LABOR LAW 2

Question 1

What is the composition of the NLRC?

Answer 1

Art. 220 - There shall be a NLRC which is attached to the DOLE, it is composed of a chairman and 23 commissioners = members

8 from public sector, 8 from private sector and 8 from employer sector – Tripartite body

With 8 divisions with 3 members each

1. ) 1st-6th Division – cases from NCR and other parts of Luzon
2. ) 7th Division – Visayas. NLRC Cebu
3. ) 8th Division – Mindanao. Cagayan De Oro, NLRC Mindanao

Question 2

What are the qualifications of NLRC Chairman and Commissioners?

Answer 2

1) Chairman and Commissioners must be members of the Philippine Bar
2) Engaged in the practice of law for at least 15 years – 5 years must be exposed in labor management disputes

Question 3

What are the qualifications of a Labor Arbiter?

Answer 3

1. ) Must be a Member of the Philippines Bar

2. ) Must Engage in the practice of law for at least 10 yrs. – 5 years must be exposed in labor management disputes

Question 4

There are 3 complainants against Phoenix corp. for money claims filed with Reg. Dir., A - 2,000php, B-3,000php and C- 5,000php. Phoenix filed a motion to dismiss on the ground that the total claims amounts to 10,000. Phoenix contends that the total amount exceeds 5,000php, hence, it is beyond the jurisdiction of the Reg. Dir. Is the petition to dismiss meritorious?

Answer 4

NO. The determination of the jurisdiction is based on the claim for the individual complainant, per complainant, NOT the total.

Question 5

What is the nature of proceedings before the labor arbiter 


Answer 5

Non-litigious in character. Holding of a formal trial is not necessary. Under the labor code the evidence in the ROC is not prevailing in labor cases

Question 6

Engr. alleged that Indophil Textile failed to provide him a safe, healthy and workable environment. He alleged that he was illegally dismissed due to the disease he contracted from his work environment. Negligence was committed by the company. He filed illegal dismissal with the labor arbiter and instituted a case for claims for damages with RTC.

Indophil filed motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction alleging that the claims for damages should be filed with NLRC because it emanated from E-ER. 
Is the petitioner company correct?

Answer 6

Petitioner company is not correct. The claim for damages is related to respondent employee’s allegation of quasi-delict, negligence committed by the employer by not providing a healthy and safety working environment. The labor code cannot resolve the issue of quasi-delict.

Question 7

PAL pilots went on strike. PAL filed for damages against pilots with NLRC. CA ruled that PAL committed an error in jurisdiction by filing its complaint with NLRC. 


Is there a reasonable causal connection between the claims asserted in relation to employee-employer relationship?

Answer 7

Yes. SC held that reasonable causal connection is present because the claim for damages of PAL is related to the illegal strike committed by the pilots and is also related to ULP filed against the latter. The claims asserted is related to the issue of E-ER

Question 8

(U-bix Corp. vs Valerie Anne Holero) Employee Valerie was asked by employer to go to USA for training which she agreed to. It is stated in their contract that the employee shall remain in the company for a period of 5 yrs otherwise, the employee shall reimburse the cost of the training. Employee was later dismissed for just cause. Employer filed a complaint before the Labor Arbiter for the reimbursement of training expenses. Employee contends that the LA has no jurisdiction over the case. Is the contention of employee meritorious?

Answer 8

Yes, the argument is correct as held by SC. The LA has no jurisdiction over the claims of the employer over the training expenses, because the claims of the employer emanated from a written contract which the parties signed. The claim of U-bix is a sum of money, which was based on the Civil Code, is cognizable by the RTC. If the complaint cannot be resolved by the provisions of the Labor code or other statutes regarding labor or CBA, the regular courts will take cognizance of the case.

Question 9

Case: Rubberworld Phils. vs. NLRC) What will happened if a company who is a respondent in a labor case is under company rehab. Members of the labor union filed a complaint for money claims against Rubberworld. Rubberworld filed a motion to dismiss with the LA on the ground that they are currently under rehabilitation, hence the proceedings against them must be terminated for the mean time. LA decided the case in favor of the employees. Rubberworld failed to post a cash or surety bond which is equal to the judgement award for appeal with the NLRC because they are under insolvency proceedings.

