work. The POEA-SEC is supplemented by the Collective Bargaining
Agreement (CBA) between the owner of the vessel and the covered seaman. In this
case, the parties entered in to a contract of employment in accordance with the
POEA-SEC and they agreed to be bound by the CBA.
Thus, in resolving petitioner’s claim for disability
compensation, the Court will be guided by the procedures laid down in the
POEA-SEC and in the CBA. On this point, Section 20(B)(3) of the POEA-SEC
provides:
Upon sign-off from the vessel for medical treatment, the
seafarer is entitled to sickness allowance equivalent to his basic wage until
he is declared fit to work or the degree of permanent disability has been
assessed by the company-designated physician but in no case shall this period
exceed one hundred twenty (120) days.
For this purpose, the seafarer shall submit himself to a
post-employment medical examination by a company-designated physician within
three working days upon his return except when he is physically incapacitated
to so, in which case, a written notice to the agency within the same period is
deemed a compliance. Failure of the seafarer to comply with the mandatory
reporting requirement shall result in his forfeiture of the right to claim the
above benefits.
If a doctor appointed by the seafarer disagrees with the
assessment, a third doctor may be agreed jointly between the Employer and the
seafarer. The third doctor’s decision shall be final and binding on both
parties.
Xl
Your favorite relative, Tita Nilda, approaches you and
seeks your advice n 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 the 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? (2.5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Tita Nilda is not correct in saying that engagement of a
kasambahay is a private matter and should not be regulated by the State. This
is a valid subject matter of the exercise of police power to give effect to the
declared policy of the law such as the need to protect the rights of domestic
workers against abuse, harassment, violence, economic exploitation and
performance of work that is hazardous to their physical and mental health; and
in protecting domestic workers and recognizing their special needs to ensure
safe and healthful working conditions, promotes gender-sensitive measures in
the formulation and implementation of policies and programs affecting the local
domestic work. (Section 2, Article I, Republic Act No. 10361)b) is the
stipulation that she may be requested to work on a rest day legal? (2.5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The stipulation that Noray may be requested to work on a
rest day is legal. The law provides that, “ Nothing in this provision shall
deprive the domestic worker and the employer from agreeing to the following:
(a) Offsetting a day of absence with a particular rest day;
(b) Waiving a particular rest day in return for an
equivalent daily rate of pay;
(c) Accumulating rest days not exceeding five (5) days; or
(d) Other similar arrangements. (Section 21, Article IV,
Republic Act No. 10361)c) Are stay-in family drivers included under the
Kasambahay Law?(2.5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Stay-in family drivers are not included under the
Kasambahay Law. This was very clear in the Rules Implementing the Kasambahay
Law providing as follows:
The following are not covered:
(a) Service providers;
(b) Family drivers;
(c) Children under foster family arrangement; and
(d) Any other person who performs work occasionally or sporadically
and not on an occupational basis. (Section 2, Rule I, Implementing Rules and
Regulations of Republic Act 10361)
XII
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? (2.5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Nesting is not correct.
The law penalizing sexual harassment in our jurisdiction is
RA 7877. Section 3 thereof defines work-related sexual harassment in this wise:
Sec. 3. Work, Education or Training-related Sexual
Harassment Defined.—Work, education or training-related sexual harassment is
committed by an employer, manager, supervisor, agent of the employer, teacher,
instructor, professor, coach, trainor, or any other person who, having
authority, influence or moral ascendancy over another in a work or training or
education environment, demands, requests or otherwise requires any sexual favor
from the other, regardless of whether the demand, request or requirement for
submission is accepted by the object of said Act.
(a) In a work-related or employment environment, sexual
harassment is committed when: xxx (3) The above acts would result in an
intimidating, hostile, or offensive environment for the employee.
Contrary to Nesting’s claim, it is enough that his acts result in creating an intimidating,
hostile or offensive environment for the employee.
XIII
Nicodemus was employed as a computer programmer by Network
Corporation, a telecommunications firm. He has been coming to work in shorts
and sneakers, in violation of the “prescribed uniform policy” based on company
rules and regulations. The company human resources manager wrote him a letter,
giving him 10 days to comply with the company uniform policy. Nicodemus
asserted that wearing shorts and sneakers made him more productive, and cited
his above-average output. When he came to work still in violation of the
uniform policy, the company sent him a letter of termination of employment.
