Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 24

Q: Which is not a constitutional right of the workers?

(2012 Bar Question) (C) No, because there was no dismissal to speak of. Her employment was automatically terminated upon the
expiration of her year-to-year fixed term employment.
a. The right to engage in peaceful concerted activities; (D) No, because BM Institute may dismiss its faculty members at will in the exercise of its academic freedom.
b. The right to enjoy security of tenure; (E) No, because Aleta was still on probationary employment.
c. The right to return on investment;
d. The right to receive a living wage. SUGGESTED ANSWER:
(A) (Yolanda Mercado v. AMA Computer College, G.R. No. 183572 [2010])
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
c) The right to return on investment [Art. XIII, Sec. 3, Constitution] Q: The workers worked as cargadors at the warehouse and ricemills of farm A for several years. As cargadors,
they loaded, unloaded and piled sacks of rice from the warehouse to the cargo trucks for delivery to different
Q: Which of the following is correct with respect to the extent of the application of security of tenure? places. They were paid by Farm A on a piece-rate basis. Are the workers considered regular employee? (2012
(2012 Bar Question) Bar Question)
a. It applies to managerial and to all rank-and-file employees if not yet regular, but not to
management trainees; a) Yes, because Farm A paid wages directly to these workers without the intervention of any third
b. It applies to managerial and to all rank-and-file employees including those under probation; party independent contractor;
c. It applies to seasonal and project employees, if they are hired repeatedly; b) Yes, their work is directly related, necessary and vital to the operations of the farm;
d. It applies to all kinds of employees except those employed on a part-time basis. c) No, because Farm A did not have the power to control the workers with respect to the means and
SUGGESTED ANSWERS: methods by which the work is to be accomplished;
a. It applies to managerial and to all rank-and-file employees if not yet regular, but not to d) A and B
management trainees. [Management Trainee are not employees yet].
b. It applies to managerial and to all rank-and-file employees including those under probation SUGGESTED ANSWERS:
Four-fold test (a) Yes, because Farm A paid wages directly to these workers without the intervention of any
Q: The most important factor in determining the existence of an employer-employee relationship is the: third party independent contractor;
(2012 Bar Question) (b) Yes, their work is directly related, necessary and vital to the operations of the farm.
a. Power to control the method by which employees are hired and selected;
b. Power to control the manner by which employees are transferred from one job site to Q: Mr. Ortanez has been in the building construction business for several years. He asks you, as his new
another; labor counsel, for the rules he must observe in considering regular employment in the construction
c. Power to control the results achieved by giving guidelines to the employees; industry.
d. Power to control the results to be achieved and the employee’s method of achieving the task. You clarify that an employee, project or non-project, will acquire regular status if __________. (2013 Bar
SUGGESTED ANSWER: Questions)
(A) he has been continuously employed for more than one year
d. Power to control the results to be achieved and the employee’s method of achieving the task (B) his contract of employment has been repeatedly renewed, from project to project, for several years
[Abante vs. La Madrid Bearing Part Corp., 430 SCRA 368 (2004] (C) he performs work necessary and desirable to the business, without a fixed period and without reference to
any specific project or undertaking
(D) he has lived up to the company's regularization standards
a. Probationary (E) All of the above.
Q: Aleta Quiros was a faculty member at BM Institute, a private educational institution. She was hired on a year-
to-year basis under the probationary employment period provision of the Manual of Regulations for Private SUGGESTED ANSWER: (C)
Schools. The terms and conditions of her engagement were defined under her renewable yearly contract. Note: With all due respect to the examiner, the questions is ambiguous since it mentions, project or non-project.
For reasons of its own, BM Institute no longer wanted to continue with Aleta's teaching services. Thus, after the This is confusing since the criteria in the determination of regular status for project and non-project employees are
contract for her second year expired, BM Institute advised Aleta that her contract would no longer be renewed. different.
This advice prompted Aleta to file a complaint for illegal dismissal against BM Institute.
Q: Don Don is hired as a contractual employee of CALLHELP, a call center. His contract is expressly for a term
Will the complaint prosper? (2013 Bar Questions) of 4 months. Don Don is hired for 3 straight contracts of 4 months each but at 2-week intervals between
(A) Yes, because no just or authorized cause existed for the termination of her probationary employment. contracts. After the third contract ended, Don Don is told that he will no longer be given another contract
(B) Yes, because under the Labor Code, Aleta became a regular employee after 6 months and she may now only because of "poor performance." Don Don files a suit for "regularization" and for illegal dismissal, claiming that
be dismissed for cause. he is a regular employee of CALLHELP and that he was dismissed without cause. You are the Labor Arbiter. How
would you decide the case? (2015 Bar Question)

1
SUGGESTED ANSWER: A. Right to self-organization
As Labor Arbiter, I will decide the case in favor of Don Don. Given the nature of Don Don’s work, which Q: It is defined as any union or association of employees which exists in whole or in part for the purpose of
consist of activities usually or desirable in the usual business of CALLHELP, Don Don should be considered a collective bargaining with employers concerning terms and conditions of employment. (2012 Bar Question)
regular employee. a. Bargaining representative;
CALLHELP’s termination of Don Don’s service in the guise of “poor performance” is not valid. Whether b. Labor organization;
for a probationary or regular employee, the requisites of dismissal on that ground do not appear to have been c. Legitimate labor organization;
complied with by the employer here. d. Federation.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Q: Lucy was one of approximately 500 call center agents at Hambergis, Inc. She was hired as a contractual a) Labor Organization [ Art. 212(g), Labor Code]
employee four years ago. Her contracts would be for a duration of five (5) months at a time, usually after a one-
month interval. Her re-hiring was contingent on her performance for the immediately preceding contract. Six Q: Which of the following is a right and/or condition of membership in a labor organization? (2012 Bar
(6) months after the expiration of her last contract, Lucy went to Hambergis personnel department to inquire Question)
why she was not yet being recalled to work. She was told that her performance during her last contract was a. No arbitrary or excessive initiation fees shall be required of the members of a legitimate
“below average.” Lucy seeks your legal advice about her chances of getting her job back. What will your advice labor organization nor shall arbitrary, excessive or oppressive fine and forfeiture be
be? (2014 Bar Question) imposed;
b. The members shall be entitled to full and detailed reports from their officers and
SUGGESTED ANSWER: representatives of all financial transactions as provided for in the constitution and by-laws
of the organization;
Lucy cannot get her job back. She is a fixed-term employee and as such, her employment terminates c. No labor organization shall knowingly admit as members or continue in membership any
upon the expiration of her contract. (Rowell Industrial Corporation v. Court of Appeals, 517 SCRA 691 [2007]). individual who belongs to a subversive organization or who is engaged directly or indirectly
in any subversive activity;
SUGGESTED ALTERNATIVE ANSWER: d. All of the above.
I will advise Lucy that she can get her job back if she files a case for illegal dismissal where, as a general
rule, the twin reliefs of backwages and reinstatement are available. In the instant case, Lucy is a regular SUGGESTED ANSWER:
employee because the employment contracts of five (5) months at a time, for four (4) years are obviously d. All of the above. [Art. 241, Labor Code]:
intended to circumvent an employee's security of tenure, and are therefore void. As a regular employee, Lucy
may only be dismissed from service based on just and authorized causes enumerated under the Labor Code, Q: At what particular point does a labor organization acquire a legal personally? (2012 Bar Question)
and after observance of procedural due process prescribed under said law. (Magsalin, et al. v. NOWM, G.R. No. a. On the date the agreement to organize the union is signed by the majority of all its members;
148492, May 9, 2003). b. On the date the application for registration is duly filed with the Department of Labor;
c. On the date appearing on the Certificate of Registration;
Transfer of employees d. On the date the Certificate of Registration is actually issued.
Q: Din Din is a single mother with one child. She is employed as a sales executive at a prominent supermarket. e.
She and her child live in Quezon City and her residence and workplace are a 15-minute drive apart. One day, SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Din Din is informed by her boss that she is being promoted to a managerial position but she is now being b) On the date the Certificate of Registration is actually issued [Art. 234, Labor Code]
transferred to the Visayas. Din Din does not want to uproot her family and refuses the offer. Her boss is so
humiliated by Din Din's refusal of the offer that she gives Din Din successive unsatisfactory evaluations that Q: Which of the following groups does not enjoy the right to self-organization? (2014 Bar Question)
result in Din Din being removed from the supermarket. (A) those who work in a non-profit charitable institution
Din Din approaches you, as counsel, for legal advice. What would you advise her? (2015 Bar Question) (B) those who are paid on a piece-rate basis
(C) those who work in a corporation with less than 10 employees
SUGGESTED ANSWER: (D) those who work as legal secretaries

I will advise Din Din to sue her boss and the supermarket for illegal dismissal. Din Din cannot be SUGGESTED ANSWER:
compelled to accept the promotion. Her unsatisfactory evaluations as well as her boss’ insistence that she
should agree to the intended transfer to Visayas are badges of an abuse of management prerogative. In Pfizer D. those who work as legal secretaries (Tunay na Pagkakaisa v. Asia Brewery, G.R. No. 162025,
Inc. v. Velasco (645 SCRA 135), the Supreme Court held that the managerial prerogative to transfer personnel August 3, 2010]
must be exercised without abuse of discretion, bearing in mind the basic elements of justice and fair play. Hence,
Din Din’s dismissal is illegal.

2
Q: Our Lady of Peace Catholic School Teachers and Employees Labor Union (OLPCS-TELU) is a legitimate labor George, as a general rule, is prohibited by Art. 270(a) of the Labor Code from giving any donation,
organization composed of vice-principals, department heads, coordinators, teachers, and non-teaching grant or other form of assistance, in cash or in kind, directly or indirectly to the Union. He can give a support
personnel of Our Lady of Peace Catholic School (OLPCS). OLPCS-TELU subsequently filed a petition for only upon prior permission from the Secretary of Labor relative to “Trade Union activities” as defined in said
certification election among the teaching and non-teaching personnel of OLPCS before the Bureau of Labor law.
Relations (BLR) of the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE). The Med-Arbiter subsequently granted George, in addition to his alien employment permit, must first prove that the country whereof he is a
the petition and ordered the conduct of a joint certification election for the teaching and non-teaching personnel national recognizes the right of Filipinos working therein to organize. Under these conditions, he is allowed to
of OLPCS. support the existing union by joining it as to increase its membership.

May OLPCS-TELU be considered a legitimate labor organization? (2014 Bar Question)


Bargaining unit
SUGGESTED ANSWER: Q: Samahang Tunay, a union of rank-and-file employees lost in a certification election at Solam Company and
Yes. The facts of the case concede that OLPCS-TELY “is a legitimate labor organization”. has become a minority union. The majority union now has a signed CBA with the company and the agreement
contains a maintenance of membership clause.
Who may unionize for purposes of collective bargaining What can Samahang Tunay still do within the company as a union considering that it still has members who
Philhealth is a government-owned and controlled corporation employing thousands of Filipinos. Because of the continue to profess continued loyalty to it? (2013 Bar Questions)
desire of the employees of Philhealth to obtain better terms and conditions of employment from the (A) It can still represent these members in grievance committee meetings.
government, they formed the Philhealth Employees Association (PEA) and demanded Philhealth to enter into (B) It can collect agency fees from its members within the bargaining unit.
negotiations with PEA regarding terms and conditions of employment which are not fixed by law. (2014 Bar (C) It can still demand meetings with the company on company time.
Question) (D) As a legitimate labor organization, it can continue to represent its members on non-CBA-related matters.
(A) Are the employees of Philhealth allowed to self-organize and form PEA and thereafter demand (E) None of the above.
Philhealth to enter into negotiations with PEA for better terms and conditions of employment? (F) All of the above.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes. Employees of Philhealth are allowed to self-organize under Section 8, Article III and Section 3, SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Article XIII of the Constitution which recognize the rights of all workers to self-organization. They cannot (D) Basis: Article 248 (formerly Art. 242) of the Labor Code.
demand, however, for better terms and conditions of employment for the same are fixed by law (Art. 244, Labor
Code), besides, their salaries are standardized by Congress (Art. 276, Labor Code). Q: The Pinagbuklod union filed a Petition for Certification Election, alleging that it was a legitimate labor
organization of the rank-and-file employees of Delta Company. On Delta's motion, the Med Arbiter dismissed
In case of unresolved grievances, can PEA resort to strikes, walkouts, and other temporary work the Petition, based on the finding that Pinagbuklod was not a legitimate labor union and had no legal personality
stoppages to pressure thegovernment to accede to their demands? to file a Petition for Certification Election because its membership was a mixture of rank-and-file and
supervisory employees.
SUGGESTED ANSWER: Is the dismissal of the Petition for Certification Election by the Med-Arbiter proper? (2013 Bar Questions)
No. Since the terms and conditions of government employment are fixed by law, government workers (A) Yes, because Article 245 of the Labor Code prohibits supervisory employees from joining the union of he
cannot use the same weapons employed by workers in the private sector to secure concessions from their rank and file employees and provides that a union representing both rank and file and supervisory employees
employers. (Blaquera vs. Alcala, G.R. Nos. 109406, 110642, 111494, 112056, 119597, September 11, 1998). as members is not a legitimate labor organization.
(B) No, because the grounds for the dismissal of a petition for certification election do not include mixed
Q: What is the rule on the "equity of the incumbent"? (2015 Bar Question) membership in one umon.
SUGGESTED ANSWER: (C) No, because a final order of cancellation of union registration is required before a petition for certification
The Equity of the Incumbent rule has it that all existing federations or national unions, possessing all election may be dismissed on the ground of lack of legal personality of the umon.
qualifications of an LLO and none of the grounds for CR cancellation, shall continue to maintain their existing (D) No, because Delta Company did not have the legal personality to participate in the certification election
affiliates regardless of their location or industry to which they belong. In case of dissociation, affiliates are not proceedings and to file a motion to dismiss based on the legitimacy status of the petitioning union.
required to observe the one union-one industry rule.
SUGGESTED ANSWER: (D)
Who cannot form, join or assist labor organizations
Q: George is an American who is working as a consultant for a local IT company. The company has a union and
George wants to support the union. How far can George go in terms of his support for the union? (2015 Bar
Question) Q: Which phrase most accurately completes the statement – Members of cooperatives: (2012 Bar
Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:

3
a. Can invoke the right to collective bargaining because it is a fundamental right under the (a) xxxxxxx
Constitution; (b) Distinguish between a "closed shop" clause and a "maintenance of
b. Can invoke the right to collective bargaining because they are permitted by law; membership" clause. (2015 Bar Question)
c. Cannot invoke the right to collective bargaining because each member is considered an (c) Distinguish between "union dues" and "agency fees." (2015 Bar Question)
owner;
d. Cannot invoke the right to collective bargaining because they are expressly prohibited by SUGGESTED ANSWERS:
law.
(b) In a “closed shop” clause, all employees are required to be members of the union at the time of
SUGGESTED ANSWER: hiring. They too must remain members of good standing during the period of employment as a condition of
b) Cannot invoke the right to collective bargaining because each member is considered an continued employment. Maintenance of membership clause, on the other hand, requires all employees who are
owner. [Benguet Electric Cooperative vs. Pura Ferrer-Calleja, G.R. No. 79025, Dec. 29, 1989] union members at the time of the execution of the CBA to maintain their membership of good standing, as a
condition of continued employment.
Duty to bargain collectively (c) Union dues are union funds paid by union members, normally through check-off by the employer
When there is absence of a CBA on the basis of an individual written authorization duly signed by the employees pursuant to Art. 241 (o) of the
Q: Upon the expiration of the first three (3) years of their CBA, the union and the company commenced Labor Code. Agency fee, on the other hand, is a reasonable fee equivalent to the dues and other fees paid by
negotiations. The union demanded that the company continue to honor their 30-day union leave benefit under members of the recognized collective bargaining agent. Art. 248(e) of the Labor Code mandates that only non-
the CBA. The company refused on the ground that the CBA had already expired, and the union had already union members who accept the benefits under the CBA may be assessed agency fees. Their check-off
consumed their union leave under the CBA. authorization is not required.

Who is correct? (2013 Bar Questions) Check-off; union dues, agency fees
Q: Pablo works as a driver at the National Tire Company (NTC). He is a member of the Malayang Samahan ng
(A) The company is correct because the CBA has expired; hence it is no longer bound to provide union leave. Manggagawa sa NTC, the exclusive rank-and-file collective bargaining representative in the company. The union
(B) The company is correct because the union has already consumed the allotted union leave under the expired has a CBA with NTC which contains a union security and a check-off clause. The union security clause contains
CBA. a maintenance of membership provision that requires all members of the bargaining unit to maintain their
(C) The union is correct because it is still the bargaining representative for the next two (2) years. membership in good standing with the union during the term of the CBA under pain of dismissal. The check-off
(D) The union is correct because union leaves are part of the economic terms that continue to govern until new clause on the other hand authorizes the company to deduct from union members' salaries defined amounts of
terms are agreed upon. union dues and other fees. Pablo refused to issue an authorization to the company for the check-off of his dues,
(E) They are both wrong. maintaining that he will personally remit his dues to the union.

