SET 41 QUESTIONS

1. POLITICAL LAW 2013

Q: The Ambassador of the Republic of Kafirista referred to you for handling, the case of the Embassy’s Maintenance
Agreement with CBM, a private domestic company engaged in maintenance work. The Agreement binds CBM, for a
defined fee, to maintain the Embassy’s elevators, airconditioning units and electrical facilities. Section 10 of the
Agreement provides that the Agreement shall be governed by Philippine laws and that any legal action shall be
brought before the proper court of Makati. Kafiristan terminated the Agreement because CBM allegedly did not
comply with their agreed maintenance standards. CBM contested the termination and filed a complaint against
Kafiristan before the Regional Trial Court of Makati. The Ambassador wants you to file a motion to dismiss on the
ground of state immunity from suit and to oppose the position that under Section 10 of the Agreement, Kafiristan
expressly waives its immunity from suit. Under these facts, can the Embassy successfully invoke immunity from suit?
(2013)

2. POLITICAL LAW 2014

Q: Towards the end of the year, the Commission on Audit (COA) sought the remainder of its appropriation from the
Department of Budget and Management (DBM). However, the DBM refused because the COA had not yet submitted
a report on the expenditures relative to the earlier amount released to it. And, pursuant to the “no report, no
release” policy of the DBM, COA is not entitled to any further releases in the meantime. COA counters that such a
policy contravenes the guaranty of fiscal autonomy granted by the Constitution. Is COA entitled to receive the rest
of its appropriations even without complying with the DBM policy? (2014)

3. POLITICAL 2015

Q: (1) Gandang Bai filed her certificate of candidacy (COC) for municipal mayor stating that she is eligible to run for
the said position. Pasyo Maagap, who also filed his COC for the same position, filed a petition to deny due course or
cancel Bai's COC under Section 78 of the Omnibus Election Code for material misrepresentation as before Bai filed
her COC, she had already been convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude. Hence, she is disqualified perpetually
from holding any public office or from being elected to any public office. Before the election, the COMELEC cancelled
Bai' s COC but her motion for reconsideration (MR) remained pending even after the election. Bai garnered the
highest number of votes followed by Pasyo Maagap, who took his oath as Acting Mayor. Thereafter, the COMELEC
denied Bai's MR and declared her disqualified for running for Mayor. P. Maagap asked the Department of Interior
and Local Government Secretary to be allowed to take his oath as permanent municipal mayor. This request was
opposed by Vice Mayor Umaasa, invoking the rule on succession to the permanent vacancy in the Mayor's office.
Who between Pasyo Maagap and Vice Mayor Umaasa has the right to occupy the position of Mayor? Explain your
answer. (2015)

4. POLITICAL LAW 2010

Q: The Sangguniang Panlungsod of Pasay City passed an ordinance requiring all disco pub owners to have all their
hospitality girls tested for the AIDS virus. Both disco pub owners and the hospitality girls assailed the validity of the
ordinance for being violative of their constitutional rights to privacy and to freely choose a calling or business. Is the
ordinance valid? Explain. (2010)

5. POLITICAL 2015

Q: BD Telecommunications, Inc. (BDTI), a Filipino owned corporation, sold its 1,000 common shares of stock in the
Philippine Telecommunications Company (PTC), a public utility, to Australian Telecommunications (AT), another
stockholder of the PTC which also owns 1,000 common shares. A Filipino stockholder of PTC questions the sale on
the ground that it will increase the common shares of AT, a foreign company, to more than 40% of the capital (stock)
of PTC in violation of the 40% limitation of foreign ownership of a public utility. AT argues that the sale does not
violate the 60-40 ownership requirement in favor of Filipino citizens decreed in Section II, Article XII of the 1987
Constitution because Filipinos still own 70% of the capital of the PTC. AT points to the fact that it owns only 2,000
common voting shares and 1,000 nonvoting preferred shares while Filipino stockholders own 1,000 common shares
and 6,000 preferred shares, therefore, Filipino stockholders still own a majority of the outstanding capital stock of
the corporation, and both classes of shares have a par value of Php 20.00 per share. Decide. (2015)

