1. The fire did not destroy the EE relationship.

It temporarily
ceased only. Its obligation is to recall the old employees
and not to hire a new set.

The withholding of work beyond 6 months amount to

constructive dismissal

2. It is a labor dispute. The issue is regularization which can

be resolved solely through the application of labor laws.

RTC does not have jurisdiction but the labor courts.

3. No, he cannot be terminated. The crime must be against

the employer or the members of his immediate family or
representative to be a ground for dismissal. Here, the
crime was only prejudicial to business.

But he can be dismissed on the ground of serious

misconduct and loss of trust and confidence.44

4. Full protection to labor, local or overseas, organized or

unorganized

5. A law cannot abolish security of tenure because that is in

the constitution
6. Law allowing contractualization is legal. Secretary is given
power to decide whether to prohibit labor only
contracting. Provided that it does not violate security of
tenure of workers.

7. Doubt with respect to the evidence presented should be

resolved in favor of the laborer

8. Social justive vs equal protection clause: social justice win.

Reason: to uphold full protection to labor. But social
justice should not be used to shield wrongdoing.

9. If the deployment did not push through without the

workers fault, the obligation of the recruitment agency is
to reimburse the worker for jis expenses.

10. Recruitment agency must be owned and controlled

by Filipinos for at least 75% of its authorized capital stock.
If not, then it will not be allowed to engage in the business
of a recruitment agency.

11. They can be prosecute for illegal recruitment even if

they have no license or authority tor recruit. Advertising is
 one of the acts considered as recruitment, whether for
profit or not.

That there was only one prospective worker is of no

moment.

12. Travel agencies cannot engage in the business of a

recruitment or placement agency

13. Still liable despite her defense of good faith. This is a

malum prohibitum.

The refund of money will not extinguish her criminal

liability.

Affidavit of desistance will also not extinguish his criminal

liability. It is an offense against the state. Besides such
affidavit of desistance is frowned upon

14.

15.

16.
17.

18.

19.

20.

21.
22.