Labor Mock Bar

LABOR LAW TEAM
Faculty Adviser: Atty. Leilanee Dasig- Quanguey
Subject Head: Inna Camille C. Andres
Members: Janelle Ann H. Buhangin

John Lester Balagot
Copyright and all
Chelsea S. de la Rosa
Wilbert Orteza other relevant rights over
Yzah Joy S. Parayno this material are owned
Jordz Ivan C. Ramos by the Bar Academics
Lady Lyn Sales Committee of the School
Nikko Jan Neil B. Taluban of Law of Saint Louis
University.
Cover Layout by Eric Karl Nicholas Aguilar
No part of this
publication may be
BAR ACADEMICS COMMITTEE
reproduced, stored in a
Over- all Faculty Adviser: Atty. Jerico Gay-ya retrieval system or
transmitted in any form
Over- all Chairperson: Pamela Santiago
or by any means,
Over- all Vice Chairperson: Danica Balino mechanical, electronic,
photocopying, recording
or otherwise without the
SCHOOL OF LAW prior written permission
of the School of Law of
Dean: Atty. Lilybeth Sindayen- Libiran Saint Louis University.
All rights reserved.

2018
LABOR LAW REVIEWER 2018 ANNEXES
LABOR LAW 2017 MOCK BAR QUESTIONS WITH SUGGESTED ANSWERS
2017 MOCK BAR EXAMINATIONS
LABOR LAW
05 December 2017 5:00 p.m. – 9:00 p.m.
INSTRUCTIONS
1. This Questionnaire contains five (5) pages including these Instruction

pages. Check the number of pages and their proper numbers. All the items
have to be answered within four (4) hours. There are twenty four (24)
numbers and a total of thirty eighty (38) questions. You may write on the
Questionnaire for notes relating to the questions.
Read each question very carefully and write your answers in your Mock
Bar Examination Notebook in the same order the questions are posed. Write
your answers only on the front, not the back, page of every sheet in your
Notebook. If the sheets provided in your Examination Notebook are not
sufficient for your answers, use the back page of the first sheet and the
back of the succeeding pages until completed. Always support your answer
with the pertinent laws, rules, jurisprudence, and the facts.
2. Answer your Essay questions legibly, clearly and concisely. Start each
number on a separate page. An answer to a sub-question under the same
number may be written continuously on the same page and the
immediately succeeding pages until completed. Your answer should
1
demonstrate your ability to analyze the facts, apply the pertinent laws and
jurisprudence, and arrive at a sound or logical conclusion.
A mere “Yes” or “No” answer without any corresponding explanation or

discussion will not be given any credit. Thus, always briefly but fully
explain your answers although the question does not expressly ask for an
explanation. You do not need to re-write or repeat the question in your
Notebook.
3. Make sure you do not write your name or any extraneous note/s or
distinctive marking/s on your Notebook that can serve as an identifying
mark/s (such as names that are not in the given questions, prayers or
private notes to the Examiner). Writing, leaving or making any
distinguishing or identifying mark in the exam Notebook is considered
cheating and can disqualify you.
HAND IN THIS QUESTIONNAIRE TOGETHER WITH YOUR NOTEBOOK.

GOOD LUCK!
LEILANEE Q. DASIG-QUANGUEY
Examiner, Labor Law
2
QUESTION I
Discuss the application of the following rules in labor relations:
SUBQUESTION 1
Totality of Conduct Rule (1 pt.)
SUGGESTED ANSWER
The Totality of Conduct rule is applied in ascertaining whether the act of the
employer constitutes as interference with, restraint or coercion of the employees’
exercise of the right to self-organization and collective bargaining. This rule
provides that the totality of the contemporaneous or simultaneous acts of the
employer and its subsequent circumstances must be taken into consideration to
be able to declare that an employer has indeed intended to interfere with the right
to self-organization and collective bargaining of the employees. One act of the
employer cannot be solely the basis for the decision that the employer has indeed
committed unfair labor practices.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER
An employer’s expression of opinion about unionization may or may not

amount to Unfair Labor Practice, depending on combination of circumstances.
The “totality of conduct doctrine” holds that the culpability of an employer’s

remarks is to be evaluated not only on the basis of their implications, but against
the background of collateral circumstances. Under this doctrine, expressions of
opinion by an employer, though innocent in themselves, frequently are held to be
culpable or objectionable because of the circumstances under which they are
uttered.
SUBQUESTION 2
Totality of Infractions Rule (1 pt.)
SUGGESTED ANSWER
The totality of infarctions rule is applied when an employee has been

terminated from employment due to an act committed by him or her. This rule
provides that the totality of the infarctions or the number of violations committed
by the employee during the course of the employment must be taken into
consideration to determine the penalty to be imposed upon the employee. The
offenses of the employee must not be taken singly and separately.
3
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER
Generally, when an employee commits misconduct, the penalty imposed

upon him or her must be commensurate to the offense committed. That is, if the
wrong can be addressed with imposition of a lower penalty other than termination,
that penalty should be imposed.
However, when the less serious or light misconduct is repeated, such may
be used as a ground for the dismissal of the employee if based upon the totality of
the infractions committed by the employee, it warrants his/her termination from
employment.
QUESTION II
Bill, the company’s Accounting Manager, was dismissed for breach of trust
and confidence over his facebook post, which reads as follows:
“Sana maisip din nila na ang kompanya kailangan ng mga taong di

tulad nila, nagtatrabaho at di puro #$,*% ang pinaggagagawa, na
kapag super demotivated na yung tao na yun baka iwan na rin nya
ang kawawang kumpanya na pinagpepyestahan ng mga b_i_r_.
Wala na ngang credibility wala pang conscience, portraying so
respectable and so religious pa. Hay naku talaga, nakakasuka, puro
nalang animus lucrandi ang laman ng isip.”
Is the dismissal valid? (3 pts.)
SUGGESTED ANSWER
No, the dismissal is not valid.
A managerial employee like Bill may be dismissed based on fraud or willful

breach of the trust reposed on the employee. Such breach is considered willful if it
is done intentionally, knowingly, and purposely, without justifiable excuse, as
distinguished from an act done carelessly, thoughtlessly, heedlessly or
inadvertently. In order to constitute a just cause for dismissal, it must be founded
on clearly established facts.
The Facebook post that Bill made on his social media account did not
mention any specific name of employer/company/government agency or person,
and the intended subject matter was not clearly identifiable. While Bill may have
acted carelessly, thoughtlessly, heedlessly or inadvertently in making such
comment on Facebook; however, such would not amount to loss of trust and
4
confidence as to justify his dismissal. (INTERADENT ZAHNTECHNIK

