Drill Questions in Labor Law

October 2018
Atty. Victoria V. Loanzon

I.
Clarissa, a single person, works with the Brethren School. During her employment, she got
pregnant with her boyfriend, also single. Being a school run by a religious group, Clarissa
was dismissed on the ground of immorality.
A. What are the elements that will indicate there is an employer-employee
relationship?
B. Is the conduct of Clarissa be considered immoral as to warrant her dismissal?
Justify your answer.
C. Explain the two-notice rule as a pre-requisite to dismissal of an employee.

II.
Banana Republic Company (“BRC”) is a domestic corporation which owns 1000 hectares
of land dedicated to planting bananas for almost fifty years already. With the enactment of
the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law, BRC was constrained to offer to sell on a
voluntary basis, 800 hectares of its land. The 800 hectares were distributed to the farm
workers of BRC. The farm workers organized themselves into a cooperative known as the
Banana Republic Multi-purpose Cooperative (“BRMC”).
With very little capital, the BRMC approached BRC for assistance. BRC agreed under a
Memorandum of Agreement with BRMC for Banana Production and Purchase
Agreement.
Given the magnitude of the obligations under the MOA, the parties executed a
Supplemental Agreement wherein BRC will take care of labor cost arising from packaging
operation, cable maintenance, irrigation pump and irrigation maintenance. However,
BRMC did not have enough manpower to address its obligations under the Supplemental
Agreement with BRC, so it supplied the needed manpower for account of BRC by
recruiting other cooperatives.
A labor dispute arose with the other cooperatives. A labor case was filed with BRC as the
respondent. BRC moved to dismiss the case since it held that it was BRMC that contracted
their services. Upon the other hand, BRMC argued that it only served as agent of BRC by
supplying manpower under the Supplemental Agreement.
A. What is the nature of the contract between BRC and BRMC?
B. What factors would indicate that one is an independent contractor?
C. What will constitute a valid quit claim of an employee?

III.
Union filed a Notice of Strike (NOS) against Company on grounds of gross violation of
their collective bargaining agreement (CBA). The Secretary of the Department of Labor
and Employment (DOLE) certified the dispute to the National Labor Relations
Commission (NLRC) for compulsory arbitration. Thereafter, Union filed second NOS
allegedly over the same CBA violation. Company filed a Motion to Strike Out Notice of
Strike and to refer the dispute to voluntary arbitration, claiming that the Union failed to
exhaust administrative remedies before resorting to the 2nd NOS. Union submitted its strike

1|Page
vote. On the last day of the cooling-off and strike vote periods, the Union officers and
members reported for work but they were allegedly not allowed to enter the company
premises. In protest of what was considered a lock-out, the Union staged a strike on the
same day.
A. Is the strike declared by the Union illegal?
B. What are acts are considered illegal acts during a strike?
C. Are the employees who participated in an illegal strike entitled to back wages?
D. What are the responsibilities of a union official and a union member in an Illegal
strike?
E. What are the six categories of Illegal Strikes? Can a “mass leave” be considered a
strike?
IV.
Godofredo was hired as a Messman on board M/T Umm Al Lulu by petitioner C.F. Sharp,
a local manning agency, on behalf of its principal, petitioner ADNATCO, a marine
transportation company based in the United Arab Emirates. Godofredo and petitioner
Austria, as representative of petitioners C.F. Sharp and ADNATCO, signed a Contract of
Employment, which was approved by the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration
(POEA). Prior to embarkation, Godofredo underwent a pre-employment medical
examination (PEME) and was declared physically fit to work. Godofredo was repatriated
in Manila. He went to a medical clinic in Kawit, Cavite where he was examined by Doctor
Cayetano G. Reyes, Jr. Dr. Reyes diagnosed Godofredo with "Essential Hypertension" and
advised Godofredo to take the prescribed medication and rest for a week. At about 10:00
in the morning on March 19, 2003, Godofredo was waiting for a ride when he suddenly lost
consciousness and fell to the ground. Good Samaritans brought Godofredo to Del Pilar
Hospital where he was pronounced dead on arrival. Is Godofredo’s death compensable?