Answer 9

Ruling: The proceedings before the LA and NLRC is void. Under PD. 902-A if a company, corp., partnership or associations is under a rehabilitation or insolvency proceedings, all the proceedings shall be suspended. All the decisions rendered aganst Rubberworld is null and void for violating PD No. 902-A.

Question 10

(Amecos vs Lopez) Employee refused to give her SSS no. to employer. Eventually both agreed not to enroll employee to SSS in order for the latter to have a bigger take home pay. SSS filed a case against the company for its irregularity in paying the employees’ contributions. Amecos was forced to settle with SSS for its violations. Amecos filed a complaint with MTC for sum of money and damages against Lopez, because due to her misrepresentation the company suffered damages, extreme embarrassment and besmirched reputation as a result of the filing of the complaint of SSS. Is the filing of Amecos to MTC proper?

Answer 10

No, the Court held that the MTC has no jurisdiction to handle the case. The issue of SSS contribution emanated from E-ER, therefore it should be filed before the LA.

Question 11

Can you file a case to an agency of the Gov’t with original charter? Ex. PAGCOR

Answer 11

No, the NLRC has no jurisdiction over PAGCOR. Agencies of the gov’t with original charter are not under the jurisdiction of the NLRC. Employees’ complaints should be filed with the Civil Service Commission.

Question 12

If you are an employee of a cooperative, assuming that you are a staff and a member, and you are underpaid or terminated. Can you file a case against your own cooperative?


Answer 12

Yes, it is a natural right of an employee. What is prohibited in a cooperative, whether you are a member, a staff or both, is assisting, joining or forming a labor union, because the owner cannot bargain with himself.

Question 13

What is meant by Contest in the exercise of visitorial power of the Secretary of Labor?

Answer 13

CONTEST – to raise questions as to the amounts complained of or the absence of violation off labor standards laws, or issues as to the complainant’s right to labor standards benefits.

Question 14

What is the rule with regard to the nature of money claims under the labor arbiter and the Regional Director?

Answer 14

Nature of Money claims under the LA, regardless of the amount, if it is coupled with reinstatement or issue of termination jurisdiction will remain to LA, the amount is immaterial to LA.

If case is pure money claims, amount is material.
5,000 or less → Regional Director 
 more than 5k → Labor Arbiter

Question 15

What are the exception to Art 128b of the Labor Code (instance where the jurisdiction of RD may be divested
)?

Answer 15

a) employer contests the findings of the regulations officer and raises issues thereon;

b) there is need to examine evidentiary matters

c) such matters are not verifiable in the normal course of inspection

Question 16

When can the issue of jurisdiction in a labor case be raised?

Answer 16

GR: Issue of jurisdiction may be raised at any stage of the proceedings
XPN: You can’t raise issue of jurisdiction if you are guilty of estoppel. In the case of Tijam vs. Sibong-hanoy, the issue of jurisdiction was raised 15 yrs. After the decision has been made, because you are of laches.

Question 17

(Stolt Nielsen vs Mediquillo) Agency went to employee OFW to NAIA, claimed that the latter has a problem with his medical certificate. Agency suggested to suspend his flight for the mean time. OFW investigated and found out that his medical certificate has no irregularity. Employee filed a case with NLRC. Agency argued that there is no E-ER. Is the argument off NLRC meritorious?

Answer 17

Yes, because the OFW did not actually reach his employer. The commencement of E-ER would take place when the employee is actually deployed from the point of hire, there must be an actual departure from the airport. However, the employer and local agency is guilty of breach of contract. Therefore even if there is no E-ER, the LA has jurisdiction to handle the case because the jurisdiction of the LA is not limited to the OFW’s E-ER but also if there is a violation of their contracts. SC ordered the payment of the 1 yr contract of the OFW.

Question 18

OFW was terminated abroad, hence she filed a case for illegal dismissal in the Philippines. LA ruled that Labor relation sys of phils. has no extraterritorial jurisdiction, because the illegal dismissal has been commited in Saudi Arabia, hence, our local courts has no jurisdiction.

