Labor Law Random Bar Questions

Labor Law Question #22 (2015)

Mario comes from a family of coffee bean growers. Deciding to incorporate his
fledgling coffee venture, he invites his best friend, Carlo, to join him. Carlo is
hesitant because he does not have money to invest but Mario suggests a scheme where
Carlo can be the Chief Marketing Agent of the company, earning a salary and
commissions. Carlo agrees and the venture is formed. After one year, the business
is so successful that they were able to declare dividends. Mario is so happy with
Carlo�s work that he assigns 100 shares of stock to Carlo as part of the latter�s
bonus.

Much later on, it is discovered that Carlo had engaged in unethical conduct which
caused embarrassment to the company. Mario is forced to terminate Carlo but he does
so without giving Carlo the opportunity to explain.

Carlo filed a case against Mario and the company for illegal dismissal. Mario
objected on the ground that the Labor Arbiter had no jurisdiction over the case as
it would properly be considered as an intra-corporate controversy cognizable by the
RTC. Further, Mario claimed that because Carlo�s dismissal was a corporate act, he
cannot be held personally liable.

(a) As the Labor Arbiter assigned to this case, how would you resolve the
jurisdiction question. (3%)

(b) What is the rule on personal liability of corporate officers for a corporate
act declared to be unlawful? (2%)

Labor Law Question #9 (2018)

Sgt. Nemesis was a detachment non-commissioned officer of the Armed Forces of the
Philippines in Nueva Ecija. He and some other members of his detachment sought
permission from their Company Commander for an overnight pass to Nueva Vizcaya to
settle some important matters. The Company Commander orally approved their request
and allowed them to carry their firearms as the place they were going to was
classified as a �critical place.� They arrived at the place past midnight; and as
they were alighting from a tricycle, one of his companions accidentally dropped his
rifle, which fired a single shot, and in the process hit Sgt. Nemesis fatally. The
shooting was purely accidental. At the time of his death, he was still legally
married to Nelda, but had been separated de facto from her for 17 years. For the
last 15 years of his life, he was living in with Narda, with whom he has two minor
children. Since Narda works as a kasambahay, the two children lived with their
grandparents, who provided their daily support. Sgt. Nemesis and Narda only sent
money to them every year to pay for their school tuition.

Nelda and Narda, both for themselves and the latter, also on behalf of her minor
children, separately filed claims for compensation as a result of the death of Sgt.
Nemesis. The Line of Duty Board of the AFP declared Sgt. Nemesis� death to have
been �in line of duty�, and recommended that all benefits due to Sgt. Nemesis be
given to his dependents. However, the claims were denied by GSIS because Sgt.
Nemesis was not in his workplace nor performing his duty as a soldier of the
Philippine Army when he died.

(a) Are the dependents of Sgt. Nemesis entitled to compensation as a result of his
death? (2.5%)

(b) As between Nelda and Narda, who should be entitled to the benefits? (2.5%)
(c) Are the minor children entitled to the benefits considering that they were not
fully dependent on Sgt. Nemesis for support? (2.5%)

Labor Law Question #17 (2014)

Philhealth is a government-owned and controlled corporation employing thousands of

Filipinos. Because of the desire of the employees of Philhealth to obtain better
terms and conditions of employment from the government, they formed the Philhealth
Employees Association (PEA) and demanded Philhealth to enter into negotiations with
PEA regarding terms and conditions of employment which are not fixed by law. (4%)

(A) Are the employees of Philhealth allowed to self-organize and form PEA and
thereafter demand Philhealth to enter into negotiations with PEA for better terms
and conditions of employment?

(B) In case of unresolved grievances, can PEA resort to strikes, walkouts, and
other temporary work stoppages to pressure the government to accede to their
demands?

Labor Law Question #11 (2015)

Rico has a temper and, in his work as Division Manager of Matatag Insurance,
frequently loses his temper with his staff. One day, he physically assaults his
staff member by slapping him. The staff member sues him for physical injuries.
Matatag Insurance decides to terminate Rico, after notice and hearing, on the
ground of loss of trust and confidence. Rico claims that he is entitled to the
presumption of innocence because he has not yet been convicted. Comment on
Matatag�s action in relation to Rico�s argument. (4%)

Labor Law Question #9 (2014)

Luisa Court is a popular chain of motels. It employs over 30 chambermaids who,

among others, help clean and maintain the rooms. These chambermaids are part of the
union rank-and-file employees which has an existing collective bargaining agreement
(CBA) with the company. While the CBA was in force, Luisa Court decided to abolish
the position of chambermaids and outsource the cleaning of the rooms to Malinis
Janitorial Services, a bona fide independent contractor which has invested in
substantial equipment and sufficient manpower. The chambermaids filed a case of
illegal dismissal against Luisa Court. In response, the company argued that the
decision to outsource resulted from the new management�s directive to streamline
operations and save on costs. If you were the Labor Arbiter assigned to the case,
how would you decide? (4%)