V.
The respondent Wilfredo Cabatay entered into a ten-month contract of employment as able
seaman with the petitioners for the vessel M/V BBC OHIO. The contract was supplemented
by a collective bargaining agreement or the Total Crew Cost Fleet Agreement (TCC- FA)
between the International Workers Federation (ITF) and Marlow Navigation. While on
duty, Cabatay fell from a height of four meters in his work area; his side, shoulder, and
head were most affected by his fall. He was brought to a hospital in Huangpu, China,
where he was diagnosed with "Left l-4 Verterbra Transverse Bone broken (accident)." He
was declared unfit to work for 25 days. Thereafter, he was medically repatriated. Cabatay
arrived in Manila on January 8, 2010, and was immediately referred to the company
doctor, Dr. Dolores Tay for examination and treatment. He underwent several tests,
including a CT scan and a repeat audiometry and MRI. On March 19, 2010, Cabatay
complained of right shoulder pain. On April 13, 2010, he underwent surgery on the rotator
cuff on his shoulder. After surgery, he missed several appointments with Dr. Tay and failed
to undergo his physiotherapy on time, starting it only on May 25, 2010. Earlier, or on May
7, 2010, Dr. Tay gave Cabatay an interim disability assessment of Grade 10 for his shoulder
injury and Grade 3 for impaired hearing. She expected Cabatay's hearing and shoulder
problems to be resolved within three to six months, although he was still under treatment
as of June 3, 2010.

2|Page
Meantime, or on May 11, 2010, Cabatay filed a complaint against the petitioners for,
among others, permanent total disability compensation. He did not dispute the company
doctor's findings, he argued that he was entitled to permanent total disability benefits since
he had lost his employment due to his injury which, he claimed, is compensated under the
TCC-FA.
A. Is Cabatay entitled to permanent total disability compensation?
B. Does the seafarer have the duty to prove that his work caused his illness to be
entitled to disability benefits?
C. When can the employer be held liable for the death of a seafarer, which occurred
after the termination of the employment contract?

VI.
Since 2002, respondent Conag had been deployed annually by petitioner Scanmaras a
boson’s mate aboard foreign vessels owned or operated by its principal, Crown Ship
Management, Inc./Louis Dreyfus Armateurs SAS (Crown Ship). On March 27, 2009, he
was again deployed as a boson’s mate aboard the vessel MIT Ile de Brehdt. According to
him, his job entailed lifting heavy loads and occasionally, he would skid and fall while at
work on deck. On June 19, 2009, as he was going about his deck duties, he felt numbness in
his hip and back. He was given pain relievers but the relief was temporary. Two months
later, the pain recurred with more intensity, and he was brought to a hospital in Tunisia.
On August 25, 2009, Conag was medically repatriated. Upon arrival in Manila on August
27, 2009, he was referred to the company-designated physicians at the Metropolitan
Medical Center, Marine Medical Services, where he was examined and subjected to
laboratory examinations. The laboratory tests showed that Conag had "Mild Lumbar
Levoconvex Scoliosis and Spondylosis; Right SJ Nerve Root Compression," with an
incidental finding of "Gall Bladder Polyposis v. Cholesterolosis." For over a period of 95
days, he was treated by the company-designated physicians, Drs. Robert Lim and Esther
G. Go, and in their final medical report dated December 1, 2009, they declared Conag fit to
resume sea duties. Later that day, Conag signed a Certificate of Fitness for Work, written
in English and Filipino. Conag claimed that he was required to sign the certificate as a
condition sine qua non for the release of his accumulated sick pay. Interestingly, however,
on February 18, 2010, a mere nine days after his letter, Conag filed his complaint with the
LA for disability benefits, presumably after he was told that he would not be rehired.
A. Is Conag entitled to disability benefits?
B. For the seafarer to validly claim disability benefits, is the three-day post-
employment medical examination mandatory?

