Sample final exam in labor law


Briefly but fully explain the following concepts in labor standards law:

[a] The four-fold test;
[b] The economic dependence test;
[c] Liberal approach in labor disputes;
[d] Management prerogatives;
[e] Recruitment and placement;
[f] Economic sabotage;
[g] Alien employment permit;
[h] Incentive scheme in human resource development;
[i] Leanership;
[j] Apprenticeship;
[k] Qualified disabled person;
[l] Field personnel;
[m] Homeworkers;
[n] Househelpers;
[o] Persons in the personal service of another;
[p] Normal house of work;
[q] Hours worked;
[r] Facility and supplements;
[s] Workers paid by results;
[t] Nondiminution of benefits;
[u] Labor-only contracting;
[v] Limited and qualified liability of a legitimate job-contractor; and
[w] Wage distortion.


Concepcion Textile Co. included the overtime pay, night-shift differential pay, and the like in the computation of its employees' 13th-month pay. Subsequently, with the promulgation of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of San Miguel Corporation vs. Inciong (103 SCRA 139) holding that these other monetary claims should not be included in the computation of the 13thmonth pay, Concepcion Textile Co. sought to recover under the principle of solutio indebiti its overpayment of its employees' 13th-month pay, by debiting against future 13th-month payments whatever excess amounts it had previously made. Is the company’s action tenable? 


What property right is conferred upon an employee once there is an employer-employee relationship? Discuss briefly. (2006)


An exclusive school for girls, run by a religious order, has a policy of not employing unwed mothers, women with live-in partners, and lesbians. 

[a] Is the policy violative of any provision of the Labor Code on employment of women? (2000)
[b] The same school dismissed two female faculty members on account of pregnancy out of wedlock. Did the school violate any provision of the Labor Code on employment of women? (2000) 


Little Hands Garment Company, an unorganized manufacturer of children's apparel with around 1,000 workers, suffered losses for the first time in history when its US and European customers shifted their huge orders to China and Bangladesh. The management informed its employees that it could no longer afford to provide transportation shuttle services. Consequently, it announced that a normal fare would be charged depending on the distance traveled by the workers availing of the service. 

Was the Little Hands Garments Company within its rights to withdraw this benefit which it had unilaterally been providing to its employees? Select the best answer(s) and briefly explain your reason(s) therefor.

[a] Yes, because it can withdraw a benefit that is unilaterally given;
[b] Yes, because it is suffering losses for the first time;
[c] Yes, because this is a management prerogative which is not due any legal or contractual obligation;
[d] No, because this amounts to a diminution of benefits which is prohibited by the Labor Code;
[e] No, because it is a fringe benefit that has already ripened into a demandable right or entitlement. (2005) 


Mariet Demetrio was a clerk-typist in the Office of the President of a multi-national corporation. One day she was berated by the President of the company, the latter shouting invectives at her in the presence of employees and visitors for a minor infraction she committed. Mariet was reduced to tears out of shame and felt so bitter about the incident that she filed a civil case for damages against the company president before the regular courts. Soon thereafter, Mariet received a memorandum transferring her to the Office of the General Manager without demotion in rank or diminution in pay. Mariet refused to transfer. 

With respect to the civil suit for damages, the company lawyer filed a Motion to Dismiss for lack of jurisdiction considering the existence of an employer-employee relationship and therefore, it is claimed that the case should have been filed before the Labor Arbiter. 

Rule on the Motion to Dismiss. Should it be granted or denied? Explain briefly. (1999) 


Diego, Executive Vice-President of Evergreen Development Corporation (EDC) was dismissed by the Board of Directors for his involvement in irregularities prejudicial to EDC's interests. He filed a complaint for illegal dismissal with the Labor Arbiter, praying for reinstatement with back-wages, P5 million pesos as moral damages, P1 million pesos as exemplary damages and attorney's fees. EDC questioned the Jurisdiction of the Labor Arbiter. Diego, in turn contended that the Labor Arbiter has jurisdiction over the case as it involves the termination of an employee and claims for backwages, benefits and damages. Decide. (1996)


"A" was able to obtain a Judgment against his former employer, Company "B", for P750,000.00. In executing the judgment in favor of A, the Labor Arbiter sought to levy on B's office equipment. B filed an action for damages and injunction against the Labor Arbiter before the Regional Trial Court of the province where B's offices are located. Is B's action tenable? Why? (2005)


Tina Aquino, a domestic helper in the household of Fidel Aldeguer, filed an action In the Regional Office of the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) for recovery of unpaid wages amounting to P3,500.00 and P1,499.00 as moral damages. Aquino claimed that the amount of P3,500.00 is equivalent to the P500.00 a month she failed to receive for the last seven months of her employment with Aldeguer, based on their agreed P2,500,00 monthly salary. Aldeguer moved to have Aquino's complaint dismissed, alleging that as a domestic helper Ms. Aquino should have first brought the matter to the Lupong Barangay. If you were the Regional Director, how would you resolve the matter? (1994) 


An airline which flies both the international an domestic routes requested the Secretary of Labor and Employment to approve the policy that all female flight attendants upon reaching age forty (40) with at least fifteen (15) years of service shall be compulsorily retired; however, flight attendant who have reached age forty (40) but have not worked for fifteen (15) years will be allowed to continue working in order to qualify for retirement benefits, but in no case will the extension exceed four (4) years.