PHILIPPINES, INC., et al. v REBECCA F. SIMBILLO. November 23, 2016,
G.R. No. 207315)
QUESTION III
The Labor Arbiter’s decision declaring the illegal dismissal of Johnson and
ordering Seasons Corporation liable to pay his separation pay and full backwages
became final and executory. Since the judgment remained unsatisfied, Johnson
moved for the issuance of an amended alias writ of execution, asking for the
inclusion of the company’s board of directors and corporate officers to hold them
liable for the satisfaction of the said decision. The Labor Arbiter granted the
motion, and an amended alias writ of execution was issued which now included
Vico Sy, the corporate secretary. Consequently, a levy on execution was made
upon the shares of stocks belonging to Vico Sy at New Frontier Sugar
Corporation. Is the levy on execution made on Vico Sy’s shares of stocks proper?
Why? (3 pts.)
SUGGESTED ANSWER
No, the levy on the shares of stock is not proper
A corporation, as a juridical entity, may act only through its directors,

officers and employees. Obligations incurred as a result of the directors’ and
officers’ acts as corporate agents, are not their personal liability but the direct
responsibility of the corporation they represent. As a rule, they are only solidarily
liable with the corporation for the illegal termination of services of employees if
they acted with malice or bad faith. To hold a director or officer personally liable
for corporate obligations, two requisites must concur: (1) it must be alleged in the
complaint that the director or officer assented to patently unlawful acts of the
corporation or that the officer was guilty of gross negligence or bad faith; and (2)
there must be proof that the officer acted in bad faith.
Vico Sy, the corporate secretary cannot be held solidarily liable with the
corporation because the obligation of the corporation is its direct obligation, and
not that of its officer, unless there was malice or bad faith employed by said officer.
(POLYMER RUBBER CORPORATION, et al. v BAYOLO SALAMUDING. July
24, 2013, G.R. No. 185160)
5
QUESTION IV
The validity of the closure of Tootrain, Inc, a transportation company, was

questioned by the affected employees who lost their employment. Is the National
Labor Relations Commission correct in its application of the doctrine of stare
decisis, referring to an earlier case decided by the same NLRC Division in another
Tootrain case? (3 pts)
SUGGESTED ANSWER
No, the doctrine of stare decisis, which requires courts “to adhere to
precedents and not unsettle things which are established”, was erroneously
applied. Only final decisions of the Supreme Court are deemed precedents that
form part of our legal system. Decisions of the lower courts or other divisions of the
same court are not binding on others. Consequently, it was incorrect for the NLRC
to consider its ruling in another Tootrain, Inc. case as a binding precedent
applicable to the present case.
However, the erroneous application of the principle of stare decisis does not
automatically lead to the conclusion that the NLRC acted with grave abuse of
discretion when it resolved the appealed judgment if it proceeded from its judicious
review of the records of the case and in conformity with law and justice. (GERINO
YUKIT, et al. v TRITRAN, INC., et al. November 21, 2016, G.R. No. 184841)
QUESTION V
Super Prints is a sole and exclusive proprietorship owned by Peter Ang,

while Express Prints, Inc. and Prime Publishing Corporation are duly
incorporated entities separately registered with the SEC, but are all engaged in
the same publishing business. They are sister companies who share the same
human resource department. On November 15, 2017, Union A filed a Petition for
Certification Election to represent all the rank-and-file employees of Super
Prints. On the same date, Union B also filed a similar petition but seeking to
represent the rank-and-file employees of Express Prints, Inc. Union C, also on
the same date petitioned for certification election in Prime Publishing
Corporation. Represented by the same counsel, these companies separately
claimed that there existed no employer-employee relations between them
and the listed members of the rank-and-file bargaining units in their respective
establishments. The Med-Arbiter found that work-pooling scheme existed among
the three companies, and ordered a certification election to be held among the
three companies, treating them as the same entity and their rank-and-file
employees as one bargaining unit.
6
SUBQUESTION 1
Peter Ang argues that separate corporations cannot be treated as a single

bargaining unit as they have distinct and separate personalities. Is his
contention correct? (3 pts.)
SUGGESTED ANSWER
No, it is not.
The general rule is that separate corporations cannot be treated as a single

bargaining unit even if their businesses are related, as these companies are
distinct entities with separate juridical personalities. As an exception, however,
the separate juridical personalities may be disregarded under the doctrine of
piercing the corporate veil; as when two business enterprises are owned,
conducted, and controlled by the same parties, both law and equity will, when
necessary to protect the rights of third parties, disregard the legal fiction that these
two entities are distinct and treat them as identical or as one and the same.
In this case, the companies and their common counsel attempted to frustrate
the workers’ separate petitions for certification election through the shield of the
corporations' separate juridical personalities. Thus, in order to safeguard the right
of the workers and Unions A, B, and C to engage in collective bargaining, the
corporate veil of Super Prints, Express Prints, Inc. and Prime Publishing
Corporation must be pierced. The rank-and-file workers of these three companies
should be considered as constituting one appropriate bargaining unit since they
share communal interest among themselves, as may be shown by their work-
pooling scheme which allows them to be rotated to all three companies under the
same working conditions. (ERSON ANG LEE DOING BUSINESS as "SUPER
LAMINATION SERVICES" v SAMAHANG MANGGAGAWA NG SUPER
LAMINATION (SMSLS-NAFLU-KMU). November 21, 2016, G.R. No. 193816)
SUBQUESTION 2
What is meant by multiple employer bargaining? (1 pt.)
SUGGESTED ANSWER
Multi-employer bargaining, as introduced by DOLE Department Order No.

40-03, takes place when legitimate labor unions and their counterpart employers
agree in writing to come together for the purpose of collective bargaining, provided:
a. only legitimate labor unions which are incumbent exclusive

bargaining agents may participate and negotiate in multi-employer
bargaining;
7
b. only employers with counterpart legitimate labor unions which are

incumbent bargaining agents may participate and negotiate in multi-
employer bargaining; and
c. only those legitimate labor unions which pertain to employer units

which consent to multi-employer bargaining may participate in multi-
employer bargaining.
SUBQUESTION 3
Suppose the Med-Arbiter denies the Petition for Certification Election due
to non- existence of employer-employee relations, and thereafter, the members
of Unions A, B and C are dismissed from work, thereby effectively dissolving their
labor unions, may the Labor Arbiter having jurisdiction over their consequent
complaints for illegal dismissal be bound by the ruling of the med-arbiter on the
non-existence of employer-employee relations? Explain.(3 pts.)
SUGGESTED ANSWER
No.
While the Med-Arbiter has the authority to determine the existence of an