VII.
For 15 years, LSGI contracted the services of medical professionals, specifically
pediatricians, dentists and a physician, to comprise its Health Service Team (HST). On that
last day school year 2003-2004, the LSGI Head Administrator informed the Medical
Service Team, including herein petitioners, that their contracts will no longer be renewed
for the following school year by reason of LSGI's decision to hire two (2) full-time doctors
and dentists. One of the physicians from the same Health Service Team was hired by LSGI
as a full-time doctor. When petitioners', along with their medical colleagues', requests for
payment of their separation pay were denied, they filed a complaint for illegal dismissal

3|Page
with prayer for separation pay, damages and attorney's fees before the NLRC. The Labor
Arbiter dismissed petitioners' complaint and ruled that complainants, as propounded by
LSGI, were independent contractors under retainership contracts and never became
regular employees of LSGI. Is the Labor Arbiter correct?
VIII.
On 23 February 2006, petitioner Manila Memorial Park Cemetery, Inc. (Manila Memorial)
entered into a Contract of Services with respondent Ward Trading and Services (Ward
Trading). The Contract of Services provided that Ward Trading, as an independent
contractor, will render interment and exhumation services and other related work to
Manila Memorial in order to supplement operations at Manila Memorial Park, Paranaque
City. The employees of Ward Trading worked six days a week for eight hours daily and
were paid P250 per day. Respondents alleged that they asked Manila Memorial to consider
them as regular workers within the appropriate bargaining unit established in the
collective bargaining agreement by Manila Memorial and its union, the Manila Memorial
Park Free Workers Union (MMP Union). Manila Memorial refused the request since
respondents were employed by Ward Trading, an independent labor contractor.
Thereafter, respondents joined the MMP Union. The MMP Union, on behalf of
respondents, sought their regularization which Manila Memorial again declined.
Respondents then filed the complaint. Does an employer-employee relationship exist
between Manila Memorial and respondents?

IX.
Complainants allege that they are former employees directly hired by respondent Coca-
Cola on different dates from 1984 up to 2000, assigned as regular Route Helpers under the
direct supervision of the Route Sales Supervisors. Their duties consist of distributing
bottled Coca-Cola products to the stores and customers in their assigned areas/routes.
After working for quite sometime as directly-hired employees of Coca-Cola, complainants
were allegedly transferred successively as agency workers to the following manpower
agencies, namely, Lipercon Services, Inc., People's Services, Inc., ROMAC, and the latest
being respondent Interserve Management and Manpower Resources, Inc. Complainants
allege that the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) conducted an inspection of
Coca-Cola to determine whether it is complying with the various mandated labor
standards, and relative thereto, they were declared to be regular employees of Coca-Cola,
which was held liable to pay complainants the underpayment of their 13 th month pay,
emergency cost of living allowance (ECOLA), and other claims. While admitting employer-
employee relationship with the complainants, nonetheless, respondent Interserve avers that
complainants are not its regular employees as they were allegedly mere contractual
workers whose employment depends on the service contracts with the clients and the
moment the latter sever said contracts, respondent has allegedly no choice but to either
deploy the complainants to other principals, and if the latter are unavailable, respondent
cannot allegedly be compelled to retain them. Who is the employer of the complainants?

