1999-2004 FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS

ILLEGAL DISMISSAL 3 times

International Motors Corporation (IMC) under-
took a reorganization of the company and right-
sizing of its personnel complement due to the
current financial crisis. The affected employees
were given the option to resign with
corresponding generous benefits attending such
option. The said employees opted to resignation
on account of these negotiated benefits; and after
receipt of which, they executed quitclaims in favor
of IMC. Immediately thereafter, the employees
voluntarily resigned for valuable consideration and
that, in any case, they have executed quitclaims in
favor of the company.
The employees, however, claimed that they were
forced to resign, and that they executed the
quitclaims only because of dire necessity.
a) Is the company guilty of illegal dismissal? Why?
b) Can the quitclaim be annulled on the ground of
dire necessity? Why?
ANSWER:
a) The company is not guilty of illegal dismissal.
According to the facts of the case, the employees
opted to resign.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWERS:
The company is not guilty of illegal dismissal since
the facts clearly indicate that the employees were
given the option to resign with corresponding
generous benefits attending such option and that
these employees opted for resignation on
account of these negotiated benefits. Nothing in
the facts indicate that their consent to the waiver
of benefits under the Labor Code was vitiated by
fraud, violence, undue influence or any other vice
or defect.
The company is not guilty of illegal dismissal.
According to the facts of the case, the employees
opted to resign voluntarily, considering the
generous benefits given to them in connection
with such resignation.
Voluntary resignation cannot be considered as
illegal dismissal. (Samaniego v. NLRC, 198 SCRA
111)
b) A quitclaim case can be annulled on the ground
of its being entered into involuntarily by
employees because of dire necessity. Thus, if it
was dire necessity that forced a worker tc sign a
quitclaim even if the amount of money given to
him by the employer was very much less than
what the workers was entitled to receive, then the
quitclaim was not voluntary, and thus, the said
quitclaim Is null and void. In a case (Veloso v.
DOLE, 200 SCRA 201) the Supreme Court held that
dire necessity is not an acceptable ground for
annulling the releases, especially since it has not
been shown that the employees had been forced
to execute them. It has not been proven that the
considerations for the quitclaims were
unconscionably low and that the petitioners had
been tricked into accepting them.
(1999)

On September 3. 1998, the National Bureau of

Investigation (NBI) extracted from Joko Diaz
without the assistance of counsel a sworn
statement which made it appear that Joko, in
cahoots with another employee, Reuben Padilla,
sold ten (10) cash registers which had been
foreclosed by North-South Bank for P50.000.00
and divided the proceeds therefrom in equal
shares between the two of them.
On September 10, 1998, Joko was requested by
Rolando Bato, the bank manager, to appear before
the Disciplinary Board for an investigation in the
following tenor: You are requested to come on
Thursday, September 14, 1998, at 11:00 a.m. the
Board Room, without counsel or representative, in
connection with the investigation of the foreclosed
cash registers which you sold without authority.
Mr. Bato himself conducted the investigation, and
two (2) days thereafter, he dismissed Joko. The
bank premised its action in dismissing Joko solely
on the latters admission of the offense imputed to
him by the NBI in its interrogation on September 3,
1998. Aside from this sworn statement, no other
evidence was presented by the bank to establish
the culpability of Joko in the fraudulent sale of the
banks foreclosed properties.
a) Is the dismissal of Joko Diaz by North-South
Bank legally justified? Explain briefly.
b) Can Reuben Padillas participation in the
fraudulent sale of the banks foreclosed properties
be made to rest solely on the unilateral
declaration of Joko Diaz? Why?
ANSWERS:
a) NO. Under Sec, 12of Art. in of the 1987
Constitution any confession or admission
obtained in violation of Sec. 12 and 17 shall be
Inadmissible in evidence against him. Since the
sole basis for his dismissal was the confession
procured by the NBI in violation of his right to
counsel which is inadmissible for any purpose and
any proceeding including an administrative case,
his dismissal is illegal. Diazs termination is
likewise illegal because he was deprived of his light
to due
(1999)

The Samahan ng Mga Manggagawa sa Pids and Co.