employer-employee relationship between the parties in a petition for certification
election, it may not be considered in this case that the matter of employer-employee
relationship has been resolved with finality. Based on the given facts, the union
members were dismissed from their employment right after the dismissal by the
Med-Arbiter of the petition for certification election due to lack of employer-
employee relations. The purpose of a petition for certification election is to
determine which organization will represent the employees in their collective
bargaining with the employer. The petitioning union, without its member-
employees, was thus stripped of its personality to challenge the Med-Arbiter’s
decision in the certification election case. Thus, the members were left with no
option but to pursue their illegal dismissal case filed before the Labor Arbiter. To
dismiss the illegal dismissal case filed before the Labor Arbiter on the basis of the
pronouncement of the Med-Arbiter in the certification election case that there was
no employer-employee relationship between the parties, which the union could not
even appeal to the DOLE Secretary because of the dismissal of its members, would
be tantamount to denying due process to the complainants in the illegal dismissal
case. This cannot be allowed. Thus, the Labor Arbiter may not be bound by the
declaration of the Med-Arbiter. (HIJO RESOURCES CORPORATION v EPIFANIO
P. MEJARES, et al. January 13, 2016, G.R. No. 208986)
QUESTION VI
8
Sidro, Abe and Renan worked on various dates from 2010 to 2017 as
construction workers for Reeboss Contractors, Inc. They claim to be regular
employees as they performed tasks necessary and desirable to the usual
business of Reeboss Contractors for several years, but were summarily
dismissed without any valid cause on December 1, 2017. The construction firm,
however, maintains that the workers were engaged to work only for two (2)
distinct and separate projects, with almost a year gap. It failed, however, to
produce the employment contracts, and any other evidence defining the scope of
work, but submitted a Termination of Project Employment Report with the DOLE
as required under D.O. No. 19, series of 1993 which governs the employment of
workers in the construction industry.
SUBQUESTION 1
May Sidro, Abe and Renan be deemed regular employees in the absence of
any written employment contract establishing their project employment? Why?
(3 pts.)
SUGGESTED ANSWER
Yes.
In order that employees be considered as project-employees, the employer

has the burden to prove that the employees were assigned to carry out a specific
project or undertaking, and that the duration and scope of the project or
undertaking were specified at the time they were engaged. Reeboss Contractors,
Inc. did not state the specific project or undertaking assigned to the employees. As
to the second requisite, not only was the employer unable to produce the
employees’ employment contracts, it also failed to present other evidence to show
that it informed them of the duration and scope of their work. Although the absence
of a written contract does not by itself grant regular status to the employees, the
contract is evidence that they were informed of the duration and scope of their
work and their status as project employees at the start of their engagement.
Absent such proof, it is presumed that they are regular employees, thus, can only
be dismissed for just or authorized causes upon compliance with procedural due
process. (ISIDRO QUEBRAL, et al. v ANGBUS CONSTRUCTION, INC., et al.
November 7, 2016, G.R. No. 221897)
SUBQUESTION 2
Is the submission of a termination report to the DOLE sufficient proof of

project employment? Why? (3 pts.)
9
SUGGESTED ANSWER
No.
Under Section 2.2 of DOLE Department Order No. 19, Series of 1993, it
provides that that the submission of the termination report to the DOLE "may be
considered" only as one of the indicators of project employment.
The submission of this report, by and of itself, is therefore not conclusive to

confirm the status of the terminated employees as project employees particularly
when there is a glaring absence of evidence to prove that petitioners were assigned
to carry out a specific project or undertaking, and that they were informed of the
duration and scope of their supposed project engagement. (ISIDRO QUEBRAL, et
al. v ANGBUS CONSTRUCTION, INC., et al. November 7, 2016, G.R. No.
221897)
QUESTION VII
As Insurance Sales Executive, Vilma allegedly claimed commissions for

outside transactions instead of considering them as new accounts under the
dealership’s marketing department. For such acts of dishonesty, Vilma was
dismissed for serious misconduct. Consequently, the company denied her claims
for past commissions and tax rebates dating back from 2012 to 2016 which were
incentives provided by the company. These actions of the company were
sustained by the Labor Arbiter, explaining that the submitted computations by
Vilma were deemed insufficient to prove her entitlement to such commissions
and tax rebates, and that they do not partake of unpaid wages or labor standards
benefits.
SUBQUESTION 1
Is the Labor Arbiter correct? (3 pts.)
SUGGESTED ANSWER
No.
10
Art. 97 (f) of the Labor Code provides that wage paid to any employee shall
mean the remuneration of earnings, however designated, capable of being
expressed in terms of money, whether fixed or ascertained on a time, task, piece,
or commission basis. Vilma’s claims for commissions and tax rebates were given
as incentives or forms of encouragement in order for her to put extra effort in
performing her duties. Clearly, such claims fall within the ambit of the general term
“commissions”, which in turn fall within the definition of wages under the quoted
provision of the Labor Code. Moreover, these were direct remunerations for
services rendered. (ANTONIO W. IRAN v NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS
COMMISSION, et al. April 22, 1998, G.R. No. 121927; TOYOTA PASIG, INC.
v VILMA S. DE PERALTA. November 7, 2016, G.R. No. 213488)
SUBQUESTION 2
When is serious misconduct a valid cause for termination of employment?

(1 pt.)
SUGGESTED ANSWER
Serious misconduct is valid cause for termination of employment when the

following elements concur:
(a) the misconduct must be serious;
(b) it must relate to the performance of the employee’s duties showing

that the employee has become unfit to continue working for the
employer; and
(c) it must have been performed with wrongful intent.
QUESTION VIII
Ms. Ida, a high school teacher on probationary status with fixed-term

contract, was able to complete three (3) consecutive years of service. She was
not, however, rehired anymore upon the expiration of her contract to teach. May
Ida be validly dismissed for expiration of the contract to teach? (3 pts.)
SUGGESTED ANSWER
No.
11
Under the law, full-time teachers become regular or permanent employees

once they have satisfactorily completed the probationary period of three school
years. Mere rendition of service for three consecutive years, however, does not
automatically ripen into a permanent appointment .The use of the term
satisfactorily necessarily connotes the requirement for schools to set reasonable
standards to be followed by teachers on probationary employment. These
standards, if not satisfactorily met, together with the just and authorized causes
for termination of employment which the Labor Code expressly provides, are the
grounds available to terminate the employment of a teacher on probationary
status. Where no standards are made known to the employee at that time, he shall
be deemed a regular employee.
In this case, there is no indication that the employer apprised Ms. Ida of the
reasonable standards that she is supposed to meet. Given this, and the fact that
she had already completed the probationary period of three years, she is already
considered a regular employee. And as a regular employee, she may only be
removed for just and authorized causes only. (COLEGIO DEL SANTISIMO
ROSARIO, et al. v EMMANUEL ROJO. September 4, 2013, G.R. No. 170388)
QUESTION IX
Powerhouse Staffbuilders International, Inc. (Powerhouse) hired Lia, Liza

and Lyn as operators for its foreign principal, Catchers Corp. based in Taiwan
for the duration of two (2) years. Six months from their deployment, Catcher
Corp. explained to them that they had low orders and financial difficulties, and
that they had to be repatriated to the Philippines. Initially, they refused to be
repatriated but when Catcher Corp stopped providing them food, they were
constrained to consent. They sued Powerhouse for illegal dismissal and for illegal
deductions due to reduced wages paid to them.
SUBQUESTION 1
If in the meantime, Catcher Corp. transferred the accreditation from