X.
La Suerte is a recruitment agency duly authorized by the Philippine Overseas Employment
Administration (POEA) to deploy workers for overseas employment. On March 20, 2009,

4|Page
La Suerte hired Iladan to work as a domestic helper in Hongkong for a period of two years
with a monthly salary of HK$3,580.00. On July 20, 2009, Iladan was deployed to her
principal employer in Hongkong, Domestic Services International (Domestic Services), to
work as domestic helper for Ms. Muk Sun Fan. On July 28, 2009 or barely eight days into
her job, Iladan executed a handwritten resignation letter. On August 6, 2009, in
consideration of P35,000.00 financial assistance given by Domestic Services, Iladan signed
an Affidavit of Release, Waiver and Quitclaim duly subscribed before Labor Attaché
Leonida V. Romulo (Labor Attaché Romulo) of the Philippine Consulate General in
Hongkong. On the same date, an Agreement, was signed by Iladan, Conciliator-Mediator
Maria Larisa Q. Diaz (Conciliator-Mediator Diaz) and a representative of Domestic
Services, whereby Iladan acknowledged that her acceptance of the financial assistance
would constitute as final settlement of her contractual claims and waiver of any cause of
action against respondents and Domestic Services. The Agreement was also subscribed
before Labor Attaché Romulo. On August 10, 2009, Iladan returned to the Philippines.
Thereafter, or on November 23, 2009, Iladan filed a Complaint for illegal dismissal, refund
of placement fee, payment of salaries corresponding to the unexpired portion of the
contract, as well as moral and exemplary damages, against respondents. Was Iladan
illegally dismissed?

XI.
Respondent Elizabeth Villa brought against the petitioner her complaint for illegal
suspension, illegal dismissal, nonpayment of overtime pay, and nonpayment of service
incentive leave pay. The petitioner averred that after the administrative hearing she was
found to have violated the company rule on the timely issuance of the invoices that had
resulted in delay in the payment of buyers considering that the payment had depended
upon the receipt of the invoices; that she had been suspended from her employment as a
consequence; that after serving the suspension, she had returned to work and had followed
up her application for retirement with Lucina de Guzman, who had then informed her that
the management did not approve the benefits equivalent to 86% of her salary rate applied
for, but only 1/2 month for every year of service; and that disappointed with the outcome,
she had then brought her complaint against the petitioners. Was Villa validly dismissed?

XII.
For almost 22 years, Mina was a high school teacher enjoying a permanent status in
DWCL’s high school department. In 2002, he was appointed as an associate professor at
the college department but shortly thereafter, or on June 1, 2003, he was appointed as a
college laboratory custodian. He was also divested of his teaching load. His appointment
even became contractual in nature and was subject to automatic termination after one year
"without any further notification." Aside from this, Mina was the only one among the high
school teachers transferred to the college department who was divested of teaching load.
Does this tantamount to constructive dismissal?

XIII.
On November 14, 2005, CPMPC hired Carbonilla, Jr. as a Credit and Collection Manager.
Sometime in 2007, CPMPC underwent a reorganization whereby Carbonilla, Jr. was also
assigned to perform the duties of Human Resources Department (HRD) Manager. In 2008,

5|Page
he was appointed as Legal Officer and subsequently, held the position of Legal and
Collection Manager. However, beginning February 2008, CPMPC, through its HRD
Manager, Ma. Theresa R. Marquez (HRD Manager Marquez), sent various memoranda to
Carbonilla, Jr. seeking explanation on the various infractions he allegedly committed.
Unconvinced by Carbonilla, Jr.'s explanations, CPMPC scheduled several clarificatory
hearings, but the former failed to attend despite due notice. Later, CPMPC conducted a
formal investigation where it ultimately found Carbonilla, Jr. to have committed acts
prejudicial to CPMPC's interests. As such, CPMPC, CEO Quevedo, sent Carbonilla, Jr. a
Notice of Dismissal dated August 5, 2008 informing the latter of his termination on the
grounds of: (a) loss of trust and confidence; (b) gross disrespect; (c) serious misconduct; (d)
gross negligence; (e) commission of a crime of falsification/inducing Aguipo to violate the
law or the Land Transportation and Traffic Code; and (e) committing acts highly
prejudicial to the interest of the cooperative. Consequently, Carbonilla, Jr. filed the instant
case for illegal dismissal, non-payment of salaries, 13th month pay, as well as damages and
back wages, against CPMPC.Inc's defense, CPMPC maintained that the totality of
Carbonilla, Jr.'s infractions was sufficient to warrant his dismissal, and that it had
complied with the procedural due process in terminating him. Did Carbonilla’s acts
constitute serious misconduct and loss of trust and confidence?