Does the Secretary of Labor and Employment have the authority to approve the policy? (1998)

Clarito, an employee of Juan, was dismissed for allegedly stealing Juan’s wristwatch. In the illegal dismissal case instituted by Clarito, the Labor Arbiter, citing Article 4 of the Labor Code, ruled in favor of Clarito upon finding Juan’s testimony doubtful. On appeal, the NLRC reversed the Labor Arbiter holding that Article 4 applies only when the doubt involves "implementation and interpretation" of the Labor Code provisions. The NLRC explained that the doubt may not necessarily be resolved in favor of labor since this case involves the application of the Rules on Evidence, not the Labor Code. Is the NLRC correct? Reasons. (2009)


Cris filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against Baker Company. The Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint but awarded Cris financial assistance. Only the company appealed from the Labor Arbiter's ruling. It confined its appeal solely to the question of whether financial assistance could be awarded. The NLRC, instead of ruling solely on the appealed issue, fully reversed the Labor Arbiter's decision; it found Baker Company liable for illegal dismissal and ordered the payment of separation pay and full backwages. 

Through a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, Baker Company challenged the validity of the NLRC ruling. It argued that the NLRC acted with grave abuse of discretion when it ruled on the illegal dismissal issue, when the only issue brought on appeal was the legal propriety of the financial assistance award.

Cris countered that under Article 218(c) of the Labor Code, the NLRC has the authority to "correct, amend, or waive any error, defect or irregularity whether in substance or in form" in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction. Decide the case. (2013)


Gregorio was hired as an insurance underwriter by the Guaranteed Insurance Corporation (Guaranteed). He does not receive any salary but solely relies on commissions earned for every insurance policy approved by the company. He hires and pays his own secretary but is provided free office space in the office of the company. He is, however, required to meet a monthly quota of twenty (20) insurance policies, otherwise, he may be terminated. He was made to agree to a Code of Conduct for underwriters and is supervised by a Unit Manager.

[a] Is Gregorio an employee of Guaranteed? Explain. 
[b] Suppose Gregorio is appointed as Unit Manager and assigned to supervise several underwriters. He holds office in the company premises, receives an overriding commission on the commissions of his underwriters, as well as a monthly allowance from the company, and is supervised by a branch manager. He is governed by the Code of Conduct for Unit Managers. Is he an employee of Guaranteed? Explain. (2016)


Inggo is a drama talent hired on a per drama "participation basis" by DJN Radio Company. He worked from 8:00 a.m. until 5:00 p.m., six days a week, on a gross rate of P80.00 per script, earning an average of P20,000.00 per month. Inggo filed a complaint before the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) against DJN Radio for illegal deduction, non-payment of service incentive leave, and 13th month pay, among others. On the basis of the complaint, the DOLE conducted a plant level inspection.

The DOLE Regional Director issued an order ruling that Inggo is an employee of DJN Radio, and that Inggo is entitled to his monetary claims in the total amount of P30,000.00. DJN Radio elevated the case to the Secretary of Labor who affirmed the order. The case was brought to the Court of Appeals. The radio station contended that there is no employer-employee relationship because it was the drama directors and producers who paid, supervised, and disciplined him. Moreover, it argued that the case falls under the jurisdiction of the NLRC and not the DOLE because Inggo's claim exceeded P5,000.00.

[a] May DOLE make a prima facie determination of the existence of an employer-employee relationship in the exercise of its visitorial and enforcement powers?
[b] If the DOLE finds that there is an employee-employer relationship, does the case fall under the jurisdiction of the Labor Arbiter considering that the claim of inggo is more than P5,000.00. Explain. (2016)


Differentiate learnership from apprenticeship with respect to the period of training, type of work, salary and qualifications. (2016)


Procopio was dismissed from employment for stealing his co-employee Raul's watch. Procopio filed a complaint for illegal dismissal. The Labor Arbiter ruled in Procopio's favor on the ground that Raul's testimony was doubtful, and, therefore, the doubt should be resolved in favor of Procopio. On appeal, the NLRC reversed the ruling because Article 4 of the Labor Code - which states that all doubts in the interpretation and implementation of the provisions of the Labor Code, including the implementing rules and regulations, shall be resolved in favor of labor - applied only when the doubt involved the "implementation and interpretation" of the Labor Code; hence, the doubt, which involved the application of the rules on evidence, not the Labor Code, could not necessarily be resolved in favor of Procopio. Was the reversal correct? Explain your answer. (2017)


Andrew Manning Agency (AMA) recruited Feliciano for employment by lnvictus Shipping, its foreign principal. Meantime, AMA and lnvictus Shipping terminated their agency agreement. Upon his repatriation following his premature termination, Feliciano claimed from AMA and lnvictus Shipping the payment of his salaries and benefits for the unserved portion of the contract. AMA denied liability on the ground that it no longer had an agency agreement with lnvictus Shipping. Is AMA correct? Explain your answer. (2017)


Phil, a resident alien, sought employment in the Philippines. The employer, noticing that Phil was a foreigner, demanded that he first secures an employment permit from the DOLE. Is the employer correct? Explain your answer. (2017)


The Regional Tripartite Wages and Productivity Board (RTWPB) for Region 3 issued a wage order on November 2, 2017 fixing the minimum wages for all industries throughout Region 3.

[a] Is the wage order subject to the approval of the National Wages and Productivity Commission before it takes effect?
[b] The law mandates that no petition for wage increase shall be entertained within a period of 12 months from the effectivity of the wage order. Under what circumstances may the Kilusang Walang Takot, a federation of labor organizations that publicly and openly assails the wage order as blatantly unjust, initiate the review of the wage increases under the wage order without waiting for the end of the 12-month period? Explain your answer. (2017)


Tarcisio was employed as operations manager and received a monthly salary of ₱25,000.00 through his payroll account with DB Bank. He obtained a loan from Roberto to purchase a car. Tarcisio failed to pay Roberto when the loan fell due. Roberto sued to collect, and moved to garnish Tarcisio's payroll account. The latter vigorously objected and argued that salaries were exempt from garnishment. Is Tarcisio correct? Explain your answer. (2017)

Popular Posts