Powerhouse to TGF Services, may Powerhouse be absolved from liability for the
migrant workers’ claims? (3 pts.)
SUGGESTED ANSWER
No, Powerhouse cannot be absolved from liability for the migrant worker’s
claims.
Under POEA Rules and Regulations, a manning agreement extends up to

and until the expiration of the employment contracts of the employees recruited
and employed pursuant to the said recruitment agreement. Section 10 of Republic
Act No. 8042, on the other hand, provides that, the liability of the
12
principal/employer and the recruitment/placement agency for any and all claims
under this section shall be joint and several, and that such liabilities shall continue
during the entire period or duration of the employment contract and shall not be
affected by any substitution, amendment or modification made locally or in a
foreign country of the said contract.
Therefore, regardless of the transfer of accreditation, Powerhouse is not

absolved from liability because the employees are not privy to such contract, and
in their overseas employment contract approved by POEA, Powerhouse is the
recruitment agency of Catcher. To relieve Powerhouse from liability arising from
the approved overseas employment contract is to change the contract without the
consent from the other contracting party, the employees in this case.
(POWERHOUSE STAFFBUILDERS INTERNATIONAL, INC. v ROMELIA Rey,
et al. November 7, 2016, G.R. No. 190203)
SUBQUESTION 2
Under the circumstances, do the workers have cause of action for illegal
recruitment? Explain. (3 pts.)
SUGGESTED ANSWER
It depends.
If the pre-termination of the overseas employment contract due to low orders

and financial difficulties are duly substantiated following the requirements of a
valid laying-off of employees, there is no cause of action for illegal recruitment, as
the recruitment was undertaken by a duly licensed recruitment agency, and none
of the prohibited activities listed under R.A. 8042, as amended, has been
committed.
However, if the grounds alleged for pre-termination of the contract are found
unmeritorious, the same amounts to an illegal shortening of the two-year contract
without any prior approval by the Philippine Overseas Employment
Administration, which is an act prohibited under Section 5 of R.A 10022, amending
RA 8042, which reads:
“(i) To substitute or alter to the prejudice of the worker, employment contracts

approved and verified by the Department of Labor and Employment from the time
of actual signing thereof by the parties up to and including the period of the
expiration of the same without the approval of the Department of Labor and
Employment.”
SUBQUESTION 3
13
What rate of interest should be applied to monetary claims of migrant

workers? (1 pt.)
SUGGESTED ANSWER
Section 10 of R.A. No. 8042, as amended by RA 10022, provides that "[i]n

case of termination of overseas employment without just, valid or authorized cause
as defined by law or contract, the workers shall be entitled to the full
reimbursement of his placement fee with interest of twelve percent (12%) per
annum." However, this provision does not provide a specific interest rate for the
award of salary for the unexpired portion of the employment contract nor for the
other money claims the respondent employees are entitled to.
On the other hand, Section 1 of Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas Circular No. 799
of June 21, 2013 provides that, “The rate of interest for the loan or forbearance of
any money, goods or credits and the rate allowed in judgments, in the absence of
an express contract as to such rate of interest, shall be six percent (6%) per
annum.”
Thus, Circular No. 799 does not have the effect of changing the interest on
awards for reimbursement of placement fees from twelve percent (12%), as
provided in Section 10 of R.A. No. 8042, to six percent (6%). However, Circular No.
799 which prescribes a 6% rate of interest applies to the award of salary for the
unexpired portion of the employment contract and the other money claims of the
employees since RA 8042 as amended does not provide a specific interest rate for
these awards. (SAMEER OVERSEAS PLACEMENT AGENCY, INC., v JOY C.
CABILES. August 5, 2014, G.R. No. 170139; POWERHOUSE
STAFFBUILDERS INTERNATIONAL, INC. v ROMELIA Rey, et al. November
7, 2016, G.R. No. 190203)
QUESTION X
What are the requisites or essential elements of the following: (2 pts. each)
SUBQUESTION 1
14
Staging a valid strike
SUGGESTED ANSWER
The following requirements should be observed and complied with in staging

a valid strike:
a. The strike should be staged by a legitimate labor organization

following the statutory requirements for a valid strike which includes
the filing of a prior notice of strike with the NCMB based on either an
unfair labor practice or a collective bargaining deadlock (only the
SEBA may file if based on this ground), observance of the cooling off
periods (30 days for economic strikes and 15 days for ULP strikes,
unless based on union busting which requires no cooling off period),
24-hour prior notice to the NCMB before holding a strike voting among
union members, submission of the strike vote results which favors
striking to the NCMB, and observance of the 7-day strike ban;
b. Non-commission of any prohibited acts listed under the Labor Code,

such as barricading the ingress to or egress from the employer’s
premises or of the public thoroughfares near thereto, as well as non-
commission of any act of violence, intimidation, undue influence,
duress or force, thereby ensuring the peaceful conduct of the strike
from its inception until the end; and
c. Observance of lawful orders and proceedings pertaining to the

ongoing dispute, such as assumption of jurisdiction order, certification
order, return-to-work order, restraining order and/or writ of
injunction, ongoing conciliation-mediation proceedings, compulsory or
voluntary arbitration proceedings.
SUBQUESTION 2
Undertaking an apprenticeship program
SUGGESTED ANSWER
15
An apprenticeship program is undertaken by an employer engaged in a highly

technical industry and only in apprenticeable occupations approved by the
Technical Education and Skills Authority (TESDA), involving qualified individuals
who are at least 15 years of age, possess vocational aptitude and capacity for
appropriate tests, possess the ability to comprehend and follow oral and written
instructions, and physically fit for the occupation for which they desire to be
trained; provided that the employer shall not engage apprentices beyond 20% of
his/its employees. Further, before the program may be implemented, the program
should be approved by the TESDA, and the arrangement must be covered by an
apprenticeship agreement signed by the parties.
SUBQUESTION 3
Availment of maternity leave benefit
SUGGESTED ANSWER
To avail of the maternity leave benefits, the following must concur:
a. That the pregnant woman is employed;
b. That she must have paid at least 3 monthly contributions within the
12 month period immediately preceding the semester of her childbirth
or miscarriage;
c. That she must have given the required notification of her pregnancy
to her employer, or to the SSS if separated, voluntary or if a self-
employed member; and
d. That her pregnancy is within the allowable four (4) pregnancies.
SUBQUESTION 4
Availment of retirement benefit in the private sector
16
SUGGESTED ANSWER
The following are the requisites for the availment of retirement benefits in
the private sector:
a. Any employee may be retired upon compliance with the conditions for
retirement as prescribed under the company retirement plan,
collective bargaining agreement (CBA), or other applicable
employment contract; provided the same is not contrary to law,
morals, good custom, public policy and public order.
b. In the absence of such company retirement plan, CBA or other