SUGGESTED ANSWER: (B) (A) Would the NTC management commit unfair labor practice if it desists from checking off Pablo's union dues
SUGGESTED ALTERNATIVE ANSWER: for lack of individual authorization from Pablo? (2013 Bar Questions)
(D) Basis: Article 259 (formerly Article 253) of the Labor Code.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Q: The Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) between Libra Films and its union, Libra Films Employees' Union
(LFEU), contains the following standard clauses: No. Under Article 9481, violation of the Collective Bargaining Agreement, to be an unfair labor practice, must
be gross in character. It must be a flagrant and malicious refusal to comply with the economic provisions of the
1. Maintenance of membership; CBA.
2. Check off for union dues and agency fees; and
3. No strike, no lock-out. SUGGESTED ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:

While Libra Films and LFEU are in re-negotiations for an extension of the CBA, LFEU discovers that some of its No. Check-offs in the truth impose an extra burden on the employer in the form of additional administrative and
members have resigned from the union, citing their constitutional right to organize (which includes the right bookkeeping costs. It is a burden assumed by management at the instance of the union and for its benefit, in
NOT to organize). LFEU demands that Libra Films institute administrative proceedings to terminate those union order to facilitate the collection of dues necessary for the latter’s life and sustenance. But the obligation to pay
members who resigned in violation of the CBA's maintenance of membership clause. Libra Films refuses, citing union dues and agency fees obviously devolves not upon the employer, but the individual employee. It is a
its obligation to remain a neutral party. As a result, LFEU declares a strike and after filing a notice of strike and personal obligation not demandable from the employer upon default or refusal of the employee to consent to a
taking a strike vote, goes on strike. The union claims that Libra Films grossly violated the terms of the CBA and check-off. The only obligation of the employer under a check-off is to effect the deductions and remit the
engaged in unfair labor practice. collections to the union. (Holy Cross of Davao College v. Joaquin, G.R. No. 110007 [1996])

4
Q: Which of the following is not true in unfair labor practices committed by an employer? (2012 Bar maintenance of membership clause which was a political or representational provision; hence, no ULP was
Question) committed. (BPI Employees Union-Davao City v. BPI, 702 SCRA 42).
a. Unfair labor practices cannot be committed unless the union has been performed and
registered; ULP of labor organizations
b. The commission of unfair labor practice requires an employer-employee relationship; Q: When there is no recognized collective bargaining agent, can a legitimate labor organization validly declare
c. The offense of unfair labor practice prescribes in one (1) year; a strike against the employer? (2013 Bar Questions)
d. The list of unfair labor practices is exclusive. (A) Yes, because the right to strike is guaranteed by the Constitution and cannot be denied to any group of
employees.
SUGGESTED ANSWER: (B) No, because only an exclusive bargaining agent may declare a strike against the employer.
a. Unfair labor practices cannot be committed unless the union has been performed and (C) Yes, because the right to strike is a basic human right that the country's international agreements and the
registered. [Art. 247 Labor Code] International Labor Organization recognize.
(D) Yes, but only in case of unfair labor practice.
Q: The following are unfair labor practice of employers, except: (2012 Bar Question) (E) No, in the absence of a recognized bargaining agent, the workers' recourse is to file a case before the
a. Interrogating its employees in connection with their membership in the union or their union Department of Labor and Employment.
activities which hampers their exercise of free choice;
b. The grant of profit-sharing benefits to managers, supervisors and all rank-and-file SUGGESTED ANSWER:
employees not covered by the CBA; (D) Basis: Article 263(c) (now Article 269 (c)) of the Labor Code.
c. The cessation of a company’s operations shortly after the organization of a labor union and
the resumption of business barely a month after; Q: In response to Company X’s unfair labor practices, a union officer instructed its members to stop
d. Withdrawal by the employer of holiday pay benefits stipulated under a supplementary working and walk out of the company premises. After three (3) hours, they voluntarily returned to
agreement with the union. work. Was there a strike and was it a valid activity? (2012 Bar Question)
a. Yes, it was a strike; it was a valid activity;
SUGGESTED ANSWER: b. Yes, it was a strike; No, it was not a valid activity;
a) The grant of profit-sharing benefits to managers, supervisors and all rank-and-file c. No, Iit was not a strike; yes, it was a valid activity;
employees not covered by the CBA [Art. 248, Labor Code] d. No, it was not a strike; no, it was not a valid activity.

Q: The Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) between Libra Films and its union, Libra Films Employees' Union SUGGESTED ANSWER:
(LFEU), contains the following standard clauses: Yes, it was a strike; no, it was not a valid activity [Airline Pilots Association of the Phils. vs. CIR, 76 SCRA 274;
1. Maintenance of membership; and First City Interlinks Transportation vs. Roldan Confessor, 272 SCRA 124
2. Check off for union dues and agency fees; and
3. No strike, no lock-out. Labor Arbiter; ULP; Damages and Reliefs (2012) No. III.
a. On August 01, 2008, Y, a corporation engaged in the manufacture of textile garments, entered into a collective
While Libra Films and LFEU are in re-negotiations for an extension of the CBA, LFEU discovers that some of its bargaining agreement with Union X in representation of the rank and-file employees of the corporation. The
members have resigned from the union, citing their constitutional right to organize (which includes the right CBA was effective up to June 20, 2011. The contract had an automatic renewal clause which would allow the
NOT to organize). LFEU demands that Libra Films institute administrative proceedings to terminate those union agreement after its expiry date to still apply until both parties would have been able to execute a new
members who resigned in violation of the CBA's maintenance of membership clause. Libra Films refuses, citing agreement. On May 10, 2011, Union X submitted to Y's management their proposals for the negotiation of a new
its obligation to remain a neutral party. As a result, LFEU declares a strike and after filing a notice of strike and CBA. The next day, Y suspended negotiations with Union X since Y had entered into a merger with z,· a
taking a strike vote, goes on strike. The union claims that Libra Films grossly violated the terms of the CBA and corporation also engaged in the manufacture of textile garments. Z assumed all the assets and liabilities of Y.
engaged in unfair labor practice. Union X filed a complaint with the Regional Trial Court for specific performance and damages with a prayer for
preliminary injunction against Y and Z and Z filed a Motion to Dismiss based on lack of jurisdiction. Rule on the
(a) Are LFEU's claims correct? Explain. (2015 Bar Question) Motion to Dismiss. (5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
SUGGESTED ANSWERS: The Motion to Dismiss must be granted. The claim against Y and Z consisits mainly of the civil aspect of the
unfair labor practice charge referred to in Article 247 of the Labor Code. Under Article 247 of the Code, ―the
(a) LFEU’s claim that Libra Films committed ULP based on its violation of the CBA is not correct. For civil aspects of all cases involiving unfair labor practices, which may include claims for damages and other
violation of a CBA to constitute ULP, the violation must be violation of its economic provisions. Moreover, said affirmative relief, shall be under the jurisdiction of the labor arbiters.‖ (National Union of Bank Employees v.
violation must be gross and flagrant. Based on the allegation of the union, what was violated was the Lazaro, G.R. No. 56431, ajnuary 19, 1988). Besides, what the aprties have is a labor dispute as defined in Article
212 (I) of the Labor Code ―regardless of whether the disputants stand in the proximate relation of employer

5
abd employee‖. Being so, the RTC is prohibited by Art. 254 of the Code from excercising jurisdiction over the False, not all confidential employees are disqualified to unionize for the purpose of collective bargaining. Only
case. confidential employees, who, because of the nature of their positions, have access to confidential information
affecting labor-management relations as an integral part of their position are denied the right of self-
organization for purpose of collective bargaining (San Miguel Corporation Supervisors v. Laguesma, 277 CSRA
CBA; Community Interest Rule (2007) 370 [1997]).
Explain. The Community of Interest Rule. (5%)
CBU; Managerial Employees; Supervisory Employees (2010)
SUGGESTED ANSWER: Samahang Manggagawa ng Terracota, a union of supervisory employees at Terracota Inc., recently admitted a
The Community Interest Rule – The Community Interest Rule states that in choosing the appropriate bargaining member of the company’s managerial staff, A, into the union ranks. Should A be a member of the supervisory
unit, there must be a determination of the community of interests of employees. A bargaining unit under DO 40- union? Explain. (2%)
03 refers to a ―group of employees sharing mutual interests within a given employer unit, comprise of all or
less than all of the entire body of employees in the employer unit or any specific occupation or geographical SUGGESTED ANWER:
grouping within such employer unit. The test grouping is community or mutuality of interests, such as Yes, as long as A is not a confidential employee who has access to confidential matters on labor relations (San
substantial similarity of works or duties or of compensation and working conditions, because the basic test of Miguel Corporation Supervisors and Exempt Employees Union v. Laguesma, 277 SCRA 370, 374-375 [1997]). If
an asserted bargaining unit‘s acceptability is whether or not it is fundamentally the combination which will best A performs supervisory functions, such as overseeing employees‘ performance and with power of
assure to all employees the exercise of their collective bargaining rights. recommendation, then A is a rightful member of the supervisory union. Otherwise, he may not, because
Samahang Manggagawa ng Teracota cannot represent A, A being not part of SMT‘s bargaining unit.
CBA; Surface Bargaining vs. Blue-Sky Bargaining (2010)
Differentiate “surface bargaining” from “blue-sky bargaining.” (2%) Right to Strike; Economic Provisions of the CBA (2010)
On the first day of collective bargaining negotiations between rank-andfile Union A and B Bus Company, the
SUGGESTED ANSWER: former proposed a P45/day increase. The company insisted that ground rules for negotiations should first be
SURFACE BARGAINING is defined as ―going through the motion of negotiating‖ without any legal intent to established, to which the union agreed. After agreeing on ground rules on the second day, the union
reach an agreement. The determination of whether a party has engaged in unlawful surface bargaining is a representatives reiterated their proposal for a wage increase. When company representatives suggested a
question of the intent of the party in question, which can only be inferred from the totality of the challenged discussion of political provisions in the Collective Bargaining Agreement as stipulated in the ground rules, union
party‘s conduct both at and away from the bargaining table. It involves the question of whether an employer‘s members went on mass leave the next day to participate in a whole-day prayer rally in front of the company
conduct demonstrates an unwillingness to bargain in good faith or is merely hard bargaining (Standard building. The Union contended that assuming that the mass leave will be considered as a strike, the same was
Chartered Bank valid because of the refusal of the company to discuss the economic provisions of the CBA. Rule on the
contention. (2%)
Employees Union [NUBE} v. Confesor, 432 SCRA 308 [2004]).
BLUE-SKY BARGAINING IS DEFINED as ―unrealistic and unreasonable demands in negotiations by either or SUGGESTED ANSWER:
both labor and management, where neither concedes anything and demands the impossible‖ (Standard The Union‘s contention is wrong. A strike may be declared only in cases of deadlock in collective bargaining
Chartered Bank Employees Union [NUBE] v. Confesors, supra). negotiations and unfair labor practice (Article 263(c), Labor Code); Section 1, Rule V, NCMB Manual of
Procedures). The proposal of the company to discuss political provisions pursuant to the ground rules agreed
CBA; Union Security Clause (2009) upon does not automatically mean that the company refuses to discuss the economic provisions of the CBA, or
Explain the impact of the union security clause to the employees’ right to security of tenure. (2%) that the company was engaged in ―surface bargaining‖ in violation of its duty to bargain, absent any showing
that such tend to show that the company did not want to reach an agreement with the Union. In fact, there is no
SUGGESTED ANSWER: deadlock to speak of in this case. The duty to bargain does not compel either party to agree to a proposal or
A valid union security clause when enforced or implemented for cause, after according the worker his require the making of a concession. The parties‘ failure to agree which to discuss first on the bargaining table
substantive and procedural due process rights (Alabang Country club, inc. v. NLRC, 545 SCRA 357 [2008]; does did not amount to ULP for violation of the duty to bargain. Besides, the mass leave conducted by the union
not violate the employee‘s right to security of tenure. Art. 248(e) of the labor Code allows union security clauses members failed to comply with the procedural requirements for valid strike under the Rules, without which,
and a failure to comply with the same is a valid ground to terminate employment. Union security clauses the strike conducted taints of illegality
designed to strengthen unions and valid law policy.
Self Organization; Mixed membership; not a ground for cancellation (2010)
CBU; Confidential Employees (2009) Samahang Manggagawa ng Terracota, a union of supervisory employees at Terracota Inc., recently admitted a
All confidential employees are disqualified to unionize for the purpose of collective bargaining. (5%) member of the company’s managerial staff, A, into the union ranks. Assuming that A is ineligible to join the
union, should the registration of Samahang Manggagawa ng Terracota be cancelled? Explain. (3%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
SUGGESTED ANSWER:

6
No, Rep. Act. No.9481 introduced a new provision, Art. 245-A, which provides that mixed membership is not a Self Organization; Unions; Member Deemed Removed (2010)
ground for cancellation of a union‘s registration, but said employees wrongfully joined are deemed removed Company XYZ has two recognized labor unions, one for its rank-and-file employees (RFLU), and one for
from said union. supervisory employees (SELU). Of late, the company instituted a restructuring program by virtue of which A, a
rank-and-file employee and officer of RFLU, was promoted to a supervisory position along with four (4) other
colleagues, also active union members and/or officers. Labor Union KMJ, a rival labor union seeking recognition
Self Organization; Grounds for Cancellation of Union Registration (2010) as the rank-and-file bargaining agent, filed a petition for the cancellation of the registration of RFLU on the
Rank-and-file workers from Peacock Feathers, a company with 120 employees, registered their ground that A and her colleagues have remained to be members of RFLU. Is the petition meritorious? Explain.
independentlabor organization with the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) Regional Office. (3%)
Management countered with a petition to cancel the union’s registration on the ground that the minutes of
ratification of the union constitution and by-laws submitted to the DOLE were fraudulent. Specifically, SUGGESTED ANSWER:
management presented affidavits of ten (10) out of forty (40) individuals named in the list of union members No, Having been promoted to supervisory positions, A and her colleagues are no longer part of the rankand-file
who participated in the ratification, alleging that they were not present at the supposed January 1, 2010 meeting bargaining unit. They are deemed removed from membership of RFLU (Art. 245-A, Labor Code as amended by
held for the purpose. The union argued that the stated date of the meeting should have read “January 11, 2010,” Rep. Act No. 9481).
instead of “January 1, 2010,” and that, at any rate, the other thirty (30) union members were enough to register
a union. Decide with reason. (3%)
ULP; Criminal Liability (2009)
SUGGESTED ANSWER: Johnny is the duly elected President and principal union organizer of the Nagkakaisang Manggagawa ng Manila
Petition for cancellation is dismissed for want of merit. The date specified therein is purely a typographical Restaurant (NMMR), a legitimate labor organization. He was unceremoniously dismissed by management for
error as admitted by the union itself. There was no willful or deliberate intention to defraud the union members spending virtually 95% of his working hours in union activities. On the same day Johnny received the notice of
that will vitiate their consent to the ratification. To be a ground for the cancellation of the union registration termination, the labor union went on strike. Management filed an action to declare the strike illegal, contending
under the Labor Code, the nature of the fraud must be grave and compelling enough to vitiate the consent of the that: The Labor Arbiter found management guilty of unfair labor practice for the unlawful dismissal of Johnny.
majority of union members (Mariwasa Stam Ceramics v. Secretary, 608 SCRA 706 [2009]). Moreover, 20% of The decision became final. Thereafter, the NMMR filed a criminal case against the Manager of Manila Restaurant.
120 is 24. So, even if the 10 union members disown their participation to the ratification of the union Would the Labor Arbiter’s finding be sufficient to secure the Manager’s conviction? Why or why not? (2%)
constitution and by-laws, the union is correct in arguing that the 30 union members suffice to uphold the
legitimacy of the union (Art. 234, Labor Code). SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, the administrative proceeding shall not be binding on the criminal case or be considered as evidence of
Self Organization; Right to SelfOrganization of Coop Employees (2010) guilt, but merely as proof of compliance with the requirements to file the said criminal case for the commission
A, an employee of XYZ Cooperative, owns 500 shares in the cooperative. He has been asked to join the XYZ of an unfair labor practice.
Cooperative Employees Association. He seeks your advice on whether he can join the association. What advice
will you give him? (3%) ULP; Criminal and Civil Liability (2007)
Discuss in full the jurisdiction over the civil and criminal aspects of a case involving an unfair labor practice for
SUGGESTED ANSWER: which a charge is pending with the Department of Labor and Employment. (5%)
A cannot join XYZ Cooperative Employees Association, because owing shares in XYZ Cooperative makes him a
co-owner thereof. An employee-member of a cooperative cannot join a union and bargain collectively with his SUGGESTED ANSWER:
cooperative for an ―owner cannot bargain with himself and his co-owners‖ (Cooperative Rural Bank of Davao Unfair labor practices are not only violations of the civil rights of both labor and management but are also
City, Inc. v. Calleja, 165 SCRA 725, 732 [1988]; San Jose City – Electrical Service Cooperative, Inc. v. Ministry of criminal offenses against the State. The civil aspect of all cases involving unfair labor practices, which may
Labor, 173 SCRA 697, 701- 703 [1989]). include claims for actual, moral, exemplary and other forms of damages, attorney‘s fee and other affirmative
relief, shall be under the jurisdiction of the labor Arbiters. However, no criminal prosecution shall be instituted
Self Organization; Right to SelfOrganization of Government Employees (2009) without a final judgment, finding that an unfair labor practice was committed, having been first obtained in the
Government employees have the right to organize and join concerted mass actions without incurring administrative proceeding. During the pendency of such administrative proceeding, the running of the period
administrative liability. (5%) for prescription of the criminal offense herein penalized shall be interrupted. The final judgment in the
administrative proceeding shall not be biding in the criminal case nor be considered as evidence of guilt but
SUGGESTED ANSWER: merely as proof of compliance of the requirements set forth by law. (Article 247, labor Code.)
False, government employees have the right to organized, but they may be held liable for engaging in concerted
mass actions, it being a prohibited activity under CSC Law (E.O. 181). The right of government employees to ULP; Runaway shop (2009)
organize is limited to the formation of unions or associations without including the right to strike. (Gesite v. CA, A runaway shop is an act constituting unfair labor practice. (5%)
444 SCRA 51 [2004]).
SUGGESTED ANSWER:

7
False, a runaway shop is not automatically an unfair labor practice. It is an unfair labor practice if the relocation for a definite period made known to the employee at the time of engagement: Provided, that any employee who
that brought about the runaway shop is motivated by antiunion animus rather than for business reasons. has rendered at least one year of service, whether such service is continuous or not, shall be considered a
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER: True, the transfer of location of a strike bound establishment to another location (run- regular employee with respect to the activity in which he is employed and his employment shall continue which
away shop) can constitute an act of interference or restraint of the employees‘ right to self-organization. There such activity exists.
is an inferred anti-union bias of the employer (Labor Code, Art. 248[a]). The provisions of Art. 248[a] should be
broadly and literally interpreted to achieve the policy objective of the law, i.e., to enhance the workers right to Employee; Contractual Employee (2010)
selforganization and collective bargain (Constitution, Art. XIII, Sec. 3 & Art.III, Sec. 8; labor Code, Arts., 243, 244 The relations between employer and employee are purely contractual in nature. (2%)
& 245; Caltex Filipino Managers, etc. v. CIR, 44 SCRA 350 [1972]).
SUGGESTED ANSWER: False, some aspects of the relations between employer and employee are determined
ULP; Violation to Bargain Collectively (2009) by certain labor standards.
The Company and Triple-X Union, the certified bargaining agent of rank-and-file employees, entered into a
Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) effective for the period January 1, 2002 to December 31, 2007. For the ALTERNATIVE ANSWER: False, the Constitution, Labor Code, Civil Code and other social legislations are
4th and 5th years of the CBA, the significant improvements in wages and other benefits obtained by the Union replete with provisions that define employment relationship even without contract, with the intention of
were: (1) Salary increases of P1,000 and P1,200 monthly, effective January 1, 2006 and January 1, 2007, insuring that all rights of labor are protected.
respectively; (2) Vacation Leave and Sick Leave were adjusted from 12 days to 15 days annually for each
employee; (3) Medical subsidy of P3,000 per year for the purchase of medicines and hospitalization assistance Article 1700 of the Civil Code provides that ―The relations between capital and labor are not merely
of P10,000 per year for actual hospital confinement; (4) Rice Subsidy of P600 per month, provided the employee contractual. They are so impressed with public interest that labor contracts must yield to the common good.‖
has worked for at least 20 days within the particular month; and (5) Birthday Leave with Pay and Birthday Gift In Article 106 of the Labor Code, the principal is deemed as a direct employer in labor-only contracting, despite
of P1,500. As early as October 2007, the Company and the Union started negotiations to renew the CBA. Despite the absence of contractual relationship between the worker and the principal reduced in writing. Equity
mutual good faith and earnest efforts, they could not agree. However, no union filed a petition for certification likewise affords the aggrieved party relief in a case where an agent was given apparent authority by the
election during the freedom period. On March 30, 2008, no CBA had been concluded. Management learned that employer to represent it to third persons, such as in a relationship between hospitals and doctors practicing
the Union would declare a bargaining deadlock on the next scheduled bargaining meeting. As expected, on April medicine in its establishment (Nograles v. Capitol Medical Center, 511 SCRA 204 [2006]).
3, 2008, the Union declared a deadlock. In the afternoon of the same day, management issued a formal
announcement in writing, posted on the bulletin board, that due to the CBA expiration on December 31, 2007, Employee; Contractual Employee; Employing Retired Employee (2013)
all fringe benefits contained therein are considered withdrawn and can no longer be implemented, effective After thirty (30) years of service, Beta Company compulsorily retired Albert at age 65 pursuant to the
immediately. If you were the lawyer for the union, what legal recourse or action would you advise? Reasons. company's Retirement Plan. Albert was duly paid his full retirement benefits of one (1) month pay for every
(3%) year of service under the Plan. Thereafter, out of compassion, the company allowed Albert to continue working
and paid him his old monthly salary rate, but without the allowances that he used to enjoy. After five (5) years
SUGGESTED ANSWER: under this arrangement, the company finally severed all employment relations with Albert; he was declared
I would recommend the filing of an unfair labor practice case against the employer for violating the duty to fully retired in a fitting ceremony but the company did not give him any further retirement benefits. Albert
bargain collectively under Article 248(g) of the labor Code. This arbitration case also institutes the ―deadlock thought this treatment unfair as he had rendered full service at his usual hours in the past five (5) years. Thus,
bar‖ that shall prevent any other union from filing a petition for certification election. ALTERNATIVE ANSWER: he filed a complaint for the allowances that were not paid to him, and for retirement benefits for his additional
I will advice the Union to continue negotiations with the aid of the NCMB (Art. 250, Labor Code), and to file an five (5) working years, based either on the company's Retirement Plan or the Retirement Pay Law, whichever
economic provision, gross and serious in character under Articles 248(i) and Art. 261 of the Labor Code is applicable. After Albert's retirement at age 65, should he be considered a regular employee entitled to all his
previous salaries and benefits when the company allowed him to continue working? (4%)
Employee; Casual Employee (2007)
A carpenter is employed by a private university in Manila. Is the carpenter a regular or a casual employee? SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Discuss fully. (5%) He would be considered a contractual employee, not a regular employee. His salaries and benefits will be in
accordance with the stipulation of the contract he signed with the company. The present case is similar in a case
SUGGESTED ANSWER: decided by the Supreme Court
If the employment of the carpenter is sporadic and brief in nature or occasional, his employment is casual
especially because the work he is performing is not in the usual course of the school‘s trade or business. Employee; Field Personnel vs. Contractual Employee; Benefits (2010)
However, if the carpenter has rendered service at least one year, whether continuous or broken, he becomes a A, a driver for a bus company, sued his employer for nonpayment of commutable service incentive leave credits
regular employee by operation of law, with respect to the activity of which he is employed and his employment upon his resignation after five years of employment. The bus company argued that A was not entitled to service
shall continue while such activity exists (Article 280, Labor Code; See also Philippine Geothermal, Inc. v. NLRC, incentive leave since he was considered a field personnel and was paid on commission basis and that, in any
189 SCRA 211 [1990]; Kimberly Independent Labor Union, etc. v. Drilon, 18 SCRA 190 [1990]). ALTERNATIVE event, his claim had prescribed. If you were the Labor Arbiter, how would you rule? Explain. (6%)
ANSWER: A carpenter employed by a university is a casual employee. The carpenter is engaged to perform a
job, work or service which is mostly incidental to the business of the employer, and such job, work or service is SUGGESTED ANSWER:

8
I will grant the prayer of A. Payment on commission basis alone does not prove that A is a field personnel. There waiter‖ for more than 10 years. Any employer who has rendered service for one year, whether continuous or
must be proof that A is left to perform his work unsupervised by his employer. Otherwise, he is not a field broken, shall be considered a regular employee with respect to the activities of which he is employed and his
personnel, thus entitled to commutable service incentive leave (SIL) credits (Auto Bus v. Bautista, 458 SCRA employment shall continue while such activity exists (Art. 280, Labor Code).
578 [2005]). His action has not yet prescribed, in Auto Bus v. Bautista (supra), the Supreme Court recognized
that SIL is such a unique labor standard benefit, because it is commutable. An employee may claim his accrued Employee; Regular Employee; OFW (2009)
SIL upon his resignation, retirement, or termination. Therefore, when A resigned after five years, his right of Seafarers who have worked for twenty (20) years on board the same vessel are regular employees. (5%)
action to claim ALL of his SIL benefits accrued at the time when the employer refused to pay his rightful SIL
benefits (Art. 291, Labor Code). SUGGESTED ANSWER:
False, seafarers as overseas Filipino workers are fixed0term employees whose continued rehiring should not
be interpreted as a basis for regularization but rather as a series of contact renewals sanctioned under the
Employee; Fixed Term Employee (2012) doctrine set by Millares vs. NLRC (Gu-Miro v. Adorable, 437 SCRA 162 [2004]).
For humanitarian reasons, a bank hired several handicapped workers to count and sort out currencies. The
handicapped workers knew that the contract was only for a period of six-months and the same period was Employee; Regular Seasonal Employee (2010)
provided in their employment contracts. After six months, the bank terminated their employment on the ground A was hired to work in a sugar plantation performing such tasks as weeding, cutting and loading canes, planting
that their contract has expired. This prompted the workers to file with the Labor Arbiter a complaint for illegal cane points, fertilizing and cleaning the drainage. Because his daily presence in the field was not required, A
dismissal. Will their action prosper? Why or why not? (5%) also worked as a houseboy at the house of the plantation owner. For the next planting season, the owner decided
not to hire A as a plantation worker but as a houseboy instead. Furious, A filed a case for illegal dismissal against
SUGGESTED ANSWER: the plantation owner. Decide with reason. (3%)
No, an employment contract with a fixed term terminates by its own terms at the end of such period. The same
is valid if the contract was entered into by the parties on equal footing and the period specified was not designed SUGGESTED ANSWER:
to circumvent the security of tenure of the employees. (Brent School v. Zamora, 181 SCRA 702). A is a regular seasonal employee. Therefore, he cannot be dismissed without just or valid cause. The primary
standard for determining regular employment is the reasonable connection between the particular activity
Employee; Project Employee (2009) performed by the employee in relation to the usual trade or business of the employer (Pier 8 Arrastre &
Diosdado, a carpenter, was hired by Building Industries Corporation (BIC), and assigned to build a small house Stevedoring Services, Inc., et. al. v. Jeff B. Boclot,534 SCRA 431 [2007]). Considering that A, as plantation worker,
in Alabang. His contract of employment specifically referred to him as a "project employee," although it did not performs work that is necessary and desirable to the usual business of the plantation owner, he is therefore a
provide any particular date of completion of the project. Is the completion of the house a valid cause for the regular seasonal employee and is entitled to reinstatement upon onset of the next season unless he was hired
termination of Diosdado’s employment? If so, what are the due process requirements that the BIC must satisfy? for the duration of only one season (Hacienda Bino v. Cuenca, 4556 SCRA 300 [2005]). Converting A to a mere
If not, why not? (3%) house boy at the house of the plantation owner amounts to an act of serving his employment relations as its
plantation worker (Angeles v. Fernandez, 213 SCRA 378 [2007]).
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The completion of the house should be valid cause for termination of Diosdado‘s employment. Although the XII Blank Garments, Inc. (BLANK), a clothing manufacturer, employs more than 200 employees in its
employment contract may not state a particular date, but if it did specify that the termination of the parties‘ manufacturing business. Because of its high overhead, BLANK decided to sell its manufacturing business to
employment relationship was to be a ―day certain‖ – the day when the phase of work would be completed – Bleach Garments, Inc. (BLEACH) lock, stock and barrel which included goodwill, equipment, and personnel.
the employee cannot be considered to have been a regular employee (Filipinas Pre-Fabricated Building Systems After taking on BLANK's business, BLEACH reduces the workforce by not hiring half the workers specifically
v. Puente, 43 SCRA 820 [2005]). To satisfy due process requirement, the DOLE Department Order No. 19, series the ones with seniority. BLANK and BLEACH are still discerned to be sister companies with identical
of 1993, the employer is required to report to the relevant DOLE Regional Office the fact of termination of incorporators. The laid-off employees sue both BLANK and BLEACH for unlawful termination. (a) How would
project employees as a result of the completion of the project or any phase thereof in which one is employed. you decide this case? (4%) (b) What is the "successor employer" doctrine? (2%)

Employee; Regular Employee; (2008) XVI The Alliance of Independent Labor Unions (AILU) is a legitimate labor federation which represents a
Super Comfort Hotel employed a regular pool of "extra waiters" who are called or asked to report for duty when majority of the appropriate bargaining unit at the Lumens Brewery (LB). While negotiations were ongoing for
the Hotel's volume of business is beyond the capacity of the regularly employed waiters to undertake. Pedro a renewal of the collective bargaining agreement (CBA), LB handed down a decision in a disciplinary case that
has been an "extra waiter" for more than 10 years. He is also called upon to work on weekends, on holidays and was pending which resulted in the termination of the AILU's treasurer and two other members for cause. AILU
when there are big affairs at the hotel. What is Pedro's status as an employee under the Labor Code? Why? protested the decision, claiming that LB acted in bad faith and asked that LB reconsider. LB refused to
Explain your answer fully. (6%) reconsider. AILU then walked out of the negotiation and declared a strike without a notice of strike or a strik;:
vote. AILU members locked in the LB management panel by barricading the doors and possible exits (including
SUGGESTED ANSWER: windows and fire escapes). LB requested the DOLE to assume jurisdiction over the dispute and to certify it for
Pedro has acquired the status of a regular employee. Pedro has engaged to perform activities which are compulsory arbitration. The Secretary of Labor declined to assume jurisdiction, finding that the dispute was not
necessary or desirable to the usual business or trade of the employer. Moreover, Pedro has been an ―extra one that involved national interest. LB then proceeds to terminate all of the members of the bargaining agent

9
on the ground that it was unlawful to: (1) barricade the management panel in the building, and (2) participate a corporate act, he cannot be held personally liable. (a) As the Labor Arbiter assigned to this case, how would
in an illegal strike. (a) Was AILU justified in declaring a strike without a strike vote and a notice of strike? Why you resolve the jurisdiction question. (3%) (b) What is the rule on personal liability of corporate officers for a
or why not? (3%) (b) Was the Secretary of Labor correct in declining to assume jurisdiction over the dispute? corporate act declared to be unlawful? (2%)
(2o/o) (c) Was LB justified in terminating all those who were members of AILU on the two grounds cited? (3%)

Labor Standard vs. Labor Relation (1997)


Differentiate labor standards law from labor relations law. Are the two mutually exclusive?
XVII The Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) between Libra Films and its union, Libra Films Employees'
Union (LFEU), contains the following standard clauses: 1. Maintenance of membership; 2. Check off for union SUGGESTED ANSWER:
dues and agency fees; and 3. No strike, no lock-out. While Libra Films and LFEU are in re-negotiations for an LABOR STANDARDS law is that labor law which prescribes terms and conditions of employment like Book in
extension of the CBA, LFEU discovers that some of its members have resigned from the union, citing their Book IV, Title I and Book VI of the Labor Code. These Books of the Labor Code deal with working conditions,
constitutional right to organize (which includes the right NOT to organize). LFEU demands that Libra Films wages, working conditions for women, minors, househelpers and homeworkers, medical and dental services,
institute administrative proceedings to terminate those union members who resigned in violation of the CBA' s occupational health and safety, termination and retirement. On the other hand, LABOR RELATIONS law is that
maintenance of membership clause. Libra Films refuses, citing its obligation to remain a neutral party. As a labor law which regulates the relations between employers and workers like Book V of the Labor Code which
result, LFEU declares a strike and after filing a notice of strike and taking a strike vote, goes on strike. The union deals with labor organizations, collective bargaining, unfair labor practices and strikes and lockouts. Labor
claims that Libra Films grossly violated the terms of the CBA and engaged in unfair labor practice. (a) Are LFEU's standards laws and labor relations laws are not mutually exclusive; they are complement to each other. Thus,
claims correct? Explain. (4%) (b) Distinguish between a "closed shop" clause and a "maintenance of the law on strikes and lockouts which is an example of labor relations law includes some provisions on the
membership" clause. (2%) ( c) Distinguish between "union dues" and "agency fees." (2%) security of tenure of workers who go on strike or who are locked out. These provisions are examples of labor
standards law.