XIV.

In February 2000, respondent Pacific Concord Container Lines (Pacific Concord), a

domestic corporation engaged in cargo forwarding, hired the petitioner as an Account
Executive/Marketing Assistant. In January 2002, Pacific Concord promoted her as a sales
manager with the monthly salary rate of P25,000.00, and provided her with a brand new
Toyota Altis plus gasoline allowance. On November 8, 2002, she reported for work at 9:00
a.m. and left the company premises at around 10:30 a.m. to make client calls. At 1:14 p.m.
of that day, she received the following text message from respondent Monette Cuenca
advising her that she was no longer connected with Pacific Concord. The petitioner
immediately tried to contact Cuenca, but the latter refused to take her calls. On the same
day, the petitioner learned from clients and friends that the respondents had disseminated
notices, flyers and memos informing all clients of Pacific Concord that she was no longer
connected with the company as of November 8, 2002. Pacific Concord also caused the
publication of the notice to the public in the Sunstar Daily issue of December 15, 2002. Does
Pacific Concord have sufficient grounds to terminate petitioner for breach of trust and
confidence?

XV.
On November 25, 1985, respondent was initially employed by petitioner Premiere
Development Bank (now Security Bank Savings Corporation [SBSC]) as messenger until
his promotion as loans processor at its Sangandaan Branch. Thereafter, he was appointed
as Acting Branch Accountant and, in June 2007, as Acting Branch Manager. On March 26,
2008, he was assigned to its Quezon Avenue Branch under the supervision of Branch
Manager Corazon Pinero (Pinero) and held the position of Customer Service Operations
Head (CSOH) tasked with the safekeeping of its checkbooks and other bank forms. On

6|Page
July 22, 2008, respondent received a show-cause memorandum from Ms. Ruby O. Go, head
of West Regional Operations, charging him of violating the bank's Code of Conduct when
he mishandled various checkbooks under his custody. The matter was referred to SBSC's
Investigation Committee which discovered, among others, that as of July 11, 2008, forty-
one (41) pre-encoded checkbooks of the Quezon Avenue Branch were missing. Can
separation pay be given despite the validity of the employee’s dismissal?

XVI.
Puncia alleged that since 2004, he worked as a messenger/collector for Toyota and was
later on appointed on March 2, 2011 as a Marketing Professional tasked to sell seven (7)
vehicles as monthly quota. However, Puncia failed to comply and sold only one (1) vehicle
for the month of July and none for August, prompting Toyota to send him a Notice to
Explain. Thereafter, a hearing was conducted but Puncia failed to appear despite notice.
On October 18, 2011, Toyota sent Puncia a Notice of Termination, dismissing him on the
ground of insubordination for his failure to attend the scheduled hearing and justify his
absence. This prompted Puncia to file a complaint for illegal dismissal with prayer for
reinstatement and payment of backwages, unfair labor practice, damages, and attorney's
fees against Toyota and its officers.
A. Is failure to meet monthly sales quota tantamount to gross insubordination?
B. Is the employee’s failure to meet a company imposed quota equivalent to gross
inefficiency?

XVII.
Arriola, a licensed general surgeon, was offered by SNC-Lavalin, through its letter, dated
May 1, 2008, the position of Safety Officer in its Ambatovy Project site in Madagascar.
After three months, Arriola received a notice of pre-termination of employment, dated
September 9, 2009, from SNC-Lavalin. It stated that his employment would be pre-
terminated effective September 11, 2009 due to diminishing workload in the area of his
expertise and the unavailability of alternative assignments. Consequently, on September
15, 2009, Arriola was repatriated. Aggrieved, Arriola filed a complaint against the
petitioners, among others, for illegal dismissal. The petitioners denied the charge of illegal
dismissal against them. They claimed that SNC-Lavalin was greatly affected by the global
financial crises during the latter part of 2008. The economy of Madagascar, where SNC-
Lavalin had business sites, also slowed down. Was the authorized cause for dismissal
proven?