applicable employment contract, an employee may be retired
optionally upon reaching the age of 60 years old, or mandatorily upon
reaching the age of 65 years old; provided that the employee has
served at least five years with his employer.
c. If the employee is in the mining industry, the underground miner may

be optionally retired at the age of 50 years, or compulsorily retired at
the age of 60 years; provided that he served at least five (5) years
with his employer.
SUBQUESTION 5
Deductions from an employee’s wages/deposits for damages incurred.
SUGGESTED ANSWER
Deductions from an employee’s wages/deposits for damages incurred may

be made under the following conditions:
a. The employee is clearly shown to be responsible for the loss or

damage;
b. The employee is given ample opportunity to show cause why

deduction should not be made;
c. The amount of the deduction is fair and reasonable and shall not
exceed the actual loss or damage;
d. The deduction from the employee’s wage does not exceed 20% of the
employees wage in a week.
17
QUESTION XI
Motor Experts Corp. engaged the service of Allan as its retainer mechanic,
under a retainership agreement. Allan was paid a retainer’s fee amounting to
P5,000.00 per month. The company claims that it was interested only in the
outcome of Allan’s work, and although it provided Allan with the Manual of the
Yamaha motorbike unit as his guide in the repair of the motorbikes, he was free
to use his own means and methods by which his work is to be accomplished.
When a customer complained on the repair done on his bike, the company
required Allan to explain but nonetheless, terminated its retainership contract
with him. The retainership contract provides that its termination does not
constitute illegal dismissal of the retained mechanic. Does the Labor Arbiter have
jurisdiction over Allan’s complaint for illegal dismissal? Explain. (3 pts.)
SUGGESTED ANSWER
Yes, the Labor Arbiter has jurisdiction over Allan’s complaint because it is a
termination dispute filed by an employee against his employer, which the Labor
Code prescribes to be under the original and exclusive jurisdiction of the labor
arbiter.
The existence of employment relations between Allan and Motor Experts

Corp. may be established under the four-fold test, which includes: (a) the selection
and engagement of the employee; (b) the payment of wages; (c) the power of
dismissal; and (d) the employer's power to control the employee with respect to the
means and method by which the work is to be accomplished.
These requirements had been complied with as shown by the following:
First, the services of Allan were engaged by the Motor Express Corp;
Second, he was paid wages as the retainer fee paid to him is covered under
the term “wages’ and the retainer agreement only provided the breakdown, of the
his monthly income;
Third, the Motor Express Corp. had the power of dismissal as can be gleaned
from the termination of Allan although couched under the guise of the non-renewal
of his contract with the company; and
Fourth, Allan had to abide by the standards set by the company in the repair
of the motorbikes. Clearly, Allan is under the control of the Motor Express Corp.
contrary to the contention that he was free to use his own means and method.
18
With the establishment of employment relations between the parties, the

labor arbiter has proper jurisdiction over the complaint.
QUESTION XII
A week after the execution of the 2010-2015 Collective Bargaining

Agreement between Company A and Union X, Union Y was selected as the new
bargaining agent of rank-and-file employees. Union X questioned the result of
the certification election before the DOLE. The validity of the certification election
was affirmed by the Secretary of Labor, but Company A persistently refused to
bargain with Union Y. Union Y filed a second petition for certification election in
2015, in view of the approaching expiration of the CBA. The CBA expired without
any new CBA negotiated. Instead, the company offered economic benefits to the
rank-and-file employees.
SUBQUESTION 1
May the employer be held liable for unfair labor practice? (3 pts.)
SUGGESTED ANSWER
Yes, the employer may be held liable for unfair labor practice.
An employer who refuses to bargain with the sole and exclusive bargaining
agent (SEBA) and tries to restrict its bargaining power is guilty of unfair labor
practice. In determining whether an employer has not bargained in good faith, the
totality of all the acts of the employer at the time of negotiations must be taken into
account.
In this case, Union Y was duly certified as the incumbent SEBA of the rank-
and-file employees of Company A within a week from execution of the collective
bargaining agreement (CBA). This CBA cannot be deemed permanent as it was
entered into during the pendency of a petition for certification election. Thus, Union
Y may adopt the interim collective bargaining agreement or negotiate with
management for a new collective bargaining agreement. The pendency of the issue
of representation before the courts is not a deterrent to collective bargaining.
Persistent refusal of the employer to negotiate and its actions to frustrate the
conduct of collective bargaining negotiations amount to violation of its duty to
bargain collectively, which is an act of unfair labor practice. (SONDECO
WORKERS FREE LABOR UNION et al. v UNIVERSAL ROBINA
CORPORATION, et al. October 5, 2016, G.R. No. 220383)
19
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER
Yes, it may.
Under the law, an employer has the duty to bargain collectively. Failure to
do so would constitute as unfair labor practice. The duty to bargain collectively
means the performance of a mutual obligation to meet and convene promptly and
expeditiously in good faith for the purpose of negotiating an agreement with
respect to wages, hours of work and all other terms and conditions of employment
including proposals for adjusting any grievances or questions arising under such
agreement and executing a contract incorporating such agreements if requested
by either party but such duty does not compel any party to agree to a proposal or
to make any concession.
In this case, Company A’s persistent refusal to meet and bargain with Union
Y, the newly selected the exclusive bargaining agent of its rank-and-file
employees, constitutes a breach of the duty to bargain collectively, hence
constitutes unfair labor practice by the Company A. (SONDECO WORKERS FREE
LABOR UNION et al. v UNIVERSAL ROBINA CORPORATION, et al. October
5, 2016, G.R. No. 220383)
SUBQUESTION 2
Where there is a subsisting collective bargaining agreement, what is the

right to collectively bargain that is accorded by law to the newly elected
bargaining agent? (3 pts.)
SUGGESTED ANSWER
Under the substitionary doctrine, where there is a subsisting collective

bargaining agreement (CBA) and a new sole and exclusive bargaining agent
(SEBA) is selected by the majority of the members of the bargaining unit, the new
incumbent SEBA does not have the right to change and/or amend the provisions
of the CBA which continues to be binding up to its expiration, but it may bargain
for the shortening of the said expiration date.
However, where the subsisting CBA was executed during the pendency of
a petition for certification election, the CBA is deemed an interim agreement only
so as not to preclude the commencement of negotiations by another union with
management. This gives the new SEBA the option to either adopt the interim CBA
or negotiate for a new one.
SUBQUESTION 3
20
May the employer be compelled to pay benefits that it proposed to give

during the collecvtive bargaining negotiations but which were not printed in the
CBA? (3 pts.)
SUGGESTED ANSWER
No, it cannot. If a proposal is not printed in the collective bargaining