XYZ Company and Mr. AB, a terminated employee who also happens to be the President ofXYZ Employees Union, Labor Standard vs. Labor Relation (2003) How do the provisions of the law on labor relations interrelate, if
agree in writing to submit Mr. AB's illegal dismissal case to voluntary arbitration. Is this agreement a valid one? at all, with the provisions pertaining to labor standards? 5%
(3%) B. XYZ Company and XYZ Employees Union (XYZEU) reach a deadlock in their negotiation for a new
collective bargaining agreement (CBA). XYZEU files a notice of strike; XYZ Company proposes to XYZEU that the SUGGESTED ANSWER:
deadlock be submitted instead to voluntary arbitration. If you are counsel for XYZEU, what advice would you LABOR RELATIONS law focuses its provisions on the collective aspects of employer-employee relationship. Its
give the union as to the: (1) propriety of the request of XYZ Company, and (2) the relative legal provisions deal with employees organizing unions and how through these unions, employees are able to
advantages/disadvantages between voluntary arbitration and compulsory arbitration? ( 4%) have collective bargaining with their employer. On the other hand, LABOR STANDARDS law focuses on the
terms and conditions of employment of employees as individual employees or those legal provisions dealing
XXI Philippine News Network (PNN) engages the services of Anya, a prominent news anchor from a rival with wages, hours of work and other terms and conditions of employment. There may be instances when the
station, National News Network (NNN). NNN objects to the transfer of Anya claiming that she is barred from provisions of labor relations law may interrelate with provisions of labor standards law. Thus, a CBA which is
working in a competing company for a period of three years from the expiration of her contract. Anya proceeds dealt with in labor relations law may have provisions that improves upon the minimum terms and conditions
to sign with PNN which then asks her to anchor their nightly newscast. NNN sues Anya and PNN before the of employment prescribed in labor standards law, like a CBA providing for a higher minimum wage, or for the
National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), asking for a labor injunction. Anya and PNN object claiming that computation of a higher overtime pay or the payment of holiday pay not only for regular holidays but also for
it is a matter cognizable by a regular court and not the NLRC. (a) Is NNN's remedy correct? Why or why not? certain special holidays.
(3o/o) (b) What are the grounds for a labor injunction to issue? (2%) ( c) Distinguish the jurisdiction of a Labor
Arbiter from that of the NLRC. (3%)
Rights of Employer/Employee (1996)
2) What are the rights of an employer and an employee?
xxn Mario comes from a family of coffee bean growers. Deciding to incorporate his fledgling coffee venture, he
invites his best friend, Carlo, to join him. Carlo is hesitant because he does not have money to invest but Mario SUGGESTED ANSWER:
suggests a scheme where Carlo can be the Chief Marketing Agent of the company, earning a salary and The Constitution in Art. XIII, Section 3 provides for the following rights of employers and employees: A.
commissions. Carlo agrees and the venture is formed. After one year, the business is so successful that they Employers Right to a reasonable return on investments, and to expansion and growth.
were able to declare dividends. Mario is so happy with Carlo's work that he assigns 100 shares of stock to Carlo 1. To a just share in the fruits of production;
as part of the latter's bonus. Much later on, it is discovt~red that Carlo had engaged in unethical conduct which 2. Right to self organization, collective bargaining and negotiations and peaceful concerted activities, including
caused embarrassment to the company. Mario is forced to terminate Carlo but he does so without giving Carlo the right to strike in accordance with law;
the opportunity to explain. Carlo filed a case against Mario and the company for illegal dismissal. Mario objected 3. To security of tenure, humane conditions of work, and a living wage; and
on the ground that the Labor Arbiter had no jurisdiction over the case as it would properly be considered as an 4. To participate in policy and decision-making processes affecting their rights and benefits as may be provided
intra-corporate controversy cognizable by the RTC. Further, Mario claimed that because Carlo's dismissal was by law,

10
What is an appropriate bargaining unit for purposes of collective bargaining? [5%]
Rights of the Employer; Management Prerogative; Contracting Out Services (1994)
Harbor View Hotel has an existing Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) with the union of rank-and-file SUGGESTED ANSWER:
employees consisting, among others, of bartenders, waiters, roomboys, housemen and stewards. During the An APPROPRIATE BARGAINING UNIT is a group of employees of a given employer comprised of all or less than
lifetime of the CBA, Harbor View Hotel, for reasons of economy and efficiency, decided to abolish the position all of the entire body of employees, which the collective interest of all the employees, consistent with the interest
of housemen and stewards who do the cleaning of the hotel's public areas. Over the protest of the Union, the of the employer, indicate to be the best suited to serve reciprocal rights and duties of the parties under the
Hotel contracted out the aforementioned job to the City Service Janitorial Company, a bonafide independent collective bargaining provisions of the law. (See, e.g., University of the Philippines v. Ferrer-Calleja, 211 SCRA
contractor which has a substantial capital in the form of Janitorial tools, equipment, machineries and competent 451 (1992).
manpower. Is the action of the Harbor View Hotel legal and valid?
CBA; Arbitral Award; Retroactive Effect
SUGGESTED ANSWER: (2001)
The action of Harbor View Hotel is legal and valid. The valid exercise of management prerogative, discretion Company A and Union B had a 3-year CBA that expired on June 12, 1990. Negotiations proved futile so the
and judgment encompasses all aspects of employment, including the hiring, work assignments, working unresolved issues were referred to an Arbiter who rendered a decision on March 15, 1992 retroactive to
methods, time, place and manner of work, tools to be used, processes to be followed, supervision of workers, December 14, 1990. Is the Arbiter's decision providing for retroactivity tenable or not? Why? (5%)
working regulations, transfer of employees, work supervision, lay-off of workers, and the discipline, dismissal
and recall of workers, except as provided for, or limited by special laws. Company policies and regulations are, SUGGESTED ANSWER:
unless shown to be gross oppressive or contrary to law, generally binding and valid on the parties and must be The referral of the unresolved issues of the collective bargaining negotiations to an Arbiter is not within the
complied with until finally revised or amended unilaterally or preferably through negotiation or by competent jurisdiction of the Arbiter. But assuming that the unresolved issues in the collective bargaining negotiations
authority. (San Miguel Corporation vs. Reynaldo R. Ubaldo and Emmanuel Noel A. Cruz, Chairman and Member were properly referred to the Arbiter pursuant to the provision of the Labor Code (Art. 262} that states that a
respectively of the Voluntary Arbitration Panel, et al G.R No. 92859, 1 February 1993. J. Campos, Jr., 218 SCRA Voluntary Arbitrator may hear and decide any labor dispute, including bargaining deadlocks, the Arbiter's
293) decision providing for retroactivity is tenable. Exercising his compulsory arbitration power, the Arbiter could
decide the issue of retroactivity in any way which is not contrary to law, morals, good customs, public order or
Rights of the Employer; Management prerogatives (1994) public policy. But in a case (Manila Electric Co vs. Secretary of Labor Leonardo Quisumbing, G.R. No. 127598,
Bulacan Medical Hospital (BMH) entered into a Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) with its Union, wherein February 22, 2000), the Supreme Court said that an arbitral award shall retroact to the first day after the six-
it is expressly stipulated in the Management Prerogative Clause that BMH shall, in the exercise of its month period following the expiration of the last day of the CBA that was being re-negotiated.
management prerogatives, have the sole and exclusive right to promulgate, amend and modify rules and
regulations for the employees within the bargaining unit. A year after the contract was signed, BMH issued its ANOTHER SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Revised Rules and Regulations and furnished a copy thereof to the Union for dissemination to all employees The retroactive Order of the Labor Arbiter is void for want of jurisdiction. Jurisdiction is conferred by law.
covered by the CBA. The Union wrote BMH demanding that the Revised Rules and Regulations be first discussed Nowhere in the Labor Code, more specifically, Article 217, is the Labor Arbiter given jurisdiction over
with them before its implementation. BMH refused. So, the Union filed an action for unfair labor practice (ULP) unresolved issues in collective bargaining, including determining the period or duration of a Collective
against BMH. 1. Is the Union correct? 2. Assuming that the CBA was signed "or executed before the 1987 Bargaining Agreement.
Constitution was ratified, would your answer to the preceding question be different?
CBA; Arbitral Awards; Effectivity (1994)
SUGGESTED ANSWER: Company X, a transportation company, and Union Y were in the process of negotiating a new Collective
1) The Union is correct. A provision in the collective bargaining agreement concerning management Bargaining Agreement (CBA) to replace the one which expired on March 15. 1990. The negotiations reached an
prerogatives, may not be interpreted as cession of the employees right to participate in the impasse on economic issues on June 30, 1990. The Secretary of Labor assumed Jurisdiction over the dispute
deliberation of matters which may affect their right and the formulation of policies relative thereto, and certified the same to the NLRC for proper disposition. Proceedings before the NLRC ended on November
such as the formulation of a code of discipline. A line must be drawn between management 30. 1990 and a decision was rendered on December 15, 1990, The said decision made retroactive to March 15,
prerogatives regarding business operations per se and those which affect the rights of the employees, 1990 the new CBA containing the issues resolved by the NLRC, as well as those concluded and agreed upon by
and in treating the latter, management should see to it that its employees are at least properly the parties prior to their arriving at a deadlock in their negotiations. Company X questioned the retroactivity of
informed of its decisions or modes of action. The attainment of a harmonious labormanagement the CBA alleging that the same contravenes Art. 253-A of the Labor Code, which provides for the automatic
relationship and the existing state policy of enlightening workers concerning their rights as employees retroactivity of the renewed CBA only if the same is entered into within six (6) months from its expiry date, and,
demand no less than the observance of transparency in managerial moves affecting employees' rights. if not, the parties must agree on the duration of
[Philippine Airlines, Inc. vs. National Labor Relations Commission, et al, G.R No. 85985, 13 August retroactivity.
1993. J. Melo. 225 SCRA 258, 301.)
1) Is Company X's position correct?
LABOR RELATIONS 2) Would your answer be different if the assumption of jurisdiction by the Secretary of Labor was at the request
CBA; Appropriate Bargaining Unit (1998) or instance of Company X?

11
Yes, the law does not require that the bargaining representative be an employee of the company nor an officer
SUGGESTED ANSWER: or member of the union. {Art 212 (j), Labor Code}.
1) The Company's position is not correct. In the absence of a specific provision of law prohibiting retroactivity
of the effectivity of arbitral awards issued by the Secretary of Labor, the same is deemed vested with plenary CBA; Certification Election (2005)
and discretionary powers to determine the effectivity thereof, (St Luke's Medical Center, Inc. vs. Hon. Ruben O. As Human Resources Department (HRD) manager of EZ Components, an unorganized manufacturer of electric
Torres, etal,-G.R. No. 99395, 29 June 1993, J. Melo. 222 SCRA 779) and electronic components for household appliances, you are suddenly confronted with demands for
recognition and collective bargaining negotiations from two competing labor unions. They both claim to
2) No. Regardless of which party sought the assumption by the Labor Secretary, the effect would be the same. represent all the rank-and-file employees. Union A is led by a moderate faction, while Union B is affiliated with
An assumption case gives the Labor Secretary the plenary arbitration powers to rule on the issues presented a militant federation identified with leftist ideology. Which of the following courses of action should you
for resolution, including the retroactivity of the new CBA. take to best protect the interests of your company and employees?

CBA; Automatic Renewal Clause (1999) (a.) Recognize Union A as the rightful bargaining representative because it will be more reasonable to deal with;
What is the "automatic renewal clause" in a collective bargaining agreement? (2%) (b.) Recognize Union B because you do not want to antagonize its leftist connections and foment inter-union
conflicts;
SUGGESTED ANSWER: (c.) Ignore the demands of either union since you cannot be compelled legally to deal with them at this stage;
The "AUTOMATIC RENEWAL CLAUSE" in a CBA refers to that provision of the Labor Code (Article253) which or
states that "It shall be the duty of both parties (to a CBA) to keep the status quo and to continue in full force and (d.) Petition the Bureau of Labor Relations to conduct a certification election to determine which union really
effect the terms and conditions of the existing agreement during the 60- day (freedom) period and/or until a represents the majority of the employees in the bargaining unit. (10%)
new agreement is reached by the parties."
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
CBA; Automatic Renewal Clause (2001) (d) Petition the Bureau of Labor Relations to conduct a certification election to determine which union really
Company "A" and Union "B" negotiated the last two years of their five-year CBA on April 1, 1990 to expire on represents the majority of the employees in the bargaining unit. (Haw at Buklod ng Manggagaiva [IBM] v.
March 31, 1992. Considering the amicable relations between the parties, neither one moved for the extension Calleja, G.R. No. 84685, February 23,1990)
or termination of the agreement. Sometime in 1995. some disgruntled employees
filed a complaint demanding that they be paid the annual salary increases and other related annual increases ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
specified in the CBA of April 1990, citing the provision in Art. 253 of the Labor Code which requires the parties (c) Ignore the demands of either union since you cannot be compelled legally to deal with them at this stage.
to "xxx keep the status quo and to continue in full force and effect the terms and conditions of the existing
agreement during the 60 day period and/or until a new agreement is CBA; Certification Election; “No-Union" Win
reached by the parties". A, however, maintained that the annual salary increases and related benefits (2006)
specifically provided for in the CBA were, pursuant to contract and law, effective only for the term specified Can a "no-union" win in a certification election? (2.5%)
therein, namely, until March 31, 1992 only. Who is correct? State the reason(s) for your answer. (5)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
SUGGESTED ANSWER: YES. Sec. 20, Rule 9, Book V provides that where the votes cast results in "no union" obtaining the majority, the
The disgruntled employees are correct in their claim that the expired CBA remains in full force and effect until med arbiter shall declare such fact in the order. Hence, the employees may choose not to be represented by
a new CBA is signed in accordance with Article 253 of the Labor Code. The SC ruled in New Pacific Timber and anyone (Reyes-Trajano v. Trajano, G.R. No 84433, June 2, 1992).
Supply Co, Inc. us. NLRC, GR No. 124224. March 17, 2000: "Article 253 of the Labor Code explicitly provided
that until a new Collective Bargaining Agreement has been executed by and between the parties, they are duly CBA; Certification Election; Consent Election; Run-Off Election (2000)
bound to keep the status quo and to continue in full force and effect the terms and conditions of the existing Distinguish between "Certification Election", "Consent Election," and "Run-off Election", (6%)
agreement. The law does not provide for any exception or qualification as to which of the economic provisions
of the existing agreement are to retain force and effect, therefore, it must be understood as encompassing all SUGGESTED ANSWER:
the terms and conditions in the said agreement." CERTIFICATION ELECTION requires a petition for a Certification Election filed by a union or employer. A Med-
Arbiter grants the petition and an election officer is designated by the regional director to supervise the election.
CBA; Bargaining Representative (2000) (Art. 256, 257, 258, Labor Code).
The Ang Sarap Kainan Workers Union appointed Juan Javier, a law student, as bargaining representative. Mr.
Javier is neither an employee of Ang Sarap Kainan Company nor a member of the union. Is the appointment of CONSENT ELECTION is held by agreement of the unions with or without participation of the med arbiter.
Mr. Javier as a bargaining representative in accord with law? Explain, (3%) [Warren Manufacturing Workers Union v. Bureau of Labor Relations, 159 SCRA 387 (1988)]

