1. Lind Linda a was was empl employ oyed ed by Sec Sectari taria an University (SU) to cook for the members of a religious order who teach and live inside the campus. While performing her assigned assigned task Linda accidentall accidentally y burned burned hers hersel elff. !eca !ecaus use e of the the e" e"te tent nt of her her in#u in#uri ries es she she went ent on medic edica al lea leave. ve. $ean $eanwh whil ile e SU enga engage ged d a repl replac acem emen entt cook cook.. Lind Linda a %led %led a comp compla lain intt for for ille illega gall dismissal but her employer SU contended that Linda was not a regular employee but a domestic househelp. &ecide. Linda is a regular employee. SU’s contention that Linda is a domestic helper is with withou outt basi basis s beca becaus use e the the latt latter er did did not not minis iniste terr to the the pers ersona onal comfo omfort rt of the the members members of any househ household. old. Although Although a cook, cook, henc hence e list listed ed,, she she cann cannot ot be clas classi sie ed d as a !asambahay because she rendered ser"ices for resident religious teachers in a uni"ersity which was not a household. '. Lucy was one of appro"imately call center agents at *ambergis +nc. She was hired as a contractual employee four years ago. *er contracts would be for a duration of %ve () months at a time usually after a one one mo mont nth h inte interv rval al.. *er *er re,h re,hir irin ing g was was cont contin inge gent nt on her her perf perfor orma manc nce e for for the the immedia immediatel tely y preced preceding ing contra contract. ct. Si" (-) mont mo nths hs afte after r the the e" e"pi pira rati tion on of her her last last contract Lucy went to *ambergis personnel department to inuire why she was not yet being recalled recalled to work. work. She was told that her performance during her last last contrac contractt was /below /below averag average./ e./ Lucy Lucy seeks your legal advice about her chances of gett gettin ing g her her #ob #ob back back.. What What will will your your advice be0 # will ad" ad"ise ise Lucy ucy to le a comp compla laiint for const onstrructi ucti" "e dis dismis missal sal, with ith pra prayer yer for for reinstatement, because her $oating status has e%ceeded si% &'( months. )y "irtue of the nature of her *ob, Lucy attained tenure on the rst day of her her employment. employment. As a regular employee, therefore, therefore, she could only be dis dismis missed sed for a *ust *ust or autho authori+ ri+ed ed cause. cause. %piration of her last contract was neither a *ust nor authori+ed authori+ed cause. cause. -ence, she was illegally dismis dis misse sed. d. oreo" oreo"er er,, her term term employ employmen mentt contracts contracts were were contracts contracts of adhesion adhesion// hence, hence, they they should should be take taken n agai against nst -amber -ambergis gis #nc. #nc. because of its ob"ious intent to use periods to bar her regulari+ation. . Liway Liwaywa way y 2lass 2lass had had - rank,a rank,and, nd,%le %le employees. 3hree rival unions 4 5 ! and 6 4 participated in the certi%cation elections ordered by the $ed,5rbiter. employees voted. 3he unions obtained the foll follow owin ing g vote votes7 s7 5,' 5,'8 8 !,1 !,18 8 6,8 6,8 9 employees voted /no union/8 and 1 were segregated votes. :ut of the segregated votes four (;) were cast by probationary employees and si" (-) were cast by dismis dismissed sed employ employees ees whose whose respec respectiv tive e cases are still on appeal.