agreement, it cannot be demanded.
The CBA is the law between the contracting parties — the collective
bargaining representative and the employer-company. While CBA provisions
should be construed liberally rather than narrowly and technically; however, only
provisions embodied in the CBA should be so interpreted and complied with.
Where a proposal raised by a contracting party does not find print in the CBA, it
is not a part thereof and the proponent has no claim whatsoever to its
implementation.
SUBQUESTION 4
If a senior law student assisted the lawyers of both parties in drafting the
CBA, may he be entitled to a share of the lawyers’ attorney’s fees which they
offered to him? Why? (3 pts.)
SUGGESTED ANSWER
No.
Under the law, the general rule is that the lawyer shall not divide or stipulate
to divide a fee for legal services with persons not licensed to practice law, except
for certain instances. Also, a law student who has successfully completed his 3rd
year of the regular four-year prescribed law curriculum and is enrolled in a
recognized law school's clinical legal education program approved by the Supreme
Court, may appear without compensation in any civil, criminal or administrative
case before any trial court, tribunal, board or officer, to represent indigent clients
accepted by the legal clinic of the law school.
From the foregoing, a senior law student is not entitled to a share of the
attorney’s fees given that such circumstance is not among those exceptions when
a lawyer may divide his legal fees with non-lawyers. Also, although pertaining
only to appearances, the law expressly states that a law student is not entitled to
any compensation.
21
QUESTION XIII
Can picketing be enjoined? (3 pts.)
SUGGESTED ANSWER
As a general rule, injunction cannot be issued against the conduct of

picketing by the workers. Under our constitutional set up, picketing is considered
part of the freedom of speech duly guaranteed by the Constitution.
However, as an exception, picketing may be enjoined under the following

circumstances:
a. Where picketing is carried out through the use of illegal means;
b. Where picketing involves the use of violence and other illegal acts;
c. Where picketing affects the rights of third parties and injunction

becomes necessary to protect such rights, or
d. Where the picket affects not only the employer but also the business
operations of other establishments owned by third parties.
In the first three instances, it is the NLRC that shall issue the injunction.
While in the last instance, it is the regular courts that shall issue such injunction.
QUESTION XIV
The existing collective bargaining agreement between the Hotel and the
Union states that the sale of food, beverage, transportation, laundry and rooms
are subject to service charge at the rate of 10%. Excepted from the coverage of
the 10% service charge are the so-called “negotiated contracts” and “special
rates”. Can the Union validly claim proportionate share of proportionate service
charges from “non-sales” such as free benefits from hotel and credit cards
arrangements? (3 pts.)
SUGGESTED ANSWER
No, it cannot.
A CBA is the law between the contracting parties who are obliged under the
law to comply with its provisions. As a contract and the governing law between
the parties, the general rules of statutory construction apply in the interpretation
22
of a CBAs provisions. Thus, if the terms of the CBA are plain, clear and leave no
doubt on the intention of the contracting parties, the literal meaning of its
stipulations, as they appear on the face of the contract, shall prevail. Only when
the words used are ambiguous and doubtful or leading to several interpretations
of the parties’ agreement that a resort to interpretation and construction is called
for.
As in this case, the Union cannot claim proportionate share from said
transactions given that, in understanding the plain terms of the CBA, the
employees are only entitled to transactions involving a "sale of food, beverage,
transportation, laundry and rooms". No service charges were due from the
specified entries/transactions as such either fall within the CBA-excepted
"Negotiated Contracts" and "Special Rates" or did not involve "a sale of food,
beverage, etc."
QUESTION XV
The national council of Katokahan Union, the exclusive bargaining

representative of all daily paid workers of Katokahan Corp., called a general
meeting and passed a resolution which provides that each union member was to
be assessed P 1,000 to be deducted from the lump sum of P10,000.00 which
each employee was to receive under the CBA. Alberto, a Union member,
protested and refused to sign the authorization slip for the deduction. Katokahan
Union then passed a resolution expelling Alberto from the union. Alberto filed a
complaint before the Labor Arbiter for illegal deduction and expulsion from the
union. Will the complaint prosper? Explain. (3 pts.)
SUGGESTED ANSWER
No, it will not.
Under the law, the Bureau of Labor Relations and the Labor Relations Division in
the regional offices of the Department of Labor shall have original and exclusive
authority to act, at their own initiative or upon request of either or both parties, on
all inter-union and intra-union conflicts, and all disputes, grievances or problems
arising from or affecting labor-management relations in all work places whether
agricultural or non-agricultural, except those arising from the implementation or
interpretation of collective bargaining agreements which shall be subject of
grievance procedure and/or voluntary arbitration.
As in the case at hand, it is clear that the issue involves an intra-union

dispute, being a dispute against a labor union and its member. As such, the
complaint will not proper given subject of the case is an intra-union dispute which
23
falls under the original and exclusive jurisdiction of the Bureau of Labor Relations.
The Labor Arbiter has no jurisdiction over said case.
QUESTION XVI
Petra has been working as housemaid for the Vargas spouses for three (3)
years. In the early morning of November 4, 2016, the spouses and Petra were
watching the live coverage of the boxing match between Filipino fighter Manny
Pacquiao and Mexican fighter Jessie Vargas which the Filipino fighter won on
points. Peeved by Petra's angry remarks that the scoring was unfair, the Vargas
spouses, fans on Manny Pacquiao, fired her on the spot. Petra thereafter filed a
complaint with the Regional Director of the DOLE for unpaid salaries totalling
P5,500.00. The Vargas spouses moved to dismiss the complaint on the belief
that Petra's claim falls within the Jurisdiction of the Labor Arbiter. Petra,
however, claimed that the Regional Director can decide on her claim by virtue of
his plenary visitorial powers under Art. 128 and of Art. 129 of the Labor Code,
as amended, which empowers the Regional Director to hear and decide, among
others, matters involving recovery of wages. Whose position will you sustain?
Explain. (3 pts.)
SUGGESTED ANSWER
The Vargas spouses’ position.
Art. 128 is not applicable because the case did not arise as a result of the
exercise of visitorial and enforcement powers by the Regional Director, as the duly
authorized representative of the Secretary of Labor and Employment. Instead, the
case pertains to a simple money claim under Art. 129, which would be under the
jurisdiction of the Regional Director if the claim does not exceed P5,000.00.
Given that the claim exceeds the threshold amount of P5,000.00, it is the
Labor Arbiter who has jurisdiction over the same under Art. 223 of the Labor Code
(formerly, Art. 217).
QUESTION XVII
Sapatos Department Store (SDS) adopted a policy of hiring salesladies on

five-month cycles. At the end of a saleslady's five-month term, another person is
hired as replacement. Salesladies attend to store customers, wear SDS uniforms,
24
report at specified hours, and are subject to SDS workplace rules and
regulations. Those who refuse the 5-month employment contract are not
hired. The day after expiration of her 5-month engagement, Leah wore her SDS
white and blue uniform and reported for work but was denied entry into the store
premises. Agitated, she went on a hunger strike and stationed herself in front of
one of the gates of SDS. Soon thereafter, other employees whose 5-month term
had also elapsed joined Leah's hunger strike. Assume that no fixed-term worker
complained, yet in a routine inspection, a labor inspector of the DOLE Regional
Office found that the Labor Code's security of tenure provisions were violated
and recommended to the Regional Director the issuance a compliance order. The
Regional Director adopted the recommendation and issued a compliance order.
Is the compliance order valid? Explain your answer. (3 pts.)
SUGGESTED ANSWER
No, it is not.
The Regional Director exercises only visitorial and enforcement power over
the labor standard cases, and the power to adjudicate uncontested money claims
of employees. The Regional Director has no power to rule on SDS’s 5-month term
policy and the consequent right of employees to security of tenure.
QUESTION XVIII
Article 100 of the Labor Code, otherwise known as the Non-Diminuition