Nicodemus filed an illegal dismissal case. The Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of
Nicodemus and ordered his reinstatement with backwages. Network Corporation,
however, refused to reinstate him. The NLRC 1st
Division sustained the Labor Arbiter’s judgment. Network Corporation
still refused to reinstate Nicodemus. Eventually, the Court of Appeals reversed
the decision of the NLRC and ruled that the dismissal was valid. Despite the
reversal, Nicodemus still filed a motion for execution with respect to his
accrued backwages.
(a) Were there valid legal grounds to dismiss Nicodemus
from his employment? (2.5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes, Nicodemus can be dismissed on based on willful
disobedience to the lawful order under Article 297 (a) of the Labor Code and
the “prescribed uniform policy” of the company.
The basis is the case of St. Luke’s v. Sanchez, G.R. No.
212054, March 11, 2015 were it was ruled: At the same time, the employee has
the corollary duty to obey all reasonable rules, orders, and instructions of
the employer; and willful or intentional disobedience thereto, as a general
rule, justifies termination of the contract of service and the dismissal of the
employee. (Malabago v. NLRC, 533 Phil. 292, 300 [2006]) x x x x. Note that for
an employee to be validly dismissed on this ground, the employer’s orders,
regulations, or instructions must be: (1) reasonable and lawful, (2)
sufficiently known to the employee, and (3) in connection with the duties which
the employee has been engaged to discharge.”
(b) Should Nicodemus’ motion for execution be granted?
(2.5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes, Nicodemus’ motion for execution should be granted. He
is entitled to his accrued salary.
The accrued wages/salaries (reinstatement wages/salaries)
is the consequence of the reinstatement aspect of the decision of the Labor
Arbiter referred in paragraph 3, Article 229 [223] of the Labor Code. This
means that a dismissed employee whose case was favorably decided by the Labor
Arbiter is entitled to receive wages pending appeal upon reinstatement, which
is immediately executory. In other words, it refers to the wages or salaries
which automatically accrued to a dismissed employee from the notice of the
Labor Arbiter’s order of reinstatement until its ultimate reversal by the
higher court, which could be the NLRC, the Court of Appeals or the Supreme
Court. The entitlement to accrued wages/salaries (reinstatement wages/salaries
) of a dismissed employee was discussed in the cases of Roquero v. Philippine
Airlines, G.R. No. 152329, 449 Phil. 437 (2003), Garcia v. Philippine Airlines,
G.R. No. 164856, January 20, 2009, 576 SCRA 479, Islriz Trading v. Capada, G.R.
No. 168501, January 31, 2011, Pfizer Inc. v. Velasco, G.R. No. 177467, March 9,
2011 and Wenphil Corporation v. Abing, G.R. No. 207983, April 7, 2014.
In resolving the rule on entitlement to accrued wages
between the period where the Labor Arbiter’s order of reinstatement is pending
appeal and the NLRC Resolution overturning that of the Labor Arbiter, the case
of Garcia v. Philippine Airlines, Inc., G.R. No. 164856, January 20, 2009, 576
SCRA 479, is in point. The Supreme Court examined its conflicting rulings with
respect to the application of paragraph 3 of Article 223 of the Labor Code,
viz:
The core of the seeming divergence is the application of
paragraph 3 of Article 223 of the Labor Code which reads:
‘In any event, the decision of the Labor Arbiter
reinstating a dismissed or separated employee, insofar as the reinstatement
aspect is concerned, shall immediately be executory, pending appeal. The
employee shall either be admitted back to work under the same terms and
conditions prevailing prior to his dismissal or separation or, at the option of
the employer, merely reinstated in the payroll. The posting of a bond by the
employer shall not stay the execution for reinstatement provided herein.’
The view as maintained in a number of cases is that:
‘x x x [E]ven if the order of reinstatement of the Labor
Arbiter is reversed on appeal, it is obligatory on the part of the employer to
reinstate and pay the wages of the dismissed employee during the period of
appeal until reversal by the higher court. On the other hand, if the employee
has been reinstated during the appeal period and such reinstatement order is
reversed with finality, the employee is not required to reimburse whatever
salary he received for he is entitled to such, more so if he actually rendered
services during the period.