(5) Should the votes of the probationary
1and dismis dismissed sed employ employees ees be counte counted d in e g a P
the the tota totall vote votes s cast cast for for the the purpo purpose se of determining the winning labor union0 (!) Was there a valid election0 (6) Should Union 5 be declar lared the winner0 (&) (&) Supp Suppo ose the the elec electi tion on is dec declare lared d invali invalid d which which of the conten contendin ding g unions unions should repres resent the ran rank,and,%le employees0 (<) (<) Supp Suppos ose e that that in the the elec electi tion on the the unions unions obtain obtained ed the follow following ing votes7 votes7 5, '8 !,18 6,8 ; voted /no union/8 and 1 were segregated votes. Should Union 5 be certi%ed as the bargaining representative0
&A(. &A(. 0es. es. he he segr segreg egat ated ed "ote "otes s shou should ld be counted as "alid "otes. Probationary employees are not among the employees who are ineligible to "ote. Likewise, the pendency of the appeal of the si% dismissed employees indicates that they ha"e contested their dismissal before a forum of appropriate appropriate *urisdiction/ hence, they continue to be empl employ oyee ees s for for purp purpos oses es of "oti "oting ng in a certication certication election &2.3. 45657(. &)(. &)(. 0es. he certi certica catio tion n electi election on is "ali "alid d because it is not a barred election and ma*ority of the eligible "oters cast their "otes. &8(. &8(. 9o. 9o. Union Union A should should not be declar declared ed the winner winner because it failed failed to garner garner ma*ority ma*ority of the the "ali "alid d "ote "otes. s. he he ma*o ma*ori rity ty of :55 :55 "ote "otes, s, repre represent senting ing "alid "alid "otes, "otes, is ;:1 "otes. Since Since Union A recei"ed ;55 "otes only, it did not win the election. &2( &2( 9one 9one of the the part partic icip ipat atin ing g unio unions ns can can repr epresen esentt the the rank rank6a 6and nd6 6le le empl employ oyee ees s for for purposes of collecti"e bargaining because none of them en*oys ma*ority representati"e status. &( #f the 15 "otes were segregated on the same grounds, Union A cannot still be certied as the bargain bargaining ing repres representat entati"e i"e because because its "ote of ;:5 is still short of the ma*ority "ote of ;:1. -owe"er, if the 15 "otes were "alidly segregated, ma*ority "ote would be ;4' "otes. Since Union a recei"ed more than ma*ority "ote then it won the election. ;. Lina Lina has has been been wo worki rking ng as a stew stewar ard d with with a $iami $iami U.S.5., U.S.5.,bas based ed Loyal Loyal 6ruise 6ruise Lin Lines for for the the past past 1 year years. s. She She was was recr recrui uite ted d by a loca locall mann mannin ing g agen agency cy $acapagal Shipping and was made to sign a 1,month employment contract everyt everytime ime she left left for $iami. $iami. $acapa $acapagal gal Shipping paid for Lina=s round,trip travel e"pens e"penses es from from $anila $anila to $iami. $iami. !ecaus !ecause e of a food poiso son ning incident which happened during her last cruise assign assignmen ment t Lina Lina was not re,hir re,hired. ed. Lina Lina claims claims she has been been illega illegally lly termina terminated ted and seeks separation pay. +f you were the Labo Labor r 5rbi 5rbite ter r hand handli ling ng the the case case how how would you decide0 # will dismiss the complaint for illegal dismissal. dismissal.