Rule, mandates that the benefits given to employees cannot be taken back or
reduced unilaterally by the employer. What are the conditions and limitations in
the application of this rule? (3 pts.)
SUGGESTED ANSWER
The Non-Diminution Rule found in Article 100 of the Labor Code explicitly
prohibits employers from unilaterally eliminating or reducing the benefits received
by their employees, provided the benefit is based on any of the following: an
express policy, a written contract, or a company practice.
In order to ripen into a company practice that is demandable as a matter of

right, the giving of the benefit should not be by reason of a strict legal or contractual
obligation but by reason of an act of liberality on the part of the employer. The
following criteria may be used to determine whether an act has ripened into a
company practice:
25
a. The act of the employer has been done for a considerable period of
time;
b. The act should be done consistently and intentionally; and
c. The act should not be a product of erroneous interpretation or

construction of a doubtful or difficult question of law or provision in
the CBA.
The principle, however, does not apply when the grant of the benefit subject
thereof is conditional, or where the elimination of the benefits is in exchange for an
equal or better one; or when no monetary benefits or privileges with monetary
equivalents are involved.
QUESTION XIX
Compare and contrast separation pay and backwages as reliefs granted to

an illegally dismissed employee. (3 pts.)
SUGGESTED ANSWER
As reliefs granted to an illegally dismissed employee, separation pay and

backwages may be differentiated as follows:
a. Separation pay is paid when reinstatement is not possible; while

backwages are paid for the compensation which otherwise the
employee should have earned had he not been illegally dismissed.
(EQUITABLE BANKING CORP. v SADAC. June 8, 2006, G.R. No.
164772)
b. Separation pay is computed on the basis of employee’s length of

service and the actual period when he was prevented from working
until the finality of the judgment; while backwages are based only on
the actual period when he was unlawfully prevented from working
until finality of judgment. (CICM MISSION SEMINARIES SCHOOL
OF THEOLOGY, INC. v PEREZ. January 18, 2017, G.R. No.
220506; TPG CORP. v PINAS. January 25, 2017, G.R. No.
189714)
c. Separation pay is paid to provide the illegally dismissed employee

with the wherewithal during the period that an employee is looking
for another employment; while backwages are paid for the loss of
26
earnings during the period between illegal dismissal and

reinstatement. (QUEBEC, SR. v NLRC. January 22, 1999, G.R. No.
123184)
d. Separation pay is oriented towards the immediate future; while

backwages involve the restoration of the past income lost. (LOPEZ,
JR. v NLRC. July 6, 1995, G.R. No. 109166)
e. Separation pay cannot be paid in lieu of backwages. (TORILLO v

LEOGARDO. May 27, 1991, G.R. No. 77205) Although, generally,
an order of reinstatement carries with it an award of backwages, the
court may not only mitigate, but also absolve the employer from
liability for backwages where good faith is evident. (DURABUILT
RECAPPING PLANT & COMPANY v NLRC. July 27, 1987, G.R.
No. 76746)
QUESTION XX
Suppose an employee under permanent partial disability suffers another

disabling injury more serious than the previous injury, will he be entitled to
compensation benefits for the new disability under the State Insurance Fund?
SUGGESTED ANSWER
It depends.
Generally, if the employee incurs another worse disability, he may be

compensated again under the State Insurance Fund. The only exception is if the
new disability is related to the previous disability, wherein the employee is only
entitled to the difference in the disability benefits.
QUESTION XXI
Rolando Covita worked for the same company as a bosun charged with the
vessel’s deck operation over a period of ten (10) years with successive ten-month
contracts. On his last contract with the same company, he was medically
repatriated after only a week aboard the foreign vessel and died of chronic renal
failure. His widow, Alma, now demands for death benefits as she claims that
Rolando’s illness was caused by hypertension brought about by his stress at
work. If Rolando was already suffering from chronic renal failure when he began
his last contract with the company, is his widow entitled to death compensation
benefits? Why? (3 pts.)
27
SUGGESTED ANSWER
No, she is not.
To be entitled for death compensation and benefits from the employer, the
death of the seafarer: (1) must be work-related; and (2) must happen during the
term of the employment contract. A work-related illness is defined under the POEA
SEC as any sickness resulting to disability or death as a result of an occupational
illness listed under Section 32-A of this contract. Illnesses not listed therein are
disputably presumed work-related.
In this case if Rolando was already suffering from chronic renal failure when
he began his last contract, his illness during his previous contract with the same
company is deemed pre-existing during his subsequent contract. Hence, his death
arising from a pre-existing illness is not compensable as he did not acquire it
during the term of his last employment contract with respondents. While it is true
that the pre-existence of an illness does not irrevocably bar compensability
because disability laws still grant the same provided the seafarer's working
conditions bear causal connection with his illness, these rules, however, cannot be
asserted perfunctorily by the widow as it is incumbent upon her to prove, by
substantial evidence, as to how and why the nature of his husband’s work and
working conditions contributed to and/or aggravated his illness. Rolando was
only on board the vessel for seven days and there was no substantial evidence to
prove how his job as a bosun or his working conditions had aggravated his illness
which caused his death. (COVITA v SSM MARITIME SERVICES, INC.
December 7, 2016, G.R. No. 206600)
QUESTION XXII
Elmer, a seaman, who was repatriated, failed to comply with the 72-hour
reportorial requirement for the conduct of a post-employment medical
examination under the POEA-Standard Employment Contract. He claims that
he was outrightly denied medical assistance on the pretext that the doctors
abroad had found him fit to work. Unfortunately, there is no document to
establish the denial. Similarly, there is no paper trail to prove that there was in
fact a referral to a company-designated doctor, either for assessment or
treatment ? May his claim for disability benefit prosper? (3 pts.)
SUGGESTED ANSWER
Yes.
Under 3rd paragraph of Section 20(A)(3) of the 2000 POEA-SEC, a seafarer

shall submit himself to a post-employment medical examination by a company-
28
designated physician within three working days or 72 hours upon his return.
Failure of the seafarer to comply with the mandatory reporting requirement shall
result in his forfeiture of the right to claim disability benefits.
In this case, Elmer’s failure to comply with the 72-hour reportorial