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

12
RUN-OFF ELECTION takes place between the unions who received the two highest number of votes where not CBA; Closed Shop Provision; When not applicable (1999)
one of the unions obtained the majority of the valid votes cast, provided that the total union votes is at least FACTS: In a certification election conducted by the Department of Labor, Associated Workers Organization in
50% of the votes cast. Laguna (AWOL) headed by Cesar Montanyo, won over Pangkat ng mga Manggagawa sa Laguna (PML), headed
(Art. 256, Labor Code). by Eddie Gracia. Hence, AWOL was certified as the exclusive bargaining agent of the rank-and-file employees of
the Laguna Transportation Company (LTC). Shortly, thereafter, a Collective Bargaining Agreement was
CBA; Certification Election; Freedom Period concluded by LTC and AWOL which provided for a closed shop. Consequently, AWOL, demanded that Eddie
(1999) Graciaa and all the PML members be required to become members of AWOL as a condition for their continued
1. In what instance may a petition for certification election be filed outside the freedom period of a employment: otherwise, they shall be dismissed pursuant to the closed shop provision of the CBA. The union
current collective bargaining agreement? (3%). security clause of the CBA also provided for the dismissal of employees who have not maintained their
membership in the union. For one reason or another, Francis Magallona, a member of AWOL, was expelled from
SUGGESTED ANSWER: the union membership for acts inimical to the interest of the union. Upon receipt of the notice that Francis
As a general rule, in an establishment where there is in force and effect a CBA, a petition for certification election Magallona failed to maintain his membership in good standing with AWOL, LTC summarily dismissed him from
may be filed only during the freedom period of such CBA. But to have the above-mentioned effect, the CBA employment.
should have been filed and registered with the Department of Labor and Employment (See Article
231, 253-A and 256) Thus, a CBA that has not been filed and registered with the Department of Labor and 1. Can Eddie Graciaa and all the PML members be required to become members of the AWOL pursuant to the
Employment cannot be a bar to a certification election and such election can be held outside of the freedom closed shop provision of the CBA? Why? (3%)
period of such CBA. SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Eddie Gracia and all the PML members cannot be required to become members of AWOL pursuant to the closed
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER: shop provision of the CBA. According to the Labor Code (Article 248(e), a closed shop provision cannot be
A petition for certification election may be filed outside the freedom period of a current CBA if such CBA is a applied to those employees who are already members of another union at the time of the signing of the CBA.
new CBA that has been prematurely entered into, meaning, it was entered into before the expiry date of the old
CBA. The filing of the petition for certification election shall be within the freedom period of the old CBA which 2. Is the termination from employment of Francis Magallona by LTC lawful? Why? (2%)
is outside of the freedom period of the new CBA that had been prematurely entered into.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
CBA; Certification Election; Probationary Employees (1999) Pursuant to the closed shop provision of the CBA entered into by AWOL with LTC, membership in AWOL has
2. Are probationary employees entitled to vote in a certification election? Why? (2%). become a condition of employment in LTC. As long as the expulsion of Francis Magallona from AWOL was done
in accordance with applicable provisions of law and with the Constitution and By-laws of the AWOL, then it was
SUGGESTED ANSWER: lawful for LTC to terminate Magallona. Panel: The termination is unlawful (Ferrer v. NLRC).
In a certification election, all rank-and-file employees in the appropriate bargaining unit are entitled to vote.
This principle is clearly stated in Article 255 of the Labor Code which states that the "labor organization CBA; Closed Shop vs. Agency Shop (1997)
designated or selected by the majority of the employees in such unit shall be the exclusive representative of the (a) Describe a "closed shop agreement, does it differ from an "agency shop agreement."
employees in such unit for the purpose of collective bargaining." Collective bargaining covers all aspects of the
employment relation and the resultant CBA negotiated by the certified union binds all employees in the (b) Are the above agreements legal?
bargaining unit. Hence, all rank-and-file employees, probationary or permanent, have a substantial interest in
the selection of the bargaining representative. The Code makes no distinction as to their employment status as SUGGESTED ANSWER:
basis for eligibility to vote in the petition for certification election. The law refers to "all" the employees in the (a) A "CLOSED SHOP AGREEMENT" is that agreement embodied in a collective bargaining agreement (CBA)
bargaining unit. All they need to be eligible to vote is to belong to the "bargaining unit," (Airtime Specialists, Inc. whereby the employer binds itself not to hire any person unless he is first a union member of the collective
v. Ferrer-Calleja, ISO SCRA 749) bargaining representative. An "AGENCY SHOP AGREEMENT" is different from a closed shop agreement in that
under the former, the employer does not bind itself not to hire a person unless he is first a union member of the
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER: collective bargaining representative. Instead, the employer binds itself to check off from those who are not
PROBATIONARY EMPLOYEES may not be entitled to vote in a certification election where only regular union members of the collective bargaining representative a reasonable fee equivalent to the dues and other
employees belong to a bargaining unit and probationary employees do not belong to such bargaining unit. It is fees paid by union members if the non-union members accept the benefits of the CBA.
the belonging to a bargaining unit that entitles an employee to vote in a certification election.
(b) The above agreements are legal or they are expressly allowed by the Labor Code.
ANOTHER ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
YES. Any employee, whether employed for a definite period or not, shall, beginning on his first day of service, CBA; Contract Bar Rule vs. Deadlock Bar Rule (1999)
be considered an employee for purposes of membership in any labor union (Art. 277(c)). Distinguish between "contract bar rule" and "deadlock bar rule". (3%)

13
SUGGESTED ANSWER: CBA; Jurisdictional Pre-Conditions (1996)
Under the "CONTRACT BAR RULE," a certification election cannot be held if there is in force and in effect a 2) What jurisdictional pre-conditions must be present to set in motion the mechanics of a collective bargaining?
collective bargaining agreement that has been duly registered with the Department of Labor and Employment
except during the freedom period of such CBA which is the 60-day period prior to the expiry date of said CBA. SUGGESTED ANSWER:
(See Articles 231, 253-A and 256) Under the "DEADLOCK BAR RULE" a certification election cannot be held if a To set in motion the mechanics of collective bargaining, these jurisdictional pre-conditions must be present,
bargaining deadlock to which an incumbent or certified bargaining agent is a party had been submitted to namely:
conciliation or mediation or had become the subject of a valid notice of strike or lockout. (See Section 3, Rule 1. The employees in a bargaining unit should form a labor organization;
XI, Book V of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of the Labor Code) 2. The labor organization should be a legitimate labor organization;
3. As such legitimate labor organization, it should be recognized or certified as the collective bargaining
CBA; Coverage; Non-Union Members; Religious Sect (2005) representative of the employees of the bargaining unit; and
A group of employees in XYZ Factory belonging to a religious sect, in conformity with the teachings and dictates 4. The labor organization as the collective bargaining representative should request the employer to bargain
of their religion, refused to join the labor union in the factory. The labor union was able to negotiate a substantial collectively. (See Arts. 243, 234, 255 and 250 of the Labor Code)
wage increase in its collective bargaining agreement with management. A provision therein stated that the wage
increase would be paid to the members of the union only in view of a "closed shop" union security clause in the ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
new agreement. The members of the sect protested and demanded that the wage increase be extended to them. The mechanics of collective bargaining are set in motion only when the following Jurisdictional preconditions
The officers of the union countered by demanding their termination from the company pursuant to the "closed are met:
shop" provision in the just-concluded CBA. (6%) (1) possession of the status of majority representation of the employees' representative in accordance with any
of the means of selection or designation provided for by the Labor Code;
(a) Is the CBA provision valid? (2) proof of majority of representation; and
(3) a demand to bargain under Art. 251(g), of the Labor Code. (Kiok Loy v. NLRC. 141 SCRA 179 [1986])
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, the CBA provision is not valid. The benefits of a CBA are extendible to all employees regardless of their CBA; Lock-out vs. Closed Shop (2004)
membership in the union because to withhold the same from non-union members would be to discriminate Distinguish clearly but briefly between Lock-out and Closed Shop.
against them. (National Brewery & Allied Industries Labor Union of the Philippines v. San Miguel Brewery, Inc.,
G.R. No. L-18170, August 31,1963) SUGGESTED ANSWERS:
LOCKOUT refers to the temporary refusal of an employer to furnish work as a result of a labor or industrial
(b) Should the company comply with the union's demand of terminating the members of the religious sect? dispute. CLOSED SHOP, on the other hand, refers to a union security clause in a collective bargaining agreement
whereby the employer agrees not to employ any person who is not a member of the exclusive collective
SUGGESTED ANSWER: bargaining representative of the employees in a bargaining unit.
No. The right to join includes the right not to join by reason of religious beliefs. Members of said religious sect
cannot be compelled or coerced to join the labor union even when the union has a closed shop agreement with CBA; Mandatory Subjects of Bargaining (1996)
the employer; that in spite of any closed shop agreement, members of said religious sect cannot be refused 1) What matters are considered mandatory subjects of collective bargaining?
employment or dismissed from their jobs on the sole ground that they are not members of the collective
bargaining union. (Victoriano v. Elizalde Rope Workers' Union, G.R. No. L-25246, September 12,1974) SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Wages, hours of work and all other terms and conditions of employment including proposals for adjusting any
CBA; interpretation (2004) grievances or questions arising from the collective bargaining agreement are considered mandatory subjects of
The CBA between the Company and the rank-and-file Union contained the following provision: “Section 3. MEAL collective bargaining. (See Art. 252 of the Labor Code)
ALLOWANCE. The Company agrees to grant a MEAL ALLOWANCE of TEN PESOS (P10.00) to all employees who
render at least TWO (2) hours or more of actual overtime work on a workday, and FREE MEALS, as presently CBA; Registration Requirement; Contract Bar-Rule (2000)
practiced, not exceeding TWENTY FIVE PESOS (P25.00) after THREE (3) hours of actual overtime work.” A Collective Bargaining Agreement was signed between the Ang Sarap Kainan Company and the Ang Sarap
Dispute in the interpretation of the above provision arose as the Company asserts that the phrase “after three Kainan Workers Union. Should the Collective Bargaining Agreement be registered with the Bureau of Labor
(3) hours of actual overtime work” does not mean after exactly three (3) hours of actual overtime work; it means Relations? If so, why? (3%)
after more than three (3) hours of actual overtime work. The Union, on the other hand, maintained that “after
three (3) hours of actual overtime work” simply means after rendering exactly, or no less than, three (3) hours SUGGESTED ANSWER:
of actual overtime work. So that the contract-bar rule may apply the CBA should be registered, assuming it has been validly ratified and
contains the mandatory provisions. (Art. 232, Labor Code).
Which interpretation do you think should prevail? Why? (5%)
CBA; Run-Off Election (2006)

14
When does a "run-off' election occur? (2.5%) bargaining unit were a daily occurrence, with each union asserting majority status. To resolve this pestering
problem, the Company and the three other unions agreed to hold a consent election under the supervision of
SUGGESTED ANSWER: the Bureau of Labor Relations. In the consent election, Pids and Co, Worker's Union won, and was accordingly
A run-off election occurs when the following elements occur: recognized by the Company as the exclusive bargaining
1. Between three (3) or more choices, and no choice receiving a majority of the valid votes cast; representative in the bargaining unit. Is the Pids and Co. Workers Union bound by the Collective Bargaining
2. The total number of votes for all contending unions is at least 50% of the number of vote cast; and Agreement signed between the Company and the Samahan ng Mga Manggagawa Sa Pids and Co. Inc.? Explain.
3. Between the labor unions receiving the two highest number of votes (Article 256, Labor Code). (3%)

CBA; Sale of Establishment; Effect (1994) b) Shortly after the consent election, Pids and Co. Inc. sold the Groceries Division to Metro Manila Grocery Inc.
Coronet Records Phil. (CRP) manufactures audio/video record players, compact discs, video discs, cassettes and The employees of the sold division formed part of the bargaining unit described in the Collective Bargaining
the like. CRPs shareholdings is 40% foreign and 60% domestic. CRP signed a Collective Bargaining Agreement Agreement, and all were absorbed by Metro Manila Grocery Inc. Is Metro Manila Grocery Inc., as the new
(CBA) with its rank-and-file workers for three years starting from January 1, 1990 and ending on December 31, employer, bound by the Collective Bargaining Agreement existing at the time of the sale? Explain. (3%)
1993. Before the expiration of the CBA, CRP decided to sell all its assets to Lyra Music Corporation effective
September 30, 1993. In this regard, notice was sent on August 30, 1993 to each employee advising them of the SUGGESTED ANSWER:
sale of the Company's assets to Lyra Music Corporation and the closure of the company's operations effective a) Yes, because the Collective Bargaining Agreement is not invalidated by the change of the bargaining agent
September 30, 1993. CRP, likewise, requested that each employee receive his separation pay equivalent to one- while the CBA is still effective. The "substitutionary doctrine'' applies. (Benguet Consolidated Inc. v. BCI
and-one-half (1 & 1/2) month's pay per year of service, exclusive of all unused leaves which were also converted Employees, 23 SCRA 465
to cash, and his 13th-month pay for 1993. The employees received their respective separation pay under protest (1968))
and thereafter filed an action against CRP and Lyra Music Corporation for unfair labor practice (ULP). The
Arbiter ruled in favor of the workers and ordered Lyra Music Corporation to absorb the former workers of CRP. b) No. There are no indications that the sale is simulated or intended to defeat the employees' right to organize.
A bona fide sale terminates the employment relationship between the selling company and its employees. The
Was the Labor Arbiter correct in his decision? CBA does not bind the purchaser in good faith because the CBA is a personam contract, unless the buyer agrees
to be bound. [Sundowner Dev. Corp. v. Drilon, 180 SCRA 14 (1989); Associated Labor Union v. NLRC, 204 SCRA
SUGGESTED ANSWER: 913 (1993)].
No. The Labor Arbiter is not correct. As held in the case of San Felipe Neri School of Mandaluyong vs. NLRC,
when there is a legitimate sale of a company's assets, the buyer in good faith cannot be legally compelled to CBA; Union Security Clause (2004)
absorb the employees of the seller in good faith. In the case at bar, the employees of the CRP were validly A. MPH Labor Union is the duly certified bargaining representative of the rank-and-file employees of MM Park
terminated based on Article 284, e.g. closure of operations and separation pay was paid at a rate much higher Hotel since the 1970’s. The collective bargaining agreement contained union shop security provisions. After the
than the law. signing of the 2000– 2005 CBA, the Union demanded the dismissal of 3 employees, XX, YY and ZZ, pursuant to
Furthermore, the case filed by the employees was UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE. It is highly irregular to order the union
absorption of employees in a ULP case. security clause in the CBA. The Hotel Management replied that it was legally impossible to comply with the
demand of the
CBA; Social Security vs. Union Security (2004) Union. It might even be construed as unfair labor practice. For it appeared that XX, YY and ZZ had been recently
Distinguish clearly but briefly between Social security and union security promoted as supervisors and resigned from the Union. But according to the Union, the three submitted their
resignations outside the freedom period after the 1996–2000 CBA expired on June 30, 2000. The Union argued
SUGGESTED ANSWERS: that the Hotel Management could not skirt its obligation to respect and implement the union security clause by
SOCIAL SECURITY is the protection given by social insurance programs such as the programs of the SSS, GSIS promoting the three employees that could be viewed as rewarding employees for their disloyalty to the union,
and PHIC undertaken pursuant to their respective charters, including the employees compensation program said the union officers. Does the union security clause sufficiently justify the demand for dismissal of the three
provided for in the Labor Code. The aforesaid programs provide income benefits and/or medical care when employees or not? May the Hotel Management validly refuse the Union’s demand? (5%)
contingencies like sickness, (also maternity in the case of SSS) disability, death, or retirement, including in the
case of the GSIS, separation and unemployment benefits. CBA; Union Security Clause; Closed Shop
On the other hand, UNION SECURITY refers to a clause in a collective bargaining agreement whereby the Provision (1995)
employer agrees to employ or continue in employment only workers who are members of the exclusive Reconcile the compulsory nature of the closed shop provision in a Collective Bargaining Agreement with the
collective bargaining representative of the employees of said employer in a bargaining unit. constitutional guarantee of freedom of association. Discuss fully.