invested
in substantial
euipment
and
suBcient manpower. 3he chambermaids Lina is a seafarer. As such, she is a contractual ; e employee who cannot re
ect, Lina cannot be awarded separation pay. As an alternati"e relief, separation pay is proper only when there is a nding of illegal dismissal. . >on,lawyers Labor 5rbiter if7
g a P
%led a case of illegal dismissal against Luisa 6ourt. +n response the company argued that the decision to outsource resulted from the new management=s directive to streamline operations and save on costs. +f you were the Labor 5rbiter assigned to the case how would you decide0
can appear before the
(A) they represent themselves &)( they are properly authori+ed to represent their legitimate labor organi+ation or member thereof &8( they are duly6accredited members of the legal aid o?ce recogni+ed by the 23@ or #)P &2( they appear in cases in"ol"ing an amount of less than Php:,555 -. 5s a result of a bargaining deadlock between La?o 6orporation and La?o
# would declare the chambermaids to ha"e been illegally dismissed. he chambermaids are regular employees for performing work necessary or desirable to the main trade of the Luisa 8ourt. As such, they en*oy security of tenure. he *ob contracting arrangement between Luisa 8ourt and alinis @anitorial Ser"ices is prohibited by 2.3. 16A because it has the e>ect of introducing workers to displace Luisa 8ourt’s regular workers. C. Luisa was hired as a secretary by the 5sian &evelopment !ank (5&!) in $anila. Luisa=s %rst boss was a Aapanese national whom she got along with. !ut after two years the latter was replaced by an arrogant +ndian national who did not believe her work output was in accordance with international standards. :ne day Luisa submitted a draft report %lled with typographical errors to her boss. 3he latter scolded her but Luisa verbally fought back. 3he +ndian boss decided to terminate her services right then and there. Luisa %led a case for illegal dismissal with the Labor 5rbiter claiming arbitrariness and denial of due process. +f you were the Labor 5rbiter how would you decide the case0 # will dismiss the complaint for illegal dismissal. Luisa committed serious misconduct. -er #ndian boss, regardless of his arrogant nature, had the clear right to reprimand her for her poor performance. Absent *ustication for "erbally ghting back, Luisa’s act amounted to serious misconduct. herefore, her dismissal was "alid. -owe"er, she was not accorded statutory due process. =or this reason, # will award her nominal damages of Php 75,555. 9. Lionel an 5merican citi?en whose parents migrated to the U.S. from the Dhilippines was hired by AD $organ in >ew Eork as a call center specialist. *earing about the phenomenal growth of the call center industry in his parents= native land Lionel sought and was granted a transfer as a call center manager for AD $organ=s operations in 3aguig 6ity. Lionel=s employment contract did not specify a period for his stay in the Dhilippines. 5fter three years of working in the Dhilippines Lionel was advised that he was being recalled to >ew Eork and being promoted to the position of director of international call center operations. *owever because of certain /family reasons/ Lionel advised the company of his preference to stay in
the Dhilippines. *e was dismissed by the company. Lionel now seeks your legal advice on7 (5) Whether he has a cause of action (!) Whether he can %le a case in the Dhilippines (6) What are his chances of winning &A( Lionel has a cause of action. -e has a right to be secure in his *ob/ his employer has the correlati"e obligation to respect that right/ his dismissal constitutes a "iolation of his tenurial right/ and said "iolation caused him legal in*ury. &)( Lionel can le an illegal dismissal case in the Philippines. )eing a resident corporation, @ P organ is sub*ect to Philippine Labor Laws. And, although hired abroad, Lionel’s place of work is aguig. -ence, he can lodge his complaint with the 9LB8698B which has territorial *urisdiction o"er his workplace &Sec. 1, Bule #C, 9LB8 Bules of Procedure, as amended(. &8( Lionel has reasonable chances of winning. -is recall to the USA was not a lawful lateral transfer that he could not refuse. 3n the contrary, it was a scalar transfer amounting to a promotion which he could "alidly refuse. Absent willful disobedience, therefore, his termination is groundless. 1. Which of the following groups does not en#oy the right to self,organi?ation0 &A( hose who work in a non6prot charitable institution &)( hose who are paid on a piece6rate basis &8( hose who work in a corporation with less than 15 employees (&) 3hose who work as legal secretaries , Legal secretaries are confdential employees. 11. :ur Lady of Deace 6atholic School 3eachers and