Answer 18

The ruling or the LA is not proper because LA have original jurisdiction over claims of OFWs arising from E-ER or any form of violation of their contracts. The employment contract of the OFW was perfected in the Philippines when the OFW and local agency signed the contract. This ruling is in consonance with the protection of the constitution to workers which says that the state shall afford protection to labor.

Question 19

What does Sec. 3 ARTICLE XIII of the constitution provides?

Answer 19

The State shall afford full protection to labor, local and overseas, organized and unorganized, and promote full employment and equality of employment opportunities for all.

Question 20

Who has jurisdiction over intra corporate controversies?

Answer 20

SEC’s jurisdiction over all intra corporate disputes was transferred to the RTC commercial courts, effective Aug. 8 2000 under RA No. 8799.

Question 21

Can dismissed corporate officers file a dismissal case to the NLRC?

Answer 21

No. Officers of the corporation provided in the Corporation Code and the articles of incorporation should file their dismissal cases to the RTC and not to the NLRC.

Question 22

Cacho vs Balagtas) Balagtas was the Exec. VP of Northstar when she was terminated. She denied that she was a corporate officer because her name and position as VP is not included in the General Information Sheet (GIS), hence she is not considered as a corporate officer and her case should be filed with the LA.

Answer 22

Considering that in the by-laws of the corporation, executive vice president is one of the corporate officers mentioned therein. When the position is stated in the by-laws as a corporate officer, even if it is not included in the GIS, that fact cannot be denied. The GIS neither governs nor establishes whether or not a position is an ordinary or corporate office. What is important is that the position is stated in the by-laws as a corporate officer. Therefore, the LA has no jurisdiction because Balagtas is a corporate officer.

Question 23

Reyes was an accounting clerk and eventually promoted as asst. VP. Eventually she was terminated. She filed an illegal dismissal to the LA. Prohealth Pharma argued that the LA has no jurisdiction, because Reyes, being asst. VP is considered as a corporate officer, hence her case should be filed in the regular courts. The position of Reyes as Asst. VP is not included in the by-laws of the corporations.

Answer 23

Reyes is considered as a regular employee, hence her filing a case before the LA is proper.

Question 24

(WUPP vs Maglaya) Atty Maglaya was appointed as President of WUPP. Later on, he was dismissed. Maglaya filed a case before the LA. WUPP filed a motion to dismiss arguing that the LA has no jurisdiction to resolve the complaint of Atyy. Maglaya because he is a corporate officer. Atty. Maglaya contends that he is not a corporate officer because he was not elected by the board of directors or stockholders. Is the argument of Atty. Maglaya meritorious?

Answer 24

No, the argument of Atty. Maglaya is not proper. While it is true that he was not elected, the nature of the President as a corporate officers cannot be removed, the president is always considered as a corporate officer.

Question 25

What are the circumstances that must concur in order for an individual to be considered as a corporate officer?

Answer 25

• Creation of the position is under the corporation charter or by-laws
• Elected by the board of directors or stockholders

Question 26

What is the nature of corporate offices?

Answer 26

They are created by the charter of the corporation; and

Officer is elected by the directors or stockholder

Question 27

Who are corporate officers under the Corporation code

Answer 27

President, secretary and treasurer and those expressly mentioned in the Articles of Incorporation.

Question 28

What is the difference between a reinstatement and a return to work order?

Answer 28

Both are immediately executory

A reinstatement order is awarded by a labor arbiter to an illegally dismissed employee while a return-to-work order is Issued by the Sec. of Labor and Employment when he/she assumes jurisdiction over a labor dispute

A reinstatement order is a Judgement on the merits handed down by the labor arbiter pursuant to the original and exclusive jurisdiction while a return-to-work order is Interlocutory in nature

Question 29

The SOLE certified the labor dispute to the NLRC for compulsory arbitration. Accordingly, all striking workers were thereby directed to return to work within 24 hours from their receipt of the said order. The respondent company refused to reinstate the the union officers because they were validly retrenched and the said union officers also participated in the illegal strike. Was the refusal of the respondent company to reinstate the retrenched employees proper?