CBA; Substitutionary Doctrine (2000) SUGGESTED ANSWER:


a) The Samahan ng Mga Manggagawa sa Pidsand Co. Inc. lost its majority status in the bargaining unit one year Among the policies of the State in the field of labor relations is to promote trade unionism and to foster the
after the signing of the Collective Bargaining Agreement. Bickerings among all the three other unions in the organization of a strong and united labor movement. UNION SECURITY CLAUSES, like a closed shop agreement,

15
is one way of implementing the aforementioned labor relations policy. Implementing to some extent the concept union and union shop.
of freedom of association, an employee who is already a member of a union could not be compelled to become
a member of a bargaining union, even if there is a closed shop agreement. SUGGESTED ANSWERS:
A COMPANY UNION is a union of employees dominated or under the control of the employer of said employees.
CBA; Union; Representation Issue (1999) A UNION SHOP, on the other hand, refers to a union security clause in a collective bargaining agreement
FACTS: Jenson & Jenson (J & J) is a domestic corporation engaged in the manufacturing of consumer products. whereby the employer agrees to terminate the employment of an employee who has not become a member of
Its rank-and-file workers organized the Jenson Employees Union (JEU), a duty registered local union affiliated the union which is the exclusive collective bargaining representative of the employees in a bargaining unit
with PAFLU, a national union. After having been certified as the exclusive bargaining agent of the appropriate within a certain period after the employment of said employee or has ceased to become a union member.
bargaining unit, JEU-PAFLU submitted its proposals for a Collective Bargaining Agreement with the company.
In the meantime, a power struggle occurred within the national union PAFLU between its National President, CBU; Confidential Employees (1994)
Manny Pakyao, and its National Secretary General, Gabriel Miro. The representation issue within PAFLU is 1. Can an employer legally oppose the inclusion of confidential employees in the bargaining unit of rank-and-
pending resolution before the Office of the Secretary of file employees?
Labor. 2. Would your answer be different if the confidential employees are sought to be included in the supervisory
By reason of this intra-union dispute within PAFLU, J & J obstinately and consistently refused to offer any union?
counterproposal and to bargain collectively with JEU-PAFLU until the representation issue within PAFLU shall
have been resolved with finality. JEU-PAFLU filed a Notice of Strike. The Secretary of Labor subsequently SUGGESTED ANSWER:
assumed jurisdiction over the labor dispute. 1) Yes, an employer can legally oppose the inclusion of confidential employees in the bargaining unit of the
rank-and-file. This issue has been settled in the case of Golden Farms vs. Calleja, and reiterated in the case of
1. Will the representation issue that has arisen involving the national union PAFLU, to which the duty registered Philips Industrial Dev. Inc. vs. NLRC.
local union JEU is affiliated, bar collective bargaining negotiation with J & J? Explain briefly. (3%)
2. Can the Secretary of Labor decide the labor dispute by awarding the JEU CBA Proposals as the Collective SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Bargaining Agreement of the parties? Explain briefly. (2%) 2) The answer would be the same if confidential employees are sought to be included in the supervisory union
because confidential employees, being a part of management would not qualify to join, much less form a labor
SUGGESTED ANSWER: union. (Philtranco vs. BLR, 174 SCRA 388),
1. The representation issue that has arisen involving the national union PAFLU should not bar collective
bargaining negotiation with J and J. It is the local union JEU that has the right to bargain with the employer J and CBU; Consent Election vs. Certification Election (2004)
J, and not the national Distinguish clearly but briefly between Consent election and certification election.
union PAFLU. It is immaterial whether the representation issue within PAFLU has been resolved with finality
or not. Said squabble could not possibly serve as a bar to any collective bargaining since PAFLU is not the real SUGGESTED ANSWERS:
party-in-interest to the talks; rather, the negotiations are confined to the corporation and the local union JEU. A certification election and a consent election are both elections held to determine through secret ballot the
Only the collective bargaining agent, the local union JEU, possesses the legal standing to negotiate with the sole and exclusive representative of the employees in an appropriate bargaining unit for the purpose of
corporation. A duly registered local union affiliated with a national union or federation does not lose its legal collective bargaining or negotiations. There is this difference, however, a CERTIFICATION ELECTION is ordered
personality or Independence (Adamson and Adamson, Inc. v. The Court of Industrial Relations and Adamson by the Department of Labor and Employment while a CONSENT ELECTION is voluntarily agreed upon by the
and Adamson Supervising Union (FFW), 127 SCRA 268 [1984]). parties, with or without the intervention of the Department of Labor and Employment.

2. Yes. It is within assumption power. CBU; Managerial Employees; Supervisory Employees (1995)
A supervisor's union filed a petition for certification election to determine the exclusive bargaining
CBA; Wage Increase Coverage; Non-Union Employees (2005) representative of the supervisory employees of Farmers Bank. Included in the list of supervisory employees
(b) May a rank-and-file employee, who is not a member of the union representing his bargaining unit, avail of attached to the petition are the Department Managers, Branch Managers, Cashiers and Comptrollers. Farmers
the wage increases which the union negotiated for its members? (4%) Bank questioned this list arguing that Department Managers, Branch Managers, Cashiers and Comptrollers
inherently possess the powers enumerated in Art. 212, par. (m), of the Labor Code, i.e., the power and
SUGGESTED ANSWER: prerogative to lay down and execute management policies and/or to hire, transfer, suspend, lay-off, recall,
Yes, because the bargaining representative (union) does not act for its members alone. It represents all the discharge, assign or discipline employees.
employees covered by the bargaining unit. (Mactan Workers Union v. Aboitiz,G.R. No. L-30241, June 30, 1972)
However, nonmembers who avail of CBA benefits are required under the law to pay agency fees. 1. Is the contention of Farmers Bank correct? Discuss fully.

CBU; Company Union vs. Union Shop (2004) SUGGESTED ANSWER:


Distinguish clearly but briefly between Company

16
The contention of the Farmers Bank is not correct, if, on examination of the actual powers exercised by the working conditions and other subjects of collective bargaining. (San Miguel Corp. Supervisors and Exempt
Department Managers, Bank Managers, Cashiers and Comptrollers, they are not vested with powers or Employees Union v. Laguesma, 227
prerogatives to lay down and execute management policies or to hire, transfer, suspend, lay-off, recall, SCRA 37O) The Labor Code (in Article 245) provides that managerial employees are not eligible to join, assist
discharge, assign or discipline employees. If their powers are to carry out their duties and responsibilities in or form any labor organization. The above provision shows that managerial employees do not have the same
accordance with the policies promulgated by the Board of Directors of the Bank, or by external authorities, like interests as the supervisory employees which compose the bargaining unit where SMCT wishes to be the
the Central Bank, then, they are not managerial but may be supervisory personnel. But this may be noted: The exclusive collective bargaining representative.
Bank officials mentioned in the case, have control, custody and/or access to confidential matters. Thus, they are
confidential employees and in accordance with earlier Supreme Court decisions, as confidential employees, the CBU; Modes; Determination of Exclusive Bargaining Agreement (2006)
Branch Manager, Cashier, Controller are disqualified from joining or assisting the supervisor's union of the The modes of determining an exclusive bargaining agreement are:
Bank. a. voluntary recognition
b. certification election
2. Is there any statutory basis for the petition of the union? Explain. c. consent election
Explain briefly how they differ from one another.
SUGGESTED ANSWER: (5%)
There is statutory basis for the petition of the supervisors' union. Under the Labor Code, supervisors have the
right to form and join unions, but only unions of supervisory employees. SUGGESTED ANSWER:
(a.) VOLUNTARY RECOGNITION — is thevoluntary recognition by the employer of the status of the union as
CBU; Managerial Employees; Supervisory Employees (1999) the bargaining
FACTS: Samahan ng mga Manggagawa sa Companya ng Tabaco (SMCT) filed a Petition for Certification Election representative of the employees [Section l(bbb), Rule I, Book V, Rules to Implement the Labor Code, as amended
among the supervisory employees of the Tabaco Manufacturing Company (Tabaco) before the NCR Regional by Department Order No. 40-03, Series of 2003 (17 February 2003)].
Office of the Department of Labor and Employment. It alleged, among other things, that it is a legitimate labor
organization, a duly chartered local of NAFLU; that Tabaco is an organized establishment; and that no (b.) CERTIFICATION ELECTION is the process of determining the sole and exclusive bargaining agent of the
certification election has been conducted within one year prior to the filing of its petition for certification employees in an appropriate bargaining unit [Section l(h), Rule I, Book V, Rules to Implement the Labor Code,
election. The Petition filed by SMCT showed that out of its 50 members, 15 were rank-and-filers and two (2) as amended by Department Order No. 40-03, Series of 2003 (17 February 2003)].
were managers. Tabaco filed a Motion to Dismiss on the ground that SMCT union is composed of supervisory
and rank-and-file employees and, therefore, cannot act as bargaining agent for the proposed unit. SMCT filed an (c.) CONSENT ELECTION is an agreed election, conducted with or without the intervention of the DOLE to
opposition to the said Motion alleging that the infirmity, if any, in the membership of the union can be remedied determine the issue of majority representation of all the workers in the appropriate bargaining unit (Algire v.
in the pre-election conference thru the exclusion-inclusion proceedings wherein those employees who are De Mesa, G.R. No. 97622, October 19, 1994).
occupying rank-and-file positions will be excluded from the list of eligible voters.
Due Process; Disciplinary Cases (1995)
1. Should the Motion to Dismiss filed by the Tabaco be granted or denied? Explain. (3%) 1. Gary, a salesman of Astro Chemical Company (ASTRO), was reported to have committed some serious
anomalies in his sale and distribution of company products. ASTRO designated its Chief Legal Officer to
SUGGESTED ANSWER: investigate Gary. Instead of submitting to the investigation, Gary filed a petition to enjoin the investigation on
The Motion to Dismiss filed by Tabaco should be granted. According to the Labor Code (in Article 245), the ground that ASTRO would appear to be his accuser, prosecutor and judge at the same time. Will the petition
supervisory employees shall not be eligible for membership in a labor organization of rankand- file employees to enjoin the investigation prosper? Discuss fully.
but may join or form separate labor organizations of their own. Because of the above-mentioned provision of
the Labor Code, a labor organization composed of both rank-and-file and supervisory employees is no labor SUGGESTED ANSWER:
organization at all. It cannot, for any guise or purpose, be a legitimate labor organization. Not being a legitimate The petition to enjoin the investigation will not prosper. It is inevitable that in disciplinary cases, the employer
labor organization, it cannot possess the requisite personality to file a petition for certification election. (See would appear to be accuser, prosecutor, and judge at the same time since it is the employer who charges an
Toyota Motor Philippines Corp. vs. Toyota Motor Philippines employee for the commission of an offense; he is also the person who directs the investigation to determine
Corp. Labor Union, 268 SCRA 573) whether the charge against the employee is true or not and he is the one who will judge if the employee is to be
penalized or not. But if the employee is given ample opportunity to defend himself, he could not validly claim
2. Can the two (2) Managers be part of the bargaining unit? Why? (2%) that he was deprived of his right to due process of law.

SUGGESTED ANSWER: Employees; groups of employees (1996)


No, the two (2) Managers cannot be part of the bargaining unit composed of supervisory employees. A 1) Who are the managerial, supervisory and rank-and-file employees?
bargaining unit must effect a grouping of employees who have substantial, mutual interests in wages, hours,
SUGGESTED ANSWER:

17
"MANAGERIAL EMPLOYEE" is one who is vested with powers or prerogatives to lay down and execute
management policies or to hire, transfer, suspend, layoff, recall, discharge, assign or discipline employees. SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Under Book Three of the Labor Code, a MANAGERIAL EMPLOYEE refers to one whose primary duty consists of
SUPERVISORY EMPLOYEES are those who, in the interest of the employer, effectively recommend such the management of the establishment in which he is employed or of a department or subdivision thereof, and
managerial actions if the exercise of such authority is not merely routinary or clerical in nature but requires the to other officers or members of the managerial staff. A supervisor and a rank and file employee can be
use of independent judgment. All employees who are neither managerial or supervisory employees are considered as members of the managerial staff, and therefore, a managerial employee if their primary duty
considered RANKAND- FILE EMPLOYEES. (Art. 212(m) of the Labor Code) consists of work directly related to management policies; if they customarily and regularly exercise discretion
and independent judgment; regularly and directly assist a proprietor or a managerial employee whose primary
duty consists of the management of the establishment in which they are employed or a subdivision thereof; or
Employees; Managerial Employee vs. Managerial Staff (1994) execute under general supervision work along specialized or technical lines requiring special training,
Distinguish the rights of managerial employees from members of a managerial staff. experience, or knowledge; or execute under general supervision special assignments and tasks; and who do not
devote more than 20 percent of their hours worked in a work-week to activities which are not directly and
SUGGESTED ANSWER: closely related to the performance of the work described above. All others are rank and file employees under
MANAGERIAL EMPLOYEES have no collective bargaining rights because, they cannot join or form any other said Book (Art. 82, Labor Code, Sec. 2 (c), Rule I, Bk. III, Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor Code).
labor organization while officers of a managerial staff are not prohibited from joining, assisting or forming or
arresting a supervisor's union; hence, they can bargain collectively. (Art. 245, Labor Code; National Sugar Under Book Five of the Labor Code, "MANAGERIAL EMPLOYEE" is one who is vested with powers or
Refineries Corp. vs. NLRC, 220 SCRA 452). prerogatives to lay down, and execute management policies and/or to hire, transfer, suspend, lay-off, recall,
discharge, assign or discipline employees.
Employees; managerial employees vs. supervisory employees (2002)
Distinguish managerial employees from supervisory employees, (3%) A SUPERVISORY EMPLOYEE is one who, in the interest of the employer, effectively recommends such
managerial actions if the exercise of such authority is not merely routinary or clerical in nature but requires the
SUGGESTED ANSWER: use of independent judgment. All employees not falling within any of the above definitions are considered rank-
A MANAGERIAL EMPLOYEE is one who is vested with powers or prerogatives to lay down and execute and-file employees
management policies and/or to hire, transfer, suspend, lay-off, recall, discharge, assign or discipline employees. for purposes of this Book (Art. 212 (M), Labor Code). On the matter of right to self-organization, a managerial
employee cannot exercise such right; while a supervisor and a rank and file employee can (Arts. 245, 243, Labor
SUPERVISORY EMPLOYEES, on the other hand, are those who in the interest of the employer, effectively Code).
recommend
such managerial actions, if the exercise of such authority is not merely routinary or clerical in nature but
requires the use of independent judgment [Art. 212 (m), Labor Code] In a case, the Supreme Court said: "In the CBA; Closed Shop vs. Agency Shop (1997)
petition before us, a thorough dissection of the job description of the concerned supervisory employees and (a) Describe a "closed shop agreement, does it differ from an "agency shop agreement." (b) Are the above
section heads indisputably show that they are not actually managerial but only supervisory employees since agreements legal?
they do not lay down company policies. PICOP's contention that the subject section heads and unit managers
exercise the authority to hire and fire is ambiguous and quite misleading for the reason that any authority they SUGGESTED ANSWER:
exercise is not supreme but merely advisory in character. Theirs is not a final determination of the company (a) A "CLOSED SHOP AGREEMENT" is that agreement embodied in a collective bargaining agreement (CBA)
policies Inasmuch as any action taken by them on matters relative to hiring, promotion, transfer, suspension whereby the employer binds itself not to hire any person unless he is first a union member of the collective
and termination of employees is still subject to confirmation and approval by their respective superior. [See bargaining representative. An "AGENCY SHOP AGREEMENT" is different from a closed shop agreement in that
Atlas Lithographic Services, Inc. v. Laguesma, 205 SCRA 12, 17 (1992)] Thus, where such power, which is in under the former, the employer does not bind itself not to hire a person unless he is first a union member of the
effect recommendatory in character, is subject to evaluation, review and final action by the department heads collective bargaining representative. Instead, the employer binds itself to check off from those who are not
and higher executives of the company, the same, although present, is not effective and not an exercise of union members of the collective bargaining representative a reasonable fee equivalent to the dues and other
independent judgment as required by law. [Philippine Appliance Corp. v. Laguesma, 229 SCRA 730, 737 (1993) fees paid by union members if the non-union members accept the benefits of the CBA.
citing Franklin Baker Company of the Philippines v. Trajano, 157 SCRA 416, 422-433 (1988)]." (Paper Industries
Corp. of the Philippines v. Bienvenido E. (b) The above agreements are legal or they are expressly allowed by the Labor Code.
Laguesma 330 SCRA 295, (2000)]

Employees; Managerial vs. Supervisory vs. Rank-and-File Employees (2003) Right to Strike; illegal lockout (1995)
The Labor Code treats differently in various aspects the employment of (i) managerial employees, (ii) Fifty percent (50%) of the employees of Grandeur Company went on strike after negotiations for a collective
supervisory employees, and (iii) rank-and-file employees. State the basic distinguishing features of each type of bargaining agreement ended in a deadlock. Grandeur Company, being a public utility, immediately petitioned
employment. the Secretary of Labor and Employment to assume jurisdiction and certify the case to the NLRC. On the fourth