a
0es, 3LP8S6LU is a legitimate labor organi+ation. #ts mi%ed6membership which includes super"isors and rank6and6lers does not a>ect its legitimacy. he only e>ect of such membership is that the super"isors in the persons of "ice6principals and department
heads are deemed automatically remo"ed &BA
7D41(. e g a P
Comment: Another tricky question. The body o the problem leads one to “appropriateness o a CB!. "ence# he might apply the $ubstantial %utuality o &nterest 'rinciple based on his obser(ation that the employees perorm separate but interdependent tasks. Actually# the question is legitimacy o status only )LL* status+. $o the act to tackle is mi,edmembership. 1'. Samahang
&A( Under .3. 15, Philhealth employees can organi+e. hru their organi+ation, they can negotiate with Philhealth o"er terms and conditions of employment not %ed by its charter, 8i"il Ser"ice Law, or applicable salary standardi+ation law. &)( 9o. Although the right to organi+e implies the right to strike, law may withhold said right. .3. 15 is that law which withholds from go"ernment employees the right to strike. -ence, they cannot resort to strikes and similar concerted acti"ities to compel concessions from the go"ernment. 1;. 3he procedural reuirements of a valid strike include7 (A) A claim of either unfair labor practice or deadlock in collective bargaining &)( 9otice of strike led at least 1: days before a ULP6grounded strike or at least 75 days prior to the deadlock in a bargaining grounded strike &8( a*ority of the union membership must ha"e "oted to stage the strike with notice thereon furnished to the 9ational 8onciliation and ediation )oard &98)( at least ;4 hours before the strike "ote is taken &2( Strike "ote results must be furnished to the 98) at least se"en &F( days before the intended strike 1. Lincoln was in the business of trading broadcast euipment used by television and radio networks. *e employed Lionel as his agent. Subseuently Lincoln set up Liberty 6ommunications to formally engage in the same business. *e reuested Lionel to be one of the incorporators and assigned to him 1 Liberty shares. Lionel was also given the title 5ssistant Hice,Dresident for Sales and *ead of 3echnical 6oordination. 5fter several months there were allegations that Lionel was engaged in /under the table dealings/ and received /con%dential commissions/ from Liberty=s clients and suppliers. *e was therefore charged with serious misconduct and willful breach of trust and was given ;C hours to present his e"planation on the charges. Lionel was unable to comply with the ;C ,hour deadline and was subseuently barred from entering company premises. Lionel then %led a complaint with the Labor 5rbiter claiming constructive dismissal. 5mong others the company sought the dismissal of the complaint alleging that the case involved an intra,corporate controversy which was within the #urisdiction of the Fegional 3rial 6ourt (F36). +f you were the Labor 5rbiter assigned to the case how would you rule on the company=s motion to dismiss0 # will deny the motion to dismiss. Lionel is not a corporate o?cer but a corporate employee only becauseG
4 e g a P
&a( -is o?ce is not a creation of the 8orporation 8ode/ &b( #t is not shown that his o?ce is a corporate position under Liberty’s Articles of #ncorporation/ and &c( #t is not shown that there is a board resolution in"esting his position with the status of a corporate o?ce.
Absent corporate contro"ersy, the 3?ce of the Labor Arbiter has *urisdiction to hear and resol"e Lionel’s complaint for illegal dismissal.
1-. 5n accidental %re gutted the AIL factory in 6aloocan. AIL decided to suspend operations and reuested its employees to stop reporting for work. 5fter si" (-) months AIL resumed operations but hired a new set of employees. 3he old set of employees %led a case for illegal dismissal. +f you were the Labor 5rbiter how would you decide the case0 # will decide in fa"or of the employees. he re has not resulted in complete destruction of employer6employee relationship. Said relationship has temporarily ceased only. Hhen @!L resumed operations, therefore, it became its obligation to recall its old employees instead of replacing them with new employees. Hithholding of work beyond si% &'( months amounts to constructi"e dismissal. -ence, # will order @ !L to pay the complainants’ full backwages, separation pay because their positions are occupied already, nominal damages for non6obser"ance by @ !L of prescribed pre6termination procedure, moral and e%emplary damages for its bad faith &Lyn"il =ishing nterprises, #nc., et al. "s. Ariola, et al., E.B. 9o. 11DF4, 1 =ebruary ;51;(, and 15I attorney’s fees for compelling its employees to litigate against it &Art. 111, L8(. 