In other words, a dismissed employee whose case was
favorably decided by the Labor Arbiter is entitled to receive wages pending
appeal upon reinstatement, which is immediately executory. Unless there is a
restraining order, it is ministerial upon the Labor Arbiter to implement the
order of reinstatement and it is mandatory on the employer to comply therewith.
XIV
Nelson complained before the DOLE Regional Office about
Needy Corporation's failure to pay his wage increase amounting to PhP5,000.00
as mandated in a Wage Order issued by the Regional Tripartite Wages and
Productivity Board. Consequently, Nelson-asked the DOLE to immediately issue an
Order sustaining his money claim. To his surprise, he received a notice from
the DOLE to appear before the Regional Director for purposes of conciliating
the dispute between him and Needy Corporation. When conciliation before the
Regional Director the latter proceeded to direct both parties to submit their
respective position papers in relation to the dispute. Needy Corporation
argued, that since Nelson was willing to settle for 75% of his money claim
during conciliation proceedings, only a maximum of 75% of the said money claim
may be awarded to him.
(a) Was DOLE’s action to conduct mandatory conciliation in
light of Nelson’s complaint valid? (2.5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes, the DOLE’s action to conduct mandatory conciliation is
valid. This is mandated by Article 234 of the Labor Code, except as provided in
Title VII-A, Book V of this Code, as amended, or as may be excepted by the
Secretary of Labor and Employment, all issues arising from labor and employment
shall be subject to mandatory conciliation-mediation.
(b) Should the Regional Director sustain Needy
Corporation’s argument? (2.5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The Regional Director should not sustain Needy
Corporation’s argument. This is because under Article 239 of the Labor Cod,
information and statements made at conciliation proceedings shall be treated as
privileged communication and shall not be used as evidence in the Commission.
Conciliators and similar officials shall not testify in any court or body
regarding any matters taken up at conciliation proceedings conducted by them.
Thus, Needy Corporation cannot raise the argument that Nelson was willing to
settle for 75% of his money claim during conciliation proceedings.
XV
Nexturn Corporation employed Nini and Nono, whose tasks
involved directing and supervising rank-and-file employees engaged in company
operations. Nini and Nono are required to ensure that such employees obey
company rules and regulations, and recommend to the company's Human Resources
Department any required disciplinary action against erring employees. In
Nexturn Corporation, there are independent unions, representing rank- and-file
and supervisory employees, respectively.
a) May Nini and Nono join a union? (2.5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes, Nini and Nono can join a union. This is clearly
allowed under Article 255 of the Labor Code which provides in substance that
supervisory employees may join, assist or form separate collective bargaining
units and/or legitimate labor organizations of their own. b) May the two unions
be affiliated with the same Union Federation? (2.5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes, the two unions can be affiliated with the same Union
Federation. This is clearly allowed under Article 255 of the Labor Code which
provides in substance that the rank-and-file union and the supervisors’ union
operating within the same establishment may join the same federation or
national union.
XVI
Nagrab Union and Nagrab Corporation have an existing CBA
which contains the following provision: “New_employees within the coverage of
the bargaining unit who may be regularly employed shall become members of
Nagrab Union. Membership in good standing with the Nagrab Union is a
requirement for continued employment with Nagrab Corporation.” Nagrab
Corporation subsequently acquired all the assets and rights of Nuber
Corporation and absorbed all of the latter’s employees. Nagrab Union
immediately demanded enforcement of the above-stated CBA provision with respect
to the absorbed employees. Nagrab Corporation refused on the ground that this
should not apply fo the absorbed employees who were former employees of another
corporation whose assets and rights it had acquired.