18
day of the strike and before the DOLE Secretary could assume jurisdiction or certify the case to the NLRC, the They could file a case of illegal dismissal. The strikers who are union officers may contend that the strike is not
strikers communicated in writing their offer to return to work. Grandeur Company refused to accept the offer illegal. The strikers who are mere union members may contend that they did not commit any Illegal acts during
of the strikers because it realized that they were not at all capable of paralyzing the operations of the company. the strike. (Art, 264, Labor Code) ALTERNATIVE ANSWER: a) The employees who were declared to have lost
The strikers accused Grandeur Company of illegal lockout. Has Grandeur Company committed the act charged their employment status can file a complaint for illegal dismissal with the NLRC, or seek the assistance of the
by refusing to accept the offer of the strikers to return to work? Discuss fully. NCMB for conciliation/ mediation. b) The recourse of the workers whose employment status are declared to
have been lost is to file a case of illegal dismissal under Art. 217 of the Code, and to pray for the suspension of
SUGGESTED ANSWER: the effects of termination under Article 277(b) of the said Code because this involves a mass lay-off.
There is no law that prohibits strikers to decide not to continue with a strike that they have started. Thus, the
company committed an illegal lockout in refusing to accept the offer of the strikers to return to work. Under the Right to Strike; Industries Vital to National Interest (2004)
set of facts in the question, the Company did not give the required notice to lockout, much less did it observe Which of the following may be considered among industries most vital to national interest as to be the subject
the necessary waiting period, nor did it take a needed vote on the lockout. Thus, the lockout is illegal. of immediate assumption of jurisdiction by the Secretary of Labor and Employment or certification for
compulsory arbitration in case of strike or work stoppage arising from a labor dispute? (1) Bulletin daily
Right to Strike; illegal strike; Loss of Employment (1994) newspaper publishing company. (2) Local franchise of Jollibee and Starbucks. (3) Shipping and port services in
Union A filed a Notice of Strike with the National Conciliation and Mediation Board (NCMB) of the Department Cebu and Manila. (4) Enchanted Kingdom, Elephant Island and Boracay Resort. (5) LBC, DHL and FedEx centers.
of Labor and Employment. Upon a motion to dismiss by the Company on the ground that the acts complained Justify your answer or choice. (5%)
of in the notice of strike are non-strikeable. The NCMB dismissed the Notice of Strike but continued to mediate
the issues contained therein to prevent the escalation of the dispute between the parties. While the NCMB was SUGGESTED ANSWER:
conducting mediation proceedings, the Union proceeded to conduct a strike vote as provided for under the Certification of labor dispute for immediate assumption of jurisdiction by the Secretary of the Department of
Labor Code. After observance of the procedural processes required under the Code, the Union declared a strike. Labor and Employment, as indispensable to national interest. (Art. 263 [g], Labor Code). 1. Bulletin Daily
1. Is the strike legal? Newspaper. Access to information, e.g., local, foreign, or otherwise are requirements for an informed citizenry.
2. Can the employer unilaterally declare those who participated in the strike as having lost their employment 2. Shipping and port services in Cebu and Manila. The country needs domestic sea transport due to our
status? topography and for the smooth flow of business and government operations. 3. LBC, DHL, FEDEx Centers.
3. What recourse do these employees (declared by the employer to have lost their employment status) have, if Couriers are essential to foreign and domestic business and government operations.
any?

SUGGESTED ANSWER: 1 Self Organization; Acquisition of Legal Personality (2003)


NO. The strike is not legal. The Labor Code provides that no labor organization shall declare a strike without At what particular point does a labor organization acquire a legal personality?
first having bargained collectively in accordance with its Title VII of Book V, which in turn provides that during a) On the date the agreement to organize the union is signed by the majority of all its members; or
conciliation proceedings at the NCMB, the parties are prohibited from doing any act that may disrupt or impede b) On the date the application for registration is duly filed with the Department of Labor or
the early settlement of the dispute. (Arts. 264(a), also 250(d); Labor Code) ALTERNATIVE ANSWER: a) The c) On the date appearing on the Certificate of Registration; or
strike is not legal, considering that it was declared after the NCMB dismissed the Notice of Strike. Hence, it is as d) On the date the Certificate of Registration is actually issued; or e) None of the above,
if, no notice of strike was filed. A strike declared without a notice of strike is illegal, (GOP-CCP vs. CIR, 93 SCRA
118). b) No. The strike is illegal. It is already settled in the case of PAL vs. Secretary of Labor (Drilon) that the Choose the correct answer.
pendency of a mediation proceedings is a bar to the staging of a strike even if all the procedural requirements
were complied with. SUGGESTED ANSWER:
d.) On the date the Certificate of Registration is actually issued. Any applicant labor organization, association or
SUGGESTED ANSWER: 2 group of unions or workers shall acquire legal personality and shall be entitled to the rights and privileges
The employer may unilaterally declare those who participated in the strike as having lost their employment granted by law to legitimate labor organizations upon issuance of the certificate of registration.
status but such unilateral declaration does not necessarily mean that thereby the strikers are legally dismissed.
The strikers could still file a case of illegal dismissal and prove, if they can, that there was no just cause for their Self Organization; Appropriate Bargaining Unit; Confidential Employees (2002)
dismissal. ALTERNATIVE ANSWER: a) The employer cannot unilaterally declare those who participated in the Malou is the Executive Secretary of the Senior Vice-president of a bank while Ana is the Legal Secretary of the
Illegal strike as having lost their employment status. Only the union officers who knowingly participated In the bank's lawyer. They and other executive secretaries would like to join the union of rank and file employees of
strike and workers who knowingly participated in the commission of illegal acts. If any, may be declared to have the bank. Are they eligible to join the union? Why? Explain briefly. (3%)
lost their employment status. (Art. 264). b) The employer has two options: 1. It may declare the strikers as
having lost their employment status pursuant to Art. 264 of the Labor Code, or 2. It may file a case before the SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Labor Arbiter, under Art, 217, to have the strike declared illegal and after that proceed to terminate the strikers. The following rules will govern the right of selforganization of Malou, Ana, and the other Executive Secretaries;
1. No Right to Self-Organization — Confidential employees who act in a confidential capacity to persons who
SUGGESTED ANSWER: 32 formulate, determine, and effectuate management policies in the field of labormanagement relation. The two

19
criteria are cumulative and both must be met [San Miguel Corporation Union v. Laguesma, 277 SCRA 370 What is the importance of labor organizations?
(1997)] 2. With Right to Self-Organization — When the employee does not have access to confidential labor
relations information, there is no legal prohibition against confidential employees from forming, assisting, or SUGGESTED ANSWER:
joining a labor organization. [Sugbuanon Rural Bank, Inc. v. Laguesma, 324 SCRA 425 (2000)] 3. No right of self- A labor organization exists in whole or in part for the purpose of collective bargaining or of dealing with
organization for Legal Secretaries — Legal Secretaries fall under the category of confidential employees with employers concerning terms and conditions of employment. Employees may form labor organizations for their
no right to serf-organization. [Pier & Arrastre Stevedoring Services, Inc. v, Confesser, 241 SCRA 294 (1995)] mutual aid and protection. (See Arts. 212(a) and 243 of the Labor Code)

Self Organization; E-E Relationship; Certification Election (1998) Self Organization; Membership Policy (1998)
Is it required that an employer-employee relationship exists between an employer and the employees in the A labor union lawyer opined V. that a labor organization is a private and voluntary organization; hence, a union
appropriate bargaining unit before a certification election can be ordered? If so. why? [5%] can deny membership to any and all applicants. Is the opinion of counsel in accord with law? [5%]

SUGGESTED ANSWER: SUGGESTED ANSWER:


Yes. it is required that an employer-employee relationship is existing between the employer and the employees NO, the opinion of counsel is not in accord with law. The Labor Code (in Article 249 (a and b) provides that a
in the appropriate bargaining unit before a certification election can be ordered for the simple reason that a labor organization has the right to prescribe its own rules for the acquisition or retention of membership, but
certification election is held for the purpose of determining which labor organization shall be the exclusive it is an unfair labor practice act for a labor organization to restrain or coerce employees in the exercise of their
collective bargaining representative of the employees in an appropriate bargaining unit. There could be no right to self-organization. Thus, a labor organization cannot discriminate against any employee by denying such
collective bargaining between persons who do not have any employer-employee relationship. employee membership in the labor organization on any ground other than the usual terms and conditions under
which membership or continuation of union membership is made available to other members.

ANOTHER SUGGESTED ANSWER:


Self Organization; Gov’t Employees (2004) Yes, the legal opinion of counsel, on the nature of a labor union and its admission policy is in accord with law,
Because of alleged “unfair labor practices” by the management of GFI System, a governmentowned and but must be qualified. The Supreme Court ruled in Salunga v. CIR, 21 SCRA 216 (1967) as follows: Generally, a
controlled financial corporation, its employees walked out from their jobs and refused to return to work until state may not compel ordinary voluntary association to admit thereto any given individual, because
the management would grant their union official recognition and start negotiations with them. The leaders of membership therein maybe accorded or withheld as a matter of privilege. The same case further ruled that the
the walk-out were dismissed, and the other participants were suspended for sixty days. In arguing their case law can compel a labor union to admit an applicant for membership when the union is - The rule is qualified in
before the Civil Service Commission, they cited the principle of social justice for workers and the right to self- respect of labor unions holding a monopoly in the supply of labor, either in a given locality or as regards a
organization and collective action, including the right to strike. They claimed that the Constitution shielded particular employer with which it has a closed-shop agreement. The reason is that [union security provisions]
them from any penalty because their walk-out was a concerted action pursuant to their rights guaranteed by cause the admission requirements of trade unions to be affected with public interest.
the basic law. Is the position taken by the walk-out leaders and participants legally correct? Reason briefly. (5%)
Self-Organization; Right to Disaffiliate from the Local Union; illegal dismissal (1994)
SUGGESTED ANSWER: In the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) between Royal Films and its rank-and-file Union (which is
The position taken by the walk-out leaders and participants is not legally correct. They are government directly affiliated with MFF, a national federation), a provision on the maintenance of membership expressly
employees, and as such, they do not have the right to strike. According to the actual wording of Section 3 of provides that the Union can demand the dismissal of any member employee who commits acts of disloyalty to
Article XIII of the Constitution, the State "shall guarantee the rights of all workers to self-organization, collective the Union as provided for in its Constitution and By-Laws. The same provision contains an undertaking by the
bargaining and negotiations, and peaceful concerted activities including the right to strike in accordance with Union (MFF) to hold Royal Films free from any and all claims of any employee dismissed. During the term of the
law." Thus, the last clause of the above-quoted provision of the Constitution makes it very clear: the right to CBA, MFF discovered that certain employee members were initiating a move to disaffiliate from MFF and join a
strike is not constitutional, it is statutory because the right should be "in accordance with law". And there is as rival federation, FAMAS. Forthwith, MFF sought the dismissal of its employee members initiating the
yet no law giving government employees the right to strike. disaffiliation movement from MFF to FAMAS. Royal Films, relying on the provision of the aforementioned CBA,
complied with MFFs request and dismissed the employees Identified by MFF as disloyal to it.
ANOTHER SUGGESTED ANSWER: (1) Will an action for Illegal dismissal against Royal Films and MFF prosper or not?
NO. What Art. XIV, Sec. 3 of the 1987 Constitution guarantees is "the right to strike in accordance with law." (2) What are the liabilities of Royal and MFF to the dismissed employees, if any?
Assuming that what we have is a chartered government-owned and controlled corporation, they cannot, under
EO 180 and related jurisprudence, stage such walk-out which is basically a case of strike. Even if GFI was SUGGESTED ANSWER:
organized under the corporation law, still no such walk-out is allowed without the employees' complying with 1) The action for illegal dismissal will prosper. The right of a local union to disaffiliate from its mother federation
the requirements of a valid strike, among which is that said strike or walkout should be validly grounded on a is well-settled. A local union, being a separate and voluntary association, is free to serve the interest of all its
(a) deadlock in collective bargaining, or (b) unfair labor practice, either of which is not present here. members including the freedom to disaffiliate when circumstances warrant this right is consistent with the
constitutional guarantee of freedom of association. Thus, the Act of initiating move to disaffiliate is not an act of
Self Organization; Importance (1996) disloyalty. (Tropical Hut. Employee's Union-CGW, et al. vs. Tropical Hut Food Market, Inc., etal, G.R. Nos. L-

20
^3495-99, January 20. 1990) ALTERNATIVE ANSWER: The action for illegal dismissal will prosper. Payment by piece is just a method of compensation and does not define the essence of the relation. [Lambo v.
Disaffiliation cannot be considered an act of disloyalty. The very essence of self-organization is for the workers NLRC, 317 SCRA 420 (1999)]. Third, the employees' right to self organization is not delimited by their number.
to form a group for the effective enhancement and protection of common interest. (PICEWO v. People Industrial The right to self-organization covers all persons employed in commercial, industrial and agricultural
& Commercial Corp., 112 SCRA 440) enterprises and in religious, charitable, medical, or educational Institutions whether operating for profit or not
{Art. 243, Labor Code}
2) MFF can be held liable to pay the backwages of the dismissed employees. Royal can be held jointly and
severally liable for backwages if it acted with undue haste in dismissing the employees (Manila Cordage Co. v. Self-Organization; Dismissal due to Union Activities (2004)
CIR, 78 SCRA 398). In addition, Royal can be ordered to reinstate the dismissed employees. A, B, C and D (treasurer, accountant, elementary department Principal, and secretary of the Director,
respectively), regular employees of a private educational institution, were administratively charged for their
Self Organization; Right to Self-Organization of Coop Employees (2002) participation in a picket held in front of the campus after office hours. Several faculty members, non-academic
Do employees of a cooperative have a right to form a union? Explain briefly. (2%) staff and students joined the peaceful prayer rally organized by disgruntled employees to protest certain alleged
abuses of the incumbent School Director. Subsequently, the rank-and-file employees succeeded in forming the
SUGGESTED ANSWER: Employees who are members of a cooperative cannot form a union because, as first and only union of the School.
members, they are owners and owners cannot bargain with themselves. However, employees who are not During the investigation, the administration discovered that two (2) days prior to the rally, A, B, C and D
members of the cooperative can form a union. [San Jose Electric Service Cooperative v. Ministry of Labor, 173 attended the meeting of the School’s employees’ association which planned the protest activity. Two well-
SCRA 697 (1989)] known organizers/leaders of a national labor federation were also present. A, B, C and D were dismissed by the
School on the ground of violating the Labor Code which prohibits managerial employees to “join, assist or form
Self Organization; Unions; Membership; Dismissal in Bad Faith (2002) any labor organization”. Is the contention of the School tenable? Is the dismissal of A, B, C and D valid? Explain.
A. On what ground or grounds may a union member be expelled from the organization? (3%) (5%)
B. May the general manager of a company be held jointly and severally liable for backwages of an illegally
dismissed employee? (2%) SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The dismissal of A, B, C and D on the ground that they violated the Labor Code provision which states that
SUGGESTED ANSWER: managerial employees "are not eligible to join, assist or form any labor organization" is not valid. The Labor
A. Union members may be expelled from the labor organization only on valid grounds provided for in the Union Code does not provide for any sanction for the aforesaid acts. These acts could not be considered as just cause
Constitution, By-Laws, or conditions for union membership. Whenever appropriate for any violation of the for the termination of employment, either.
rights as: a) Refusal to pay union dues and special assessments; b) Disloyalty to the union; and c) Violation of
the constitution and by-laws of the union. ANOTHER SUGGESTED ANSWER: The dismissal of the managerial employees is invalid. The dismissal of the
management employees because of union activities, no matter how erroneous or tenous may be the basis of the
B. Yes. If it is shown that he acted in bad faith, or without or in excess of authority, or was motivated by personal exercise, is a violation of the constitutional and statutory guaranteed rights of self-organization, and an act of
ill-will in dismissing the employee, the general manager may be held jointly and severally liable for the unfair labor practice. (Sec. 3, Art. XIII, Constitution; Art. 243, Labor Code. See also Art. 248 (a), Labor Code).
backwages of an illegally dismissed employee. [ARB Construction C. v. Court of Appeals, 332 SCRA 427, (2000),
Lim v. NLRC, 303 SCRA 432, (1999)] Self-Organization; Gov’t vs. Private Employees (1996)
How does the government employees’ right to self-organization differ from that of the employees in the private
Yes. The General Manager may be held jointly and severally liable for back wages of an illegally dismissed sector?
employee if he or she actually authorized or ratified the wrongful dismissal of the employee under the rule of
respondeat superior. In case of illegal dismissal, corporate directors and officers are solidarity liable with the SUGGESTED ANSWER: There is no substantial difference of the right of self-organization between workers in
corporation where termination of employment are done with malice or bad faith. [Bogo-Medellin Sugar Plant the private sector and those in the public sector. In the public sector, Executive Order No. 180, the purpose of
self-organization is stated as "for the furtherance and protection of their interest." In the private sector, Art. 243
Self-Organization (2002) of the Labor Code states "for the purpose of collective bargaining", and "for the purpose of enhancing and
Mang Bally, owner of a shoe repair shop with only nine (9) workers in his establishment, received proposals for defending their Interests and for their mutual aid and protection."
collective bargaining from the Bally Shoe Union. Mang Bally refused to bargain with the workers for several
reasons. First, his shoe business is just a service establishment. Second, his workers are paid on a piecework ALTERNATIVE ANSWER: In government, managerial employees shall not be eligible to join the organization
basis (i.e., per shoe repaired) and not on a time basis. Third, he has less than ten (10) employees in the of rank-and-file employees per Executive Order No. 180 but said law does not provide that they are not eligible
establishment. Which reason or reasons is/are tenable? Explain briefly. (2%) to join, assist or form any labor organization, meaning, they could join, assist or form any labor organization of
their own. In the private sector, managerial employees are not eligible to join, assist or form any labor
SUGGESTED ANSWER: organization. (See Art. 243 of the Labor Code and Sec. 3 of Executive Order No. 180)
NONE. First, Mang Bally's shoe business is a commercial enterprise, albeit a service establishment. Second, the
mere fact that the workers are paid on a piece-rate basis does not negate their status as regular employees. Self-Organization; Right to Join (2000)

