LABOR STANDARDS LECTURES 2 SANCHEZ ROMAN
JULY 1, 2016 : Transcribed by Jezza Mariz Alo
We now go to the Labor Code Proper.
We have Articles 1 and 2 and then we have Article 3 which should be read in relation
to the constitutional provisions on Labor Employment and Management.
Can you give me the constitutional provisions relating to labor?
Section 18 of Article 2 and Section 3 of Article 13.
The State affirms labor as a primary social economic force. It shall
protect the rights of workers and promote their welfare. (Section 18,
Article 2 of 1987 Constitution)
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.
It shall guarantee the rights of all workers to self-organization,
collective bargaining and negotiations, and peaceful concerted
activities, including the right to strike in accordance with law. They
shall be entitled to security of tenure, humane conditions of work, and
a living wage. They shall also participate in policy and decision-making
processes affecting their rights and benefits as may be provided by
law.
The State shall promote the principle of shared responsibility between
workers and employers and the preferential use of voluntary modes in
settling disputes, including conciliation, and shall enforce their mutual
compliance therewith to foster industrial peace.
The State shall regulate the relations between workers and employers,
recognizing the right of labor to its just share in the fruits of production
and the right of enterprises to reasonable returns on investments, and
to expansion and growth. (Section 3, Article 13 of 1987
Constitution)
What do you mean by full employment?
Full employment means that the workers should be considered regular employees.
So, if they are probationary employees, they are not fully employed?
No, maam. Full employment means everyone must have a job.
Everyone must have a job. Well, any person who is qualified to have employment
must be employed and the only reason they are unemployed will be because of their
voluntary will. Yun ang state of full employment.
In addition to that, the person should not be underemployed. Ang definition ng
underemployment sa mga Sibika books, below minimum wage. But, the definition of
underemployment is you study for something but you get employed for a position
that is not relevant to your course that will carry with it lesser benefits. Example you
take up Education and you become a licensed professor teacher and then you
become a domestic helper abroad or you graduate as a Computer Science degree
holder and then you become a call center agent good for undergraduates. There are
certain positions in call centers that are only good for undergraduates. So, thats a
state of underemployment. Thats not full employment.
Can you dissect to us the constitution provision? (referring to
Section 3, Article 13 of 1987 Constitution)
First. 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.
Second. It shall guarantee the rights of all workers to self-
organization, collective bargaining and negotiations, and peaceful
concerted activities, including the right to strike in accordance with law.
They shall be entitled to security of tenure, humane conditions of work,
and a living wage. They shall also participate in policy and decision-
making processes affecting their rights and benefits as may be
provided by law.
1|P a g e
Third. The State shall promote the principle of shared responsibility
between workers and employers and the preferential use of voluntary
modes in settling disputes, including conciliation, and shall enforce
their mutual compliance therewith to foster industrial peace.
Fourth. The State shall regulate the relations between workers and
employers, recognizing the right of labor to its just share in the fruits of
production and the right of enterprises to reasonable returns on
investments, and to expansion and growth.
First part, what it promises to labor? Whats the States commitment to labor?
Obligations.
Second part, what are the rights given to workers? The right to self-organization.
The right to collective bargaining. If we take a look at Article 3 of the Labor Code, eto
ang portion na wala, the right to engage in peaceful concerted activities as may be
allowed by law.
Why is there a qualification? Why is there a need to qualify that portion of peaceful
concerted activities?
When we talk about the right to engage in concerted activities, it is subject to the
provisions of the law. Hindi ito yung nag-usap kayo ngayon na magwelga kayo
bukas, magwewelga na kayo. It has to comply with certain procedures and
requirements. As you will see in your labor relations there are grounds to be pushed
for strikes. Hindi pwede yung nainis ka lang sa employer mo, welga ka na bukas.
When we talk about the right to strike, its not absolute. May grounds yan as you will
see in labor relations. Even if you have grounds there are procedures to be followed.
As you will see in your labor relations, may cooling off period pa yan if its union
thing, you have to wait 7 days. You have to vote among yourselves if you want to go
on strike or not. You have to submit that to the National Conciliation and Mediation
Board. If we are talking about collective bargaining deadlock. Nag-usap kayo ng
employer mo, di kayo nagkakaintindihan, gusto mo ng ganitong increase, gusto niya
ganito lang, meron din cooling off jan.