(a) Was Nagrab Corporation correct in refusing to enforce
the CBA 4 provision with respect to the absorbed employees? (2.5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Nagrab Corporation was not correct in refusing to enforce
the CBA provision with respect to the absorbed employees. This is because it
cannot invoke its merger with another corporation as a valid ground to exempt
its absorbed employees from the coverage of a union shop clause contained in
its existing Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) with its own certified labor
union. In BANK OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS V. BPI EMPLOYEES UNION-DAVAO
CHAPTER-FEDERATION OF UNIONS IN BPI UNIBANK, G.R. No. 164301, August 10, 2010,
the High Court resolved the question in this manner: At the outset, we should
call to mind the spirit and the letter of the Labor Code provisions on union
security clauses, specifically Article 248 (e), which states, x x x Nothing in
this Code or in any other law shall stop the parties from requiring membership
in a recognized collective bargaining agent as a condition for employment,
except those employees who are already members of another union at the time of
the signing of the collective bargaining agreement. This case which involves
the application of a collective bargaining agreement with a union shop clause should
be resolved principally from the standpoint of the clear provisions of our
labor laws, and the express terms of the CBA in question, and not by inference
from the general consequence of the merger of corporations under the
Corporation Code, which obviously does not deal with and, therefore, is silent
on the terms and conditions of employment in corporations or juridical
entities.
(b) May a newly-regularized employee of Nagrab Corporation
(who is not-part of the absorbed employees) refuse to join Nagrab Union? How
would you advise the human resources manager of Nagrab Corporation to proceed?
(2.5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The newly-regularized employee of Nagrab Corporation (who
is not-part of the absorbed employees) cannot refuse to join Nagrab Union in
view of the union security clause
provision of the CBA. While the right to join includes the right not to join,
however, the exception is the UNION SECURITY CLAUSE where it imposes upon
employees the obligation to acquire or
retain union membership as a condition affecting employment. Thus, I will
advise the human resources manager of Nagrab Corporation to comply with the
provision of the CAB stating that : “New_employees within the coverage of the
bargaining unit who may be regularly employed shall become members of Nagrab
Union.
XVII
Upon compliance with the legal requirements on the conduct
of a strike, Navarra Union staged a strike against Newfound Corporation on
account of a collective bargaining deadlock. During the strike, some members of
Navarra Union broke the windows and punctured the tires of the company-owned
buses. he Secretary of Labor and Employment assumed jurisdiction over the
dispute.
(a) Should all striking employees be admitted back to work
upon the assumption of jurisdiction by the Secretary of Labor and Employment?
Will these include striking employees who damaged company properties? (2.5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
All striking employees be admitted back to work and
including striking employees who damaged company properties. The effect of
assumption of jurisdiction of the Secretary of Labor is clear under Article 278
(g) which provides in substance that such assumption shall have the effect of
automatically enjoining the intended or impending strike or lockout as
specified in the assumption or certification order. If one has already taken
place at the time of assumption or certification, all striking or locked out
employees shall immediately return-to-work and the employer shall immediately
resume operations and readmit all workers under the same terms and conditions
prevailing before the strike or lockout.(b) May the company, readmit strikers
only by restoring them to the payroll? 5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The company may not readmit strikers by restoring them to
the payroll. The phrase “under the same terms and conditions” found in Article
278 (g) [263 (g)] of the Labor Code was
interpreted by the Supreme Court in the case of the University of Immaculate Concepcion, Inc. v.
Secretary of Labor, G.R. No. 151379, January 14, 2005 as follows:
With respect to the Secretary’s Order allowing payroll
reinstatement instead of actual reinstatement for the individual respondents
herein, an amendment to the previous Orders issued by her office, the same is
usually not allowed. Article 263(g) of the Labor Code aforementioned states
that all workers must immediately return to work and all employers must readmit
all of them under the same terms and conditions prevailing before the strike or
lockout. The phrase “under the same terms and conditions” makes it clear that the
norm is actual reinstatement. This is consistent with the idea that any work
stoppage or slowdown in that particular industry can be detrimental to the
national interest.
Clearly, reinstatement should be actual and not payroll
reinstatement.
XVIII
Nestor and Nadine have been living in for the last 10 years
without the benefit of marriage. Their union has produced four children. Nadine
was three months pregnant with her 5th child when Nestor left her for another
woman. When Nadine was eight months pregnant with her 5th child, she applied for maternity leave
benefits. Her employer refused on the ground that this was already her 5"
pregnancy and that she was only living in with the father of her child, who is
now in a relationship with another woman. When Nadine gave birth, Nestor
applied for paternity leave benefits. His employer also denied the application
on the same grounds that Nadine’s employer denied her application.