Answer 29

No, the refusal of the respondent company was not proper. The assumption or certification order shall have the effect of automatically enjoining the intended or impending strike or lockout. Moreover, if one has already taken place, all striking workers shall immediately return to work , and the employer shall immediately resume operation and readmit all workers under the same terms and conditions prevailing before the strike or lockout.

Certainly, the determination of who among the strikers could be admitted back to work cannot be made to depend upon the discretion of employer, lest we strip the certification or assumption-of-jurisdiction orders of the coercive power that is necessary for attaining their laudable objective.

Question 30

The union members, as well as their counsel, refused to receive the assumption of jurisdiction order (AJO) of the SOLE at 8:45am. They persisted and waited for their union president to receive the order at 5:25pm on the same day. The union asserted of a well settled practice that the SOLE always gives 24 hrs to the striking workers within which to return to work. Later, the union members were dismissed for violating the AJO of the SOLE. Was the dismissal valid?

Answer 30

Yes, the dismissal of the union members was valid on the ground of their violation of the AJO of the SOLW. Art, 278(g) (now Art. 263) of the LC, is explicit that if a strike has already taken place at the time of assumption of jurisdiction or certification, all striking locked out employees shall immediately return to work and the employer shall immediately resume operations and readmit all workers under the same terms and conditions prevailing before the strike or lockout. It indicates an almost instantaneous or automatic compliance for a striker to return to work once an AJO has been duly served.

Question 31

WHAT IS THE RULE WHEN A RANK-AND-FILE EMPLOYEE PARTICIPATE IN AN ILLEGAL STRIKE?

Answer 31

An ordinary striking worker or union member cannot , as a rule, be terminated for mere participation in an illegal strike. There must be proof that he committed illegal acts during the strike.

Question 32

WHAT IS THE RULE WHEN A UNION OFFICER PARTICIPATE IN AN ILLEGAL STRIKE?

Answer 32

The law imposes the supreme penalty of dismissal on union officers who irresponsibly participate or who knowingly participated in an illegal strike. The responsibility of the union officers , as main players in an illegal strike is greater than that of the members , as the union officers have the duty to guide their members to respect the law.
(Pilipino Telephone Corp. vs PILTEA, GR No. 160058, June 22, 2007)

Question 33

Given that the liability for an illegal strike is individual, not collective, state when the participating union officers and members may be terminated from employment because of the illegal strike.

Answer 33

Refer to the case of Pilipino Telephone Corp. vs PILTEA, GR No. 160058, June 22, 2007

An ordinary striking worker or union member cannot , as a rule, be terminated for mere participation in an illegal strike. There must be proof that he committed illegal acts during the strike.

The law imposes the supreme penalty of dismissal on union officers who irresponsibly participate or who knowingly participated in an illegal strike. The responsibility of the union officers , as main players in an illegal strike is greater than that of the members , as the union officers have the duty to guide their members to respect the law.

Question 34

Petitioners Elenette Moises, Almira Romo, Louie Labayani, Ricky Ganarial, Efren Galan and Jun Carmelito, who were appointer as “shop steward” of the union, contended that they were mere members and not officers of the union. Is a shop steward considered a union officer?

Answer 34

Yes a shop steward is considered a union officer. A shop steward is union officer who represents members in a particular department. His duties include the conduct of initial negotiations for settlement of grievances.

Question 35

During a slowdown, union officers Asotigue, Alvarez and Rollo gave no credible excuse for being absent in Lipa farm. Tenor, on the other hand, took a break and did not return. All of them were terminated, including Fadriquelan, the union president who was stationed in
Gen. Trias. May the union officer be terminated in his employment?

Answer 35

No strike (SLOWDOWN) shall be declared after the SOLE has assumed
jurisdiction over a labor dispute. A strike conducted after such assumption is illegal and any union officer who knowingly participated the same may be declared as having lost his employment.

Question 36

THE STRIKERS SHOUTED “BAKERO” AT THEIR JAPANESE EMPLOYERS AND BADMOUTHED PEOPLE COMING IN THE COMPANY PREMISES ARE THE ACTS OF THE STRIKERS ILLEGAL?