Inc. lost its majority status in the bargaining unit
one year after the signing of the Collective
Bargaining Agreement. Bickering among all the
three other unions in the 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
the Bureau of Labor Relations. In the consent
election. Pids and Co. Workers Union won, and
was accordingly recognized by the Company as the
exclusive bargaining representative in the
bargaining unit. Is the Pids and Co. Workers Union
bound by the Collective Bargaining Agreement
signed between the Company and the Sam ah an
ng Mga Manggagawa Sa Pids and Co. Inc.? Explain.
(3%)
b) Shortly after the consent election, Pids and Co.
Inc. sold the Groceries Division to Metro Manila
Grocery Inc. The employees of the sold division
formed part of the bargaining unit described in the
Collective Bargaining Agreement, and all were
absorbed by Metro Manila Grocery Inc. Is Metro
Manila Grocery Inc. as the new employer, bound
by the Collective Bargaining Agreement existing at
the time of the sale? Explain. ANSWERS:
a) Yes, because the Collective Bargaining
Agreement is not invalidated by the
change of the bargaining agent while the
CBA is still effective. The substitutionary
doctrine applies. [Benguet Consolidated
Inc. v. BCI Employees. 23 SCRA 465
(1968)].
b) b) No. There are no indications that the
 sale is simulated or intended to defeat the
employees right to organize. A bonafide
sale terminates the employment
relationship between the selling company
and its employees. The 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
913 (1993)].
(2000)

JURISDICTION 3 times
Employees of ABC declared a strike after filing a
Notice of Strike with the DOLE. They barricaded
company gates and damaged vehicles entering
company premises. On the second day of the
strike, ABC filed a petition with the DOLE Secretary
to intervene through the issuance of an
assumption of jurisdiction order that the Secretary
may issue when a strike or lock-out will adversely
affect national interest. ABC furnished the
Secretary with evidence to show that company
vehicles had been damaged; that electric power
had been cut off; and equipment and materials
were damaged because electric power was not
immediately restored. ABC forecast that the
countrys supply of chlorine for water treatment
(which die company produces) would be affected
adversely if ABCs operations were closed down by
the strikers.
Could the DOLE Secretary intervene, assume
jurisdiction and issue a TRO (Temporary
Restraining Order)? Briefly justify your answer.
ANSWER:
Yes, the Secretary of Labor and Employment can
assume jurisdiction over the dispute because ABC
could be considered as an industry indispensable
to the national interest since it produces the
countrys supply of chlorine for water treatment.
The assumption of jurisdiction by the Secretary of
Labor and Employment has the effect of ending
the strike. The strikers will be subject to a return to
work order by the Secretary of Labor and
Employment upon her assumption of jurisdiction.
(2004)
The affected members of the rank and file
elevated a labor arbiters decision to the NLRC via
a petition for review filed after the lapse of the
ten-day reglementary period for perfecting an
appeal. Should the NLRC dismiss the petition
outright or may the NLRC take cognizance thereof?
ANSWER:
The NLRC should dismiss the appeal outright
because the same was filed beyond the
reglementary period of appeal. Article 223 of the
Labor Code reads:
Decisions, awards, or orders of the Labor Arbiter
are final and executory unless , appealed to the
Commission by any or both parties within ten (10)
calendar days from receipt of such decisions,
awards, or orders.
(2001)

Company A and Union B could not resolve

their negotiations for a new CBA. After conciliation
proceedings before the NCMB proved futile, B
went on strike. Violence during the strike
prompted A to file charges against striker-
members of B for their illegal acts. The Secretary
of Labor assumed jurisdiction, referred the strike
to the NLRC and issued a return-to-work order.
The NLRC directed the parties to submit their
respective position papers and documentary
evidence. At the initial hearing before the NLRC,
the parties agreed to submit the case for
resolution after the submission of the position
papers and evidence.
Subsequently, the NLRC issued an arbitral award
resolving the disputed provisions of the CBA and
ordered the dismissal of certain strikers for having
knowingly committed illegal acts during the strike.
The dismissed employees elevated their dismissal
to the Court of Appeals claiming that they were
deprived of their right to due process and that the
affidavits submitted by A were self-serving and of
no probative value. Should the appeal prosper?
State the reason(s) for your answer clearly.
ANSWER:
The appeal should not prosper. The Supreme
Court, in many cases, has ruled that decisions
made by the NLRC may be based on position
papers. In the question, it is stated that the parties
agreed to submit the case forresolution after the
submission of position papers and evidence. Given
this fact, the striker-members of B cannot now
complain that they were denied due process. They
are in estoppel. After voluntarily submitting a case
and encountering an adverse decision on the
merits, it is too late for the loser to question the
jurisdiction or power of the court a party cannot
adopt a posture of double dealing. [Marquez vs.
Secretary of Labor, 16 March 1989).
(2001)