(a) Can Nadine’s employer legally deny her claim for
maternity benefits? (2.5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes, Nadine’s employer can legally deny her claim for
maternity benefits. This is because the maternity benefits shall be paid only
for the first four (4) deliveries or miscarriages. (See Section 14-A, RA 8282)
In this case, the said pregnancy was the 5th child of Nadine. Thus, she already
exhausted the limitations for entitlement to maternity benefits under the law.
(b) Can Nestor’s employer legally deny his claim for
paternity benefits? (2.5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Nestor’s employer can legally deny his claim for paternity
benefits for his failure to comply with the conditions for entitlement to
paternity benefits.
Under the law, a married male employee shall be entitled to
paternity benefits provided that:
a. he is an employee at the time of delivery of his child;
b. he is cohabiting with his spouse at the time she gives
birth or suffers a miscarriage.
c. he has applied for paternity leave in accordance with
Section 4 hereof; and
d. his wife has given birth or suffered a miscarriage.
(Section 3, Revised Implementing Rules and Regulations of Republic Act No. 8187
for the Private Sector)
In this case, Nadine is not Nestor’s lawful wife to whom he
is cohabiting.
XIX
Northeast Airlines sent notices to transfer without
diminution in salary or rank, to 50 ground crew personnel who were front-liners
at Northeast Airlines counters at the Ninoy Aquino International Airport
(NAIA). The 50 employees were informed that they would be distributed to
various airports in Mindanao to anticipate robust passenger volume growth in
the area. Northeast Union representing rank-and-file employees, filed unfair
labor practice and illegal dismissal cases before the NLRC, citing, among
others, the inconvenience of the 50 concerned employees and union
discrimination, as 8 of the 50 concerned round crew personnel were union
officers. Also, the Union argued that Northeast Airlines could easily hire
additional employees from Mindanao to boost
ground operations in the Mindanao airports.
a) Will the transfer of the 50 ground crew personnel amount
to Illegal dismissal (5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The transfer of the 50 ground crew personnel does not
amount to Illegal dismissal. This is because their transfer is a valid exercise
of management prerogatives.
In Gemina, Jr. v. Bankwise, Inc. (Thrift Bank) G.R. No.
175365, October 23, 2013, it was held: The employer’s right to conduct the
affairs of its business, according to its own discretion and judgment, is
well-recognized. An employer has a free reign and enjoys wide latitude of discretion
to regulate all aspects of employment and the only criterion to guide the
exercise of its management prerogative is that the policies, rules and
regulations on work-related activities of the employees must always be fair and
reasonable. (The Coca-Cola Export Corporation v. Gacayan, G.R. No. 149433,
December 15, 2010, 638 SCRA 377, 398-399)
According to Endico v. Quantum Foods Distribution Center,
G.R. 161615, January 30,2009,
“Managerial prerogatives, however, are subject to limitations provided by law,
collective bargaining agreements, and general principles of fair play and
justice. The test for determining the validity of the transfer of employees was
explained in the case of Blue Dairy
Corporation v. NLRC, G.R. No. 129843, 14 September 1999, 314 SCRA 401, 408-409
the Supreme Court explained the test for determining the validity of the
transfer of employees, as follows:
But, like other rights, there are limits thereto. The managerial prerogative to transfer
personnel must be exercised without grave abuse of discretion, bearing in mind
the basic elements of justice and fair play.
Having the right should not be confused with the manner in which that
right is exercised. Thus, it cannot be
used as a subterfuge by the employer to rid himself of an undesirable
worker. In particular, the employer must
be able to show that the transfer is not unreasonable, inconvenient or
prejudicial to the employee; nor does it involve a demotion in rank or a
diminution of his salaries, privileges and other benefits.
As their employer, Northeast Airlines has the right to
regulate, according to its discretion and best judgment, work assignments, work
methods, work supervision, and work regulations, including the hiring, firing
and discipline of its employees. The
Supreme Court upholds these management prerogatives so long as they are
exercised in good faith for the advancement of the employer’s interest and not
for the purpose of defeating or circumventing the rights of the employees under
special laws and valid agreements. (Challenge Socks Corporation v. Court of
Appeals, G.R. No. 165268, November 8, 2005, 474 SCRA 356, 362-363)
In this case it does not show that Northeast Airlines
implemented the transfer for the purpose of defeating or circumventing the
rights of the said 50 ground crew personnel. b) Will the unfair labor practice
case prosper? (2.5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The unfair labor practice case will not prosper. This is
because the act did not constitute an act of interfering, restraining or
coercing the said employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization
under Article 259 [a] of the Labor Code.
In T & T Shoplifters Corporation/Gin Queen Corporation
v. T&T Shoplifters Corporation/Gin Queen Corporation Workers Union, G.R.
No. 191714, February 26, 2014 citing the case of Insular Life Assurance Co.,
Ltd. Employees Association – NATU v. Insular Life Assurance Co., Ltd., (147
Phil. 194 [1971]) the Supreme Court had
occasion to lay down the test of whether an employer has interfered with and
coerced employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization, that is,
whether the employer has engaged in conduct which, it may reasonably be said,
tends to interfere with the free exercise of employees’ rights; and that it is
not necessary that there be direct evidence that any employee was in fact
intimidated or coerced by statements of threats of the employer if there is a
reasonable inference that anti-union conduct of the employer does have an
adverse effect on self-organization and collective bargaining.
In the given facts, it does not show that the act of
Northern Airlines in sending notices of transfer relates to the commission of
acts that transgress their right to
organize or it was made to interfere,
restrain or coerce them with the exercise of their right to self-organization.
XX
In Northern Lights Corporation, union members Nad, Ned and
Nod sought permission from the company to distribute flyers with respect to a
weekend union activity. The company HR manager granted the request through a
text message sent to another union member, Norlyn. While Nad, Ned, and Nod re
distributing the flyers at the company assembly plant, a Company supervisor
barged in and demanded that they cease from distributing the flyers, stating
that the assembly line employees were trying to beat a production deadline and
were thoroughly distracted. Norlyn tried to show the HR manager's text message
authorizing flyer distribution during work hours, but the supervisor brushed it
aside. As a result, Nad, Ned, and Nod were suspended for violating company
rules on trespass and highly-limited union activities during work hours. The
Union filed an unfair labor practice (ULP) case before the NLRC for union
discrimination.
a) Will the ULP case filed by the Union prosper? (2.5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The ULP case filed by the Union will not prosper. This is
because the act did not constitute an act of interfering, restraining or
coercing the said employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization
under Article 259 [a] of the Labor Code.
In T & T Shoplifters Corporation/Gin Queen Corporation
v. T&T Shoplifters Corporation/Gin Queen Corporation Workers Union, G.R.
No. 191714, February 26, 2014 citing the case of Insular Life Assurance Co.,
Ltd. Employees Association – NATU v. Insular Life Assurance Co., Ltd., (147
Phil. 194 [1971]) the Supreme Court had
occasion to lay down the test of whether an employer has interfered with and
coerced employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization, that is,
whether the employer has engaged in conduct which, it may reasonably be said,
tends to interfere with the free exercise of employees’ rights; and that it is
not necessary that there be direct evidence that any employee was in fact
intimidated or coerced by statements of threats of the employer if there is a
reasonable inference that anti-union conduct of the employer does have an
adverse effect on self-organization and collective bargaining.
In the given facts, it does not show that the act of the
company supervisor in barging in and demanding for Nad, Ned, and Nod to cease from distributing the flyers relates
to the commission of acts that transgress their
right to organize or it was made
to interfere, restrain or coerce them with the exercise of their right
to self-organization.
b) Assume the NLRC ruled in favor of the Union. The Labor
Arbiter's judgment included, among others, an award for moral and exemplary
damages at PhP50,000.00 each for Nad, Ned, and Nod. Northern Lights Corporation
argued that any award of damages should be given to the Union and not
individually to its members. Is Northern Lights Corporation correct? (2.5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Northern Lights Corporation is not correct. The rights that were violated belongs to the
union members, Nad, Ned, and Nod, and
not the union itself. Further, the said
union members were the real party in interest in the said case for ULP filed by
the union against the corporation and not the union itself. The union is a juridical person and as a rule
it cannot not suffer moral damages.