1@. &espite a reinstatement order an employer may choose not to reinstate an employee if7 (A) There is a strained employer-employee relationship &)( he position of the employee no longer e%ists &8( he employer’s business has been closed &2( he employee does not wish to be reinstated. 1C. Luningning Goods engaged the services of Lamitan $anpower +nc. a bona %de independent contractor to provide /tasters/ that will check on food uality. Subseuently these /tasters/ #oined the union of rank ,and,%le employees of Luningning and demanded that they be made regular employees of the latter as they are performing functions necessary and desirable to operate the company=s business. Luningning re#ected the demand for regulari?ation. :n behalf of the /tasters/ the union then %led a notice of strike with the &epartment of Labor and
he dispute brought to the B8 is a labor
:dispute despite the fact that the disputants may e g a P
not stand in the pro%imate relation of employer and employee &Art. ;1;, L8(. oreo"er, the issue of regulari+ation is resol"able solely thru the application of labor laws. Under both Beasonable 8ausal 8onnection Bule and Beference to Labor Law Bule, the dispute is for labor tribunals to resol"e. =or lack of *urisdiction, therefore, # will dismiss the case. 19. Lan? was a strict and unpopular Hice, Dresident for Sales of Lobinsons Land. :ne day Lan? shouted invectives against Lee a poor performing sales associate calling him among others a /brown monkey./ *urt Lee decided to %le a criminal complaint for grave defamation against Lan?. 3he prosecutor found probable cause and %led an information in court. Lobinsons decided to terminate Lan? for committing a potential crime and other illegal acts pre#udicial to business. 6an Lan? be legally terminated by the company on these grounds0 As to the rst ground, crime to be a *ust cause for dismissal must be against the employer, members of his immediate family or representati"e &Article ;, L8, as renumbered(. Since the potential crime of Lan+ is not against Lobinsons or its duly authori+ed representati"es, it cannot of itself *ustify his termination. As to the second ground, Lan+’s dysfunctional conduct has made the work en"ironment at Lobinsons hostile as to ad"ersely a>ect other employees, like Lee. herefore, he can be dismissed on the ground of serious misconduct and loss of trust and condence. Comment: There are to separate grounds or dismissal. *ne is a /ust cause# the other is not. To the question “Can Lan0 be legally terminated on these grounds1! one should not gi(e an anser that treats the to as though they ere one and the same. This is because# based on the crating o pre(ious questions# it should be ob(ious that the e,aminer has a clinical mind. 5lternative 5nswer7 As to the rst ground, crime to be a *ust cause for dismissal must be against the employer, members of his immediate family or representati"e &Article ;, L8, as renumbered(. Since the potential crime of Lan+ is not against Lobinsons or its duly authori+ed representati"es, it cannot of itself *ustify his termination. -owe"er, it can be treated as a cause analogous to serious misconduct or loss of trust and condence. herefore, Lan+ can be dismissed on this ground. As to the second ground, Lan+’s dysfunctional beha"ior has made the work en"ironment at Lobinsons hostile as to ad"ersely a>ect other employees, like Lee. herefore, he can be
dismissed also on the ground of serious misconduct and loss of trust and condence. '. Liwanag 6orporation is engaged in the power generation business. 5 stalemate was reached during the collective bargaining negotiations between its management and the union. 5fter following all the reuisites provided by law the union decided to stage a strike. 3he management sought the assistance of the Secretary of Labor and ect. -ence, if
ignored, the union’s strike would be illegal e"en
'if it may ha"e complied with pre6strike e g a P
procedure. As a conseational Labor Felations 6ommission does not include7 &A( %clusi"e appellate *urisdiction o"er all cases decided by the Labor Arbiter &)( %clusi"e appellate *urisdiction o"er all cases decided by Begional 2irectors or hearing o?cers in"ol"ing the reco"ery of wages and other monetary claims and benets arising from employer6employee relations where the aggregate money claim of each does not e%ceed "e thousand pesos &Php:,555( (C) Original jurisdiction to act as a compulsory arbitration body over labor disputes certied to it by the egional !irectors - Begional 2irectors do not ha"e assumption power/ hence, they cannot certify cases to the 9LB8. &2( Power to issue a labor in*unction