Answer 36

Yes, the act of the strikers are illegal. These are patent violations of Art. 279(e) (formerly Art. 264) of the LC, and may even constitute crimes under the RPC such as threats or coercion among others.

Question 37

The petitioners staged a work stoppage on Oct. 24, 1990 in conjunction with the “Welga ng Bayan” organized by the labor sector to protest the accelerating prices of oil. Petitioners put up tents, tables and chairs in front of the main gate of respondents’ premises which rendered the company close for several weeks. The company filed a petition before the NLRC to declare work stoppage as illegal and to consider the petitioner to have lost their employment. May the “Welga ng Bayan”, participated in by the petitioners and which is not aimed against the employer, be a ground to consider the work stoppage or strike illegal?

Answer 37

Stoppage of work due to “Welga ng Bayan” is in the nature of a general strike, an extended sympathy strike. It affects numerous employers including those who do not have a dispute with their employees regarding their terms and conditions of employment. Employees who have no labor dispute with their employer but who, on a day they are scheduled to work, refuse to work and instead join a “Welga ng Bayan” commit an illegal work stoppage.

Question 38

2017 Bar Q: A sympathetic strike is stoppage of work to make common cause with other strikers in another establishment or business Is the sympathetic strike valid?Explain your answer.

Answer 38

A: No. A sympathetic strike is not valid in view of the absence of labor dispute between the employer and the striking employees. The letters act shall be considered an illegal stoppage of work which prejudices the business interest of the employer.

Question 39

ARE THE EMPLOYEE-STRIKERS ENTITLED TO THEIR WAGES DURING THE PERIOD OF STRIKE?

Answer 39

A: No, the strikers are not entitled to their wages during the period of the strike, even if the strike might be legal, because they performed no work during the period of their strike.

Question 40

WHAT IS THE “NO BACKWAGES RULE” IN STRIKE?

Answer 40

A: The general rule is that back wages shall not be awarded in an economic strike on the principle that “a fair day’s wage’ accrues only for a “fair day’s labor”. Even in cases of ULP strikes, award of back wages rests on the courts’s discretion and only in exceptional instances.

If there is no work performed by the employee there can be no wage or pay, unless of course, the laborer was able, willing and ready to work but was illegally locked out, dismissed or suspended. It is hardly fair or just for an employee or laborer to fight or to litigate against his employer.

Question 41

The employees filed an illegal dismissal case questioning the retrenchment program of the employer. The latter, on the other hand, filed a case against the employees for illegal strike. The retrenchment was declared valid, while the illegal strike was dismissed. The employer now ins insists that the net effect of both cases will create a double compensation, since the employees will receive separation pay from the retrenchment , and separation pay and back wages from the illegal strike issue. Will there be a double compensation as a result of the resolutions of the 2 independent cases?

Answer 41

No, the resolutions of the 2 independent cases will not result into double compensation. To prevent double compensation, those who already retired and received their benefits from the retrenchment program may no longer claim full back wages, benefits, and separation pay under the decision in the illegal strike case. On the other hand, for the employees who have not executed a quitclaim with respect to the retrenchment program, any amount that they received from the labor arbiter’s decision in the illegal strike issue must be deducted from their separation pay in the retrenchment.

Question 42

What is management prerogative?

Answer 42

Management prerogative means that the employer is free to regulate, according to
his own judgement and discretion all aspects of employment, including hiring, work assignments, working methods, time, place, manner of work, tools to be used, processes to be followed, supervision of workers, working regulations, transfer of employees, layoff of workers and the discipline, dismissal and recall of workers.

Question 43

Limitations on the exercise of management prerogative

Answer 43

The exercise of management prerogatives must be done reasonably, in good faith,
and in a manner not otherwise to defeat or circumvent the rights of the workers.

Question 44

What are the Kinds of Employees

Answer 44

1. Regular Employees
2. Casual Employees
3. Fixed Term Employees

Question 45

What are regular employees?

Answer 45

• those who have been engaged to perform activities which are usually necessary or desirable in the usual business or trade or the employer.