XVIII.
PAL and Synergy Services Corporation (Synergy) entered into a station services agreement
and a janitorial services agreement whereby Synergy provided janitors and station
attendants to PAL at Mactan airport. Respondents were among the personnel of Synergy
posted at PAL to carry out the contracted tasks. Claiming to be performing duties directly
desirable and necessary to the business of PAL, the respondents, along with 12 other co-
employees, filed complaints for regularization of their status as employees of PAL,

7|Page
underpayment of salaries and non-payment of premium pay for holidays, premium pay for
rest days, service incentive leave pay, 13th month pay and allowances. Meanwhile, while
the above regularization cases were pending in the CA, PAL terminated its service
agreements with Synergy effective June 30, 1998, alleging serious business losses.
Consequently, Synergy also terminated its employment contracts with the respondents,
who forthwith filed individual complaints for illegal dismissal against PAL. PAL in turn
filed a third-party complaint against Synergy. Was there valid retrenchment?

XIX.
Echo is a provider of warehousing management and delivery services. King 8 Commercial
Corporation (King 8), Echo's predecessor, initially employed Cortes and Somido. Echo
thereafter absorbed the respondents as employees. In 2008, Somido was made a Warehouse
Checker, while Cortes, a Forklift Operator. In January of 2009, the respondents and their
co-workers formed Obrero Pilipino-Echo 2000 Commercial Chapter (Union). Cortes was
elected as Vice-President while Somido became an active member. The respondents
claimed that the Union's President, Secretary and one of the board members were
subsequently harassed, discriminated and eventually terminated from employment by
Echo. In May of 2009, Echo received information about shortages in peso value arising
from the movement of products to and from its warehouse. After an immediate audit, Echo
suspected that there was a conspiracy among the employees in the warehouse. Since an
uninterrupted investigation was necessary, Echo, in the exercise of its management
prerogative, decided to re- assign the staff. The respondents were among those affected. On
July 7, 2009, Enriquez issued a memorandum informing the respondents of their transfer
to the Delivery Section, which was within the premises of Echo's warehouse. The transfer
would entail no change in ranks, status and salaries. On July 14, 2009, Somido wrote Echo
a letter indicating his refusal to be promoted as a "Delivery Supervisor." He explained that
he was already happy as a Warehouse Checker. Further, he was not ready to be a Delivery
Supervisor since the position was sensitive and required more expertise and training, which
he did not have. Cortes similarly declined Echo's offer of promotion claiming that he was
contented in his post then as a Forklift Operator. He also alleged that he would be more
productive as an employee if he remained in his post. He also lacked prior supervisory
experience. On July 16, 2009, Enriquez, sans consent of the respondents, informed the
latter of their assignments/designations, effective July 17, 2009, as Delivery Supervisors.
Echo alleged that the respondents did not perform the new duties assigned to them.
Thereafter, successive memoranda were issued by Echo to the respondents, who refused to
acknowledge receipt and comply with the directives therein. The Memoranda dated July
20, 2009 suspended them without pay for five days for their alleged insubordination. The
Memoranda dated August 8, 2009 informed them of their termination from employment,
effective August 15, 2009, by reason of their repeated refusal to acknowledge receipt of
Echo's memoranda and flagrant defiance to assume the duties of Delivery Coordinators.
Can the respondents refuse the transfer?

XX.
A. What is the effect if the employees and the company extend its 5-year CBA?
B. In illegal dismissal cases, is the Labor Arbiter bound by the ruling of the Med-

8|Page
9|Page