So, when we talk about CBA negotiations di nagkasundo di pwede next day welga
na kayo may cooling off period pa rin yan, 30 days. So, thats what the provision is
all about subject to the requirements of the law. In the case of government
employees, they cannot validly engage in a strike that will paralyze operations, they
are not allowed. They can engage in peaceful concerted activities that will not
paralyzed operations primarily because di ba impressed with public interest ang
kanilang function.
Pwede bang shared responsibility between employer and employee when we talk
about participation in policy making. Ito na yung pinaka-agenda ng ating government
for many years even before I was born. Yung tinatawag nating tripartite. There is
labor. There is management. There is government. So if you take a look at the
composition of the people who decide what the minimum wage is. Meron galing sa
wage board, meron galing sa employees, meron galing sa management. At
matatawa kayo, everytime you see a wage order, laging may comment ang labor,
this amount is not enough, we protest, ganyan, we do not agree with the amount.
So laging kulang. But its still tripartite. So if government and management agrees,
labor has no choice but to accept. Policy-making, decision making, part lahat ang
labor and management.
Its also important to note that there is a recognition of the role of management in the
scheme of things. Napansin niyo ba panay labor, right of labor. Thats Secretary now
said that he will change it to Department of Labor and Management pero sa aking
superficial yun eh. Baguhin mo ang pangalan pero ipakita mo sa management na
you recognize the right to return of investments. Isang tao nagsasaka sa isang farm,
ang may-ari nag-ssweldo dun sa tao iisa lng one hectare lets say a little bigger than
that. Sasabihin ng employer na Atty. kung ganun din lang magbabayad ako ng
minimum wage ako na lang ang magsasaka, isasaka ko na lang ang farm ko, kung
lahat yan ibibigay ko yun ang reklamo ng management. Reasonable return of
investments. Pero yung worker naman kailangan bigyan mo ng tamang benepisyo.
If you correlate these constitutional provisions with Article 3 of the Labor
Code, paano na adapt? Of course the mother law is the constitution then
you have the codal which will now enunciate what the constitution provides.
Article 3 of the Labor Code is the declaration of policy
which provides that:

The State shall afford protection to labor, promote full employment,
ensure equal work opportunities regardless of sex, race or creed and
regulate the relations between workers and employers. The State shall
assure the rights of workers to self-organization, collective bargaining,
security of tenure, and just and humane conditions of work.
All other provision in the constitutional provisions are adapted in the particular
section. Example yung right to self-organization, etc. you will find these in the
relevant policies under Labor Relations. This is the basic adaptation of what is
provided in the constitution.
What do you mean by just and human working conditions?
Proper conditions by the law where employees are not abused.
Can you give me an example of unjust and inhumane working conditions?
Mining operations where employees and hired miners are not given proper break
periods knowing that underground mines are in harsh conditions.
Child labor.
Typical examples are those in salons where they dont have gloves for chemicals or
sa pabrika naman, they dont have mask or what happened in the slippers factory,
may grills, walang exhaust, not even a benefit of a fire exit.
So, this is the purpose why we have Department of Labor which could monitor
compliance with occupational and health provisions. You will find this in your social
legislation. It will provide for the conditions, requirements or youre supposed to have
how many nurses, you are 500 employees, youre supposed to have a clinic, mga
ganyan. Dyan papasok yung just and humane working conditions. Part of it is
payment of the wage that can make the family survive.
What do you mean by voluntary modes of settling disputes?
Certain procedure which the employer and employees, seat down in the
table and lay down all the terms and talk about certain problems that affect
the rising conditions of the employees, policies and position of the employer
which they will now settle the dispute as to how the management can
address such problem and to some extent what the employees will do in
order to satisfy the requirements that the management will grant such. Its
just an informal bargaining in which the employer and the employee
address such problem without the intervention of the government.
Basically thats why we have grievance machineries at the plant level where the
parties can bring their problems before they can go to the government agencies.
Plant level settlement of issues. This is also illustrated in Labor management
cooperations or labor management councils where again problems are brought and
hopefully resolved in an amicable way. If that doesnt work we go on to the National
Conciliation and Mediation Board on preventive mediation which means mag-uusap
kayo wala munang away. A third party will enter the picture even if the party files a
case in the NLRC or in the Department of Labor we have single entry approach
which means voluntary settling of disputes.