6. LABOR LAW

Q: Matibay Shoe and Repair Store, as added service to its customers, devoted a portion of its store to a shoe shine
stand. The shoe shine boys were tested for their skill before being allowed to work and given ID cards. They were
told to be present from the opening of the store up to closing time and were required to follow the company rules
on cleanliness and decorum. They bought their own shoe shine boxes, polish and rags. The boys were paid by their
customers for their services but the payment is coursed through the store’s cashier, who pays them before closing
time. They were not supervised in their work by any managerial employee of the store but for a valid complaint by
a customer or for violation of any company rule, they can be refused admission to the store. Were the boys
employees of the store? Explain. (2016 Bar)

7. LABOR LAW 2014

Q: Lucy was one of approximately 500 call center agents at Hambergis, Inc. She was hired as a contractual 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 (6) months after the
expiration of her last contract, Lucy went to Hambergis personnel department to inquire why she was not yet being
recalled to work. She was told that her performance during her last contract was “below average.” Lucy seeks your
legal advice about her chances of getting her job back. What will your advice be? (2014 Bar)

8. LABOR LAW 2012

Q: Distinguish the liabilities of an employer who en- gages the services of a bona fide “independent contractor" from
one who engages a “labor-only" contractor? (1994, 2012 Bar)

9. LABOR LAW 2016

Q: Empire Brands (Empire) contracted the services of Style Corporation (Style) for the marketing and promotion of
its clothing line. Under the contract, Style provided Empire with Trade Merchandising Representatives (TMRs) whose
services began on September 15, 2004 and ended on June 6 2007, when Empire terminated the promotions contract
with Style. Empire then entered into an agreement for manpower supply with Wave Human Resources (Wave). Wave
owns its condo office, owns equipment for the use by the TMRs, and has assets amounting to P1, 000, 000.00. Wave
provided the supervisors who supervised the TMRs, who, in turn, received orders from the Marketing Director of
Empire. In their agreement, the parties stipulated that Wave shall be liable for the wages and salaries of its
employees or workers including benefits and protection due them, as well as remittance to the proper government
entities of all withholding taxes, Social Security Service, and Philhealth premiums, in accordance with relevant laws.
As the TMRs wanted to continue working at Empire, they submitted job applications as TMRs with Wave.
Consequently, Wave hired them for a term of five (5) months, or from June 7, 2007 to November 6, 2007, specifically
to promote Empire’s products.

When the TMRs’ 5 month contracts with Wave were about to expire, they sought renewal thereof, but were refused.
Their contracts with Wave were no longer renewed as empire hired another agency. This prompted them to file
complaints for illegal dismissal, regularization, non-payment of service incentive leave and 13th month pay against
Empire and Wave. Are the TMRs employees of Empire? (2016 Bar)

10. LABOR LAW 2013

Q: Inter-Garments Co. manufactures garments for export and requires its employees to render overtime work
ranging from two to three hours a day to meet its clients' deadlines. Since 2009, it has been paying its employees on
overtime an additional 35% of their hourly rate for work rendered in excess of their regular eight working hours.

Due to the slowdown of its export business in 2012, Inter-Garments had to reduce its overtime work; at the same
time, it adjusted the overtime rates so that those who worked overtime were only paid an additional 25% instead of
the previous 35%. To replace the workers' overtime rate loss, the company granted a one-time 5% across-the-board
wage increase.

Vigilant Union, the rank-and-file bargaining agent, charged the company with Unfair Labor Practice on the ground
that (1) no consultations had been made on who would render overtime work; and (2) the unilateral overtime pay
rate reduction is a violation of Article 100 (entitled Prohibition Against Elimination or Diminution of Benefits) of the
Labor Code. Is the union position meritorious? (2013 Bar)