21
Do workers have a right not to join a labor organization? (3%) employment that a person or an employee shall not join a labor organization or shall withdraw from one to
Do the following workers have the right to selforganization? Reasons/basis (2%) a. Employees of non-stock, which he belongs; 3. To contract out services or functions being performed by union members when such will
non-profit organizations? b. Alien employees? interfere with, restrain or coerce employees in the exercise of their rights to self-organization; 4. To initiate,
dominate, assist or otherwise interfere with the formation or administration of any labor organization,
SUGGESTED ANSWER: including, the giving of financial or other support to it, or its organizations, or supporters; 5. To discriminate in
Yes, workers decide whether they will or will not become members of a labor organization. That's why a union's regard to wages, hours of work, and other terms and conditions of employment in order to encourage or
constitution and by-laws need the members' adoption and ratification. Moreover, if they are members of a discourage membership in any labor organization. Nothing in this Code or in any other law shall stop the parties
religious group whose doctrine forbids union membership, their right not to be compelled to become union from requiring membership in a recognized collective bargaining agent as a condition for employment, except
members has been upheld. However, if the worker is not a "religious objector" and there is a union security those employees who are already members of another union at the time of the signing of the collective
clause, he may be required to join the union if he belongs to the bargaining unit. [Reyes v. Trajano, 209 SCRA bargaining agreement. Provided, that the individual authorization required under Article 241, paragraph (o) of
484 (1992)]. this Code shall not apply to the non-members of the recognized collective bargaining agent; 6. To dismiss,
discharge, or otherwise prejudice or discriminate against an employee for having given or being about to give
b)(i) Even employees of non-stock non-profit organizations have the right to self-organization. This is explicitly testimony under this Code; 7. To violate the duty to bargain collectively as prescribed by this Code; 8. To pay
provided for in Art. 243 of the Labor Code. A possible exception, however, are employee-members of non-stock negotiation or attorney's fees to the union or its officers or agents as part of the settlement of any issue in
non-profit cooperatives. collective bargaining or any other dispute; or 9. To violate a collective bargaining agreement.
(ii) ALIEN EMPLOYEES with valid work permits in RP may exercise the right to self-organization on the basis
of parity or reciprocity, that is, if Filipino workers in the aliens' country are given the same right. (Art. 269, ULP; Subject to Criminal Prosecution (2005)
Labor Code) Is the commission of an unfair labor practice by an employer subject to criminal prosecution? Please explain
your answer briefly. (3%)
ULP; Contracting Out Labor (2001)
Company "A" contracts out its clerical and janitorial services. In the negotiations of its CBA, the union insisted SUGGESTED ANSWER:
that, henceforth, the company may no longer engage in contracting out these types of services, which services Yes, because unfair labor practices are not only violations of the civil rights of both labor and management but
the union claims to be necessary in the company's business, without prior consultation. Is the union's stand are also criminal offenses against the State which shall be subject to prosecution and punishment. (Article 247,
valid or not? For what reason(s)? (2%) Labor Code; See also B.P. Big. 386 as amended by R.A. No. 6715). However, the criminal aspect can only be filed
when the decision of the labor tribunals, finding the existence of unfair labor practice, shall have become final
SUGGESTED ANSWER: and executory.
The union's stand is not valid. It is part of management prerogative to contract out any work, task, job or project
except that it is an unfair labor practice to contract out services or functions performed by union members when Employee; Contractual Worker vs. Casual Worker (2005)
such will interfere with, restrain or coerce employees in the exercise of their rights to self-organization. (Art. How is the project worker different from a casual or contractual worker? Briefly explain your answers.
248(c) of the Labor Code)
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
ULP; Definition & Examples of ULP (1996) A "CONTRACTUAL WORKER" is a generic term used to designate any worker covered by a written contract to
Define unfair labor practice, Answer; perform a specific undertaking for a fixed period. On the other hand, a "PROJECT WORKER" is used to designate
workers in the construction industry, hired to perform a specific undertaking for a fixed period, co-terminus
SUGGESTED ANSWER: with a project or phase thereof determined at the time of the engagement of the employee. (Policy Instruction
UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE means any unfair labor practice as expressly defined by the Labor Code (Arts. 248 No. 19, DOLE) In addition, to be considered a true project worker, it is required that a termination report be
and 249 of the Labor Code). Essentially, an unfair labor practice is any act committed by an employer or by a submitted to the nearest public employment office upon the completion of the construction project. (Aurora
labor organization, its officers, agents or representatives which has the effect of preventing the full exercise by Land Projects Corp. v. NLRC, G.R. No. 114733, January 2, 1997 contrast, there is no such requirement for an
employees of their rights to self-organization and collective bargaining. (See Arts 248 and 249 of the Labor ordinary contractual worker.
Code).
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER: A PROJECT WORKER performs job that is necessary and desirable to the nature of the
Give three (3) examples of unfair labor practices on the part of the employer and three (3) examples of unfair business of the employer. On the other hand, a CASUAL WORKER performs job that is not necessary or desirable
labor practices on the part of the labor union. to the nature of the business of the employer. (Art. 280, Labor Code) A project worker becomes a regular
employee if the employer fails to submit as many reports to the DOLE on terminations as there were projects
ANSWER; actually finished. (Audion Electric Co. v. NLRC, G.R. No. 106648, June 17, 1999) On the other hand, a casual
Any three (3) from the following enumeration in the Labor Code: ART. 248. Unfair labor practices of employers. worker becomes a regular employee if he has rendered service for at least one (1) year whether the same is
It shall be unlawful for an employer to commit any of the following unfair labor practice: 1. To interfere with, continuous or broken. (Art. 280, Labor Code)
restrain or coerce employees in the exercise of their right to selforganization; 2. To require as a condition of

22
Employee; Probationary Employees (1998) against, Martillo and other similarly-situated project workers demanded that increases be extended to them,
The services of an employee were terminated upon the completion of the probationary period of employment inasmuch as they should now be considered regular employees and members of the bargaining unit. Briefly
for failure to qualify, for the position. The employee filed a complaint for Illegal Dismissal on the ground that explain your answers. (6%)
the employer failed to inform him in writing the reasonable standards for regular employment. Will the
complaint for Illegal Dismissal prosper? [5%] If you were ABC's legal counsel, how would you respond to this demand?

SUGGESTED ANSWER: ALTERNATIVE ANSWER: The demand is without legal basis. The simple fact that the employment of petitioners
Yes, the Complaint for Illegal Dismissal will prosper. The Labor Code provides: Art. 281. PROBATIONARY as project employees had gone beyond one (1) year does not detract from, or legally dissolve, their status as
EMPLOYMENT, - xxr The services of an employee who has been engaged on a probationary basis may be project employees. The second paragraph of Article 280 of the Labor Code, providing that an employee who has
terminated xxx when he fails to qualify as a regular employee in accordance with reasonable standards made served for at least one (1) year shall be considered a regular employee, relates to casual employees, not to
known to the employee at the time of his engagement. The Supreme Court in A.M. Oreta and Co., Inc. v. NLRC, project employees. (ALUTUCP v. NLRC, G.R. No. 109902, August 2, 1994) In the case of Mercado, Sr. v. NLRC,
176 SCRA 218 (1989), ruled: The law is clear to the effect that in all cases involving employees engaged on G.R. No. 79869, September 5, 1991, the Supreme Court ruled that the proviso in the second paragraph of Article
probationary basis, the employer shall make known to the employee at the time he is hired, the standards by 280 of the Labor Code relates only to casual employees and is not applicable to those who fall within the
which he will qualify as a regular employee. The failure of the employer to inform the employee of the definition of said Article's first paragraph, i.e., project employees. The familiar rule is that a proviso is to be
qualification for regularization is fatal. The failure violates the rules of fair play which is a cherished concept in construed with reference to the immediately preceding part of the provision to which it is attached, unless there
labor law. is clear legislative intent to the contrary. No such intent is observable in Article 280 of the Labor Code.

ANOTHER SUGGESTED ANSWER: ALTERNATIVE ANSWER: If I were ABC's legal counsel, I will argue that the project workers are not regular
The complaint for illegal dismissal will prosper. The Labor Code (in Article 281) provides that a probationary employees but fixed-term employees. Stipulation in employment contracts providing for term employment or
employee may be terminated when he fails to qualify as a regular employee in accordance with reasonable fixed period were agreed upon knowingly and voluntarily by the parties without force, duress or improper
standards made known by the employer to the employee at the time of the latter's engagement. In the question, pressure, being brought to bear upon the employee and absent any other circumstances vitiating his consent,
the probationary employee was not informed of such reasonable standards at the time he was employed. Thus, or where it satisfactorily appears that the employer and employee dealt with each other on more or less equal
if he is to be legally terminated, it should be because of gross and habitual neglect of duties. terms with no moral dominance whatever being exercised by the former over the latter. (Pangilinan v. General
Milling Corp., G.R. No. 149329, July 12, 2004)
Employee; Probationary Employees (2001)
What limitations, if any, do the law and jurisprudence impose on an employer's right to terminate the services
of a probationary employee? (2%) Employee; Regular Employees (1994)
Aldrich Zamora, a welder, was hired on February 1972 by Asian Contractors Corporation (ACC) for a project.
SUGGESTED ANSWER: The Labor Code [in Art. 281) provides that the services of an employee who has been He was made to sign a contract stipulating that his services were being hired for the completion of the project,
engaged on a probationary basis may be terminated for a just cause or when he fails to qualify as a regular but not later than December 30, 1972, whichever comes first. After December 1972, Zamora, being a man of
employee in accordance with reasonable standards made known by the employer to the employee at the time many talents, was hired for different projects of ACC in various capacities, such as carpenter, electrician and
of his engagement. If the probationary employee is being terminated for just cause, he must, of course, be given plumber. In all of these engagements, Zamora signed a contract similar to his first contract except for the
due process before his termination, estimated completion dates of the project for which he was hired. What is Zamora's status with ACC? Is he a
contract worker, a project employee, a temporary or a regular employee? State your reason.
Employee; Project Employee vs. Regular Employee (1996)
Distinguish the project employees from regular employees. SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Zamora could be a project employee if his work is coterminous with the project for which he was hired. But in
SUGGESTED ANSWER: the case, Zamora was rehired after the completion of every project throughout the period of his employment
A REGULAR EMPLOYEE is one engaged to perform activities which are usually necessary or desirable in the with the company which ranged for quite a long time. Thus, he should be considered a regular employee,
usual business or trade of the employer. On the other hand, a PROJECT EMPLOYEE is one whose employment (Philippine National Construction Corporation vs. National Labor Relations Commission, et al, G.R No. 95816,
is fixed for a specific project or undertaking; the completion or termination of which has been determined at 27 October 1972. J. Grino-Aquino)
the time of the engagement of the employee. (See Art. 280 of the Labor Code) Employee; Project Employees vs.
Casual Employees (2005) Mariano Martillo was a mason employed by the ABC Construction Company. Every ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
time that ABC had a project, it would enter into an employment contract with Martillo for a fixed period that a) Zamora is a regular employee because he was engaged to work in various projects of ACC for a considerable
coincided with the need for his services, usually for a duration of three to six months. Since the last project length of time, on an activity that is usually necessary desirable in the usual business or trade of ACC. (Mehitabel
involved the construction of a 40-storey building, Martillo was contracted for 14 months. During this period, Furniture vs. NLRC, 220 SCRA 602) b) Zamora is a regular employee. Article 280 of the Labor Code declares
ABC granted wage increases to its regular employees, composed mostly of engineers and rank-and-file with unmistakable clarity: THE PROVISIONS OF WRITTEN AGREEMENT TO THE CONTRARY
construction workers as a result of the just concluded CBA negotiations, feeling aggrieved and discriminated NOTWITHSTANDING, xxx an employment shall be deemed to be regular where the employee has been engaged

23
to perform activities which are usually necessary or desirable in the usual business or trade of the employer." they will always remain project employees regardless of the number of projects in which they have worked. De
He is not a CONTRACT or TEMPORARY WORKER because even the provisions of the simulated contracts were Ocampo v NLRC, 186 SCRA 361 (1990] [Project employees] are not considered regular employees, their
not followed when his job was used continuously. He is not a project employee, as the term is understood in services, being needed only when there are projects to be undertaken. The rationale for this rule, is that if a
Art. 280 or under Policy Instruction No. 20. project has already been completed, it would be unjust to require the employer to maintain them in the payroll
while they are doing absolutely nothing except waiting for another project.
Employee; Regular Employees (1995)
ILECO is an electric cooperative which accepted fresh graduates from a vocational school as lineman trainees ANOTHER SUGGESTED ANSWER: The claim of Engineer "A" is not correct. The fact that he has been working
for six (6) months after which they were hired as probationary employees for another ten (10) months. for Construction Group for a total of ten (1O) years does not make him a regular employee when it is very clear
Thereafter, they were made regular employees. These employees then sought entitlement to salary increases from the Contracts of Employment he signed that he was always being engaged as a project employee. The
under the existing Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) which were given at the time when they were not tenure of a project employee is co-terminous with the project in connection with which his services were
yet regular employees, hence, not yet members of the employees' union. ILECO denied their claims because they engaged. Thus, after the end of the project, the employer-employee relationship ceases to exist. Such project
were not yet regular members when the CBA took effect and therefore not entitled to wage adjustments employee has no legal right to insist that he should be employed by the Construction Group for a subsequent
thereunder. Resolve the Issue. Discuss fully. project of said Group.

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
In implementing a CBA that provides for salary increases to regular employees, it is but logical that said salary
increases should be given to employees only from the time they are regular employees. Given the facts
mentioned in the question, the lineman trainees that ILECO hired became regular employees six (6) months
after they were hired. The Labor Code provides that probationary employment shall not exceed six (6) months
from the date the employee started working. Double probation, which happened in the case in question when
the line man trainees were given an additional probationary period of another ten (10) months, may be
considered as a circumvention of the rule on probationary employment. Thus, because they were already
regular employees after the first six (6) month period, from said date, they are entitled to the CBA increases
provided for regular employee.

Employee; Regular Employees vs. Project Employee (1998)


A Construction Group hired Engineer "A" as a Project Engineer in 1987. He was assigned to five (5) successive
separate projects. All five (5) Contracts of Employment he signed, specified the name of the project, its duration,
and the temporary-project nature of the engagement of his services. Upon completion of the fifth [5th) project
in August 1998, his services were terminated. He worked for a total of ten (10) years (1987-1998) in the five
(5) separate projects. Six months after his separation, the Group won a bid for a large construction project. The
Group did not engage the services of Engineer "A" as a Project Engineer for this new project; instead, it engaged
the services of Engineer "B". Engineer "A" claims that by virtue of the nature of his functions, i.e., Engineer in a
Construction Group, and his long years of service he had rendered to the Group, he is a regular employee and
not a project engineer at the time he was first hired. Furthermore, the hiring of Engineer "B" showed that there
is a continuing need for his services. Is the claim of Engineer "A" correct? [5%]

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The claim of Engineer "A" that he is a regular employee and not a protect employee is not correct. The Labor
Code provides: Art. 280. Regular and Casual Employment. - An employment shall be deemed to be regular where
the employee has been engaged to perform activities which are usually necessary or desirable in the usual
business or trade of the employer, except, where the employment has been fixed for a specific project or
undertaking the completion of which has been determined at the time of the engagement of the employee.
(underscoring supplied) In all the five (5) successive contracts of employment of Engineer "A" the name of the
project, its duration, and the temporary project nature of the engagement of his services are clearly stated:
hence, Engineer "A" falls within the exemption of Art. 280. The Supreme Court has ruled as follows: Manansag
v. NLRC, 218 SCRA 722 (1993) The fact that the petitioners worked for several projects of private respondent
company is no basis to consider them as regular employees. By the very nature of their employer's business,

24