RECITATION OF THE CASE OF ARCO.
What was the issue in the case of Arco?
How many employees were affected?
Was it only the 13 th month pay?
There was also sick leave, paternity leave.
What was the practice of the company before which gave rise to this case?
There was a prorated scheme. But Arco gave seven previous employees full
benefits regardless of the attendance for the said year.
Etong 3 employees why are they given pro-rated benefits?
Arco wanted to give benefits proportional to the service they actually rendered
The direct answer is because they have not worked there for 12 months.
Where was this case initially lodged?
National Conciliation and Mediation Board.
Who rendered the decision? Not the name but the position.
The Arbitrator.
What was the ruling?
Full benefits should be given regardless of the tenure.
Where was it brought after?
2|P a g e
LABOR STANDARDS LECTURES 2 SANCHEZ ROMAN
Court of Appeals.
What was the ruling of the CA?
CA modified the decision.
How was it modified?
CA modified in as much as it affirmed that the CBA between petitioner and the union
did not foreclose the application of a pro-rated payment of 13 th month pay, etc. But it
modified the decision by saying that the practice of the company that the giving of
full benefits to its previous employees were voluntary act of the company and they
may not stop the giving of full benefits.
Atty. Sagmits discussion: Ok, ganito yan. Sabi ni VA wala tayong practice na
binibigay yung buo so pwede natin ngayon ipro-rate. Pagdating dito kay CA, ang
sinabi hindi, basahin mo pwede naman pala yung proportional pero na establish na
natin na in the past binibigay pala ito in full regardless of the tenure kaya siya
modified. There was no error. Even if there are only 7 people but if you look at the
years, consecutive, pag ganun hindi na to mali.
What was the reason why we are discussing this in Article 4?
What does Article 4 provide?
Construction in favor of labor. All doubts in the implementation and
interpretation of the provisions of this Code, including its implementing rules
and regulations, shall be resolved in favor of labor.
Pagdating sa SC, what was the ruling in connection with Article 4?
Since there was no standard, applying Article 4 of the Labor Code, this should be
ruled in favor of labor.
What is the rule with respect to money claims?
With regards to money claims, it is the burden of the employer to prove that the
employee received the benefits that were provided by the law.
So pag ang taong yan nagdemanda, yung worker nagdemanda sa NLRC or sa
DOLE na hindi kayo nagbabayad ng tamang sweldo, the burden of proving that you
are paying the right wages will be on you. Isnt that consistent with Article 4 that in
case of doubt, doubts will be resolved in favor of favor? Ang sabi ng batas ikaw ang
may burden na magpakita. The burden of proving that payment has been made
rests on the employer consistent with Article 4 of the Labor Code.
RECITATION OF THE CASE OF DUTY FREE.
What was the issue in this case?
In the case of duty free, the SC said there was illegal dismissal. There was illegal
dismissal because there was no substantial evidence he committed the offense.
What is pilferage?
Pilfering means theft.
Who is the employer? What was the issue on employment relationship?
Was it even raised?
The issue on employment relationship was raised only during the CA proceedings.
But it was too late.
Why are we discussing this in Article 4? What does Article 4 provide?
Construction in favor of labor. All doubts in the implementation and
interpretation of the provisions of this Code, including its implementing
rules and regulations, shall be resolved in favor of labor.
Why are we discussing this? What is this case again?
Illegal dismissal.
What is the rule in cases of illegal dismissal if connected with Article 4?
Basta may duda, pro-labor tayo. In termination cases, the burden of proving again
rests on the employer to establish that there is termination on just causes. Ok, balik
tayo sa practical, may empleyado kayo, nagalit kayo, pinalayas ang empleyado.
Pagkalayas, pumunta ngayon sa NLRC, tapos takbo sa akin yung cliente, may
problema ako, dinemanda ako sinabi ko lang naman mainit ulo ko. Again the
burden of proving that there is termination on just causes rests on the employer.
In this case, there was evidence that he ordered a co-employee to get the van but it
was not established that it was for the purpose of stealing. He said that it was only
for the purpose of transferring from the main warehouse to the appropriate ware
house.
Article 4 in case of doubt, interpretation and implementation. So statutory
construction, if the provision is clear, it does not need to be interpreted you just apply
it. But if there is a need to interpret, you interpret it in favor of labor. In relation to

that, if its a money claims case, the burden of proving that there was payment