requirement cannot result in the automatic forfeiture of his disability benefits since
it was caused by the deliberate refusal of the company to refer him to a company-
designated physician. Without referral to a company-designated doctor, no post-
employment medical examination can be performed on him. No written fit to work
or disability grading certificate was also issued. Without the assessment of the
company-designated doctor, there was nothing for Elmer’s own physicians to
contest rendering consultation with a third doctor agreed upon by the parties as
superfluous. (ELMER A. APINES v ELBURG SHIPMANAGEMENT
PHILIPPINES, INC. November 9, 2016, G.R. No. 202114)
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER
No, his claim for disability benefit may not prosper.
Under 3rd paragraph of Section 20(A)(3) of the 2000 POEA-SEC, a seafarer

shall submit himself to a post-employment medical examination by a company-
designated physician within three working days or 72 hours upon his return.
Failure of the seafarer to comply with the mandatory reporting requirement shall
result in his forfeiture of the right to claim disability benefits.
In this case, Elmer did not present any evidence to prove that he asserted
his rights against the company, or that he tried to submit himself to a company-
designated physician within three working days upon his return. He did not also
present any letter that he was physically incapacitated to see the company-
designated physician in order to be exempted from the rule.
While the POEA Standard Employment Contract is designed primarily for

the protection and benefit of Filipino seafarers during their employment; it is
necessary that one who claims benefits provided by law should not only comply
with the procedural requirements but also establish his right to the benefits by
substantial evidence. Elmer failed to do so; hence, his claims for disability benefits
may not be granted. (TAGUD v BSM CREW SERVICE CENTRE PHILS., INC.
December 6,2017, GR No. 219370)
QUESTION XXIII
Do workers in both the public and private sectors have the right to self-
organize? Explain. (3 pts.)
29
SUGGESTED ANSWER
The 1987 Philippine Constitution grants to all workers in both the public and
private sectors the right to self-organize. Labor legislation, however, limits the
same by recognizing the exclusion of the following employees:
a. High level government employee whose functions are normally

considered policy determining, managerial or highly confidential in
nature (E.O. 180);
b. Employees of cooperatives who are also members thereof;
c. Managerial employees;
d. Members of the Armed Forces of the Philippines, Philippine National

Police, jail guards and firemen under the Bureau of Fire Protection;
e. Confidential employees;
f. Employees of international organizations such as those under the

United Nations;
g. Non-employees; and
h. Non-resident aliens without valid alien employment permits and

whose country of origin does not grant unto the Filipino migrant
workers the same right to self-organize.
QUESTION XXIV
State the Protection to Labor Clause under the 1987 Philippine

Constitution. (4 pts.)
SUGGESTED ANSWER
The Protection to Labor Clause under Section 3, Article XIII of the 1987
Constitution states:
30
The State shall afford full protection to labor, local and overseas, organized
and unorganized, and promote full employment and equality of employment
opportunities for all.
It shall guarantee the rights of all workers to self-organizations, and

peaceful concerted activities, including the right to strike in accordance with law.
They shall be entitled to security of tenure, humane conditions of work, and a living
wage. They shall also participate in policy and decision-making processes
affecting their rights and benefits as may be provided by law.
The State shall promote the principle of shared responsibility between

workers and employers and the preferential use of voluntary modes in settling
disputes including conciliation, and shall enforce their mutual compliance
therewith to foster industrial peace.
The State shall regulate the relations between workers and employers,
recognizing the right to labor to its just share in the fruits of the production and the
right of enterprises to reasonable returns on investments, and to expansion and
growth.
31

Labor Mock Bar

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Labor Mock Bar

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Labor Mock Bar

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

LABOR LAW TEAM

Faculty Adviser: Atty. Leilanee Dasig- Quanguey

Subject Head: Inna Camille C. Andres

Members: Janelle Ann H. Buhangin

Cover Layout by Eric Karl Nicholas Aguilar

All rights reserved.

LABOR LAW 2017 MOCK BAR QUESTIONS WITH SUGGESTED ANSWERS

2017 MOCK BAR EXAMINATIONS

05 December 2017 5:00 p.m. – 9:00 p.m.

1. This Questionnaire contains five (5) pages including these Instruction

A mere “Yes” or “No” answer without any corresponding explanation or

HAND IN THIS QUESTIONNAIRE TOGETHER WITH YOUR NOTEBOOK.

Discuss the application of the following rules in labor relations:

Totality of Conduct Rule (1 pt.)

An employer’s expression of opinion about unionization may or may not

The “totality of conduct doctrine” holds that the culpability of an employer’s

Totality of Infractions Rule (1 pt.)

The totality of infarctions rule is applied when an employee has been

Generally, when an employee commits misconduct, the penalty imposed

“Sana maisip din nila na ang kompanya kailangan ng mga taong di

Is the dismissal valid? (3 pts.)

No, the dismissal is not valid.

A managerial employee like Bill may be dismissed based on fraud or willful

confidence as to justify his dismissal. (INTERADENT ZAHNTECHNIK

No, the levy on the shares of stock is not proper

A corporation, as a juridical entity, may act only through its directors,

The validity of the closure of Tootrain, Inc, a transportation company, was

Super Prints is a sole and exclusive proprietorship owned by Peter Ang,

Peter Ang argues that separate corporations cannot be treated as a single

The general rule is that separate corporations cannot be treated as a single

What is meant by multiple employer bargaining? (1 pt.)

Multi-employer bargaining, as introduced by DOLE Department Order No.

a. only legitimate labor unions which are incumbent exclusive

b. only employers with counterpart legitimate labor unions which are

c. only those legitimate labor unions which pertain to employer units

While the Med-Arbiter has the authority to determine the existence of an

In order that employees be considered as project-employees, the employer

Is the submission of a termination report to the DOLE sufficient proof of

The submission of this report, by and of itself, is therefore not conclusive to

As Insurance Sales Executive, Vilma allegedly claimed commissions for

Is the Labor Arbiter correct? (3 pts.)

When is serious misconduct a valid cause for termination of employment?

Serious misconduct is valid cause for termination of employment when the

(a) the misconduct must be serious;

(b) it must relate to the performance of the employee’s duties showing

Ms. Ida, a high school teacher on probationary status with fixed-term

Under the law, full-time teachers become regular or permanent employees

Powerhouse Staffbuilders International, Inc. (Powerhouse) hired Lia, Liza

If in the meantime, Catcher Corp. transferred the accreditation from

Under POEA Rules and Regulations, a manning agreement extends up to

Therefore, regardless of the transfer of accreditation, Powerhouse is not

If the pre-termination of the overseas employment contract due to low orders

“(i) To substitute or alter to the prejudice of the worker, employment contracts

What rate of interest should be applied to monetary claims of migrant

Section 10 of R.A. No. 8042, as amended by RA 10022, provides that "[i]n

Staging a valid strike

The following requirements should be observed and complied with in staging

a. The strike should be staged by a legitimate labor organization

b. Non-commission of any prohibited acts listed under the Labor Code,

c. Observance of lawful orders and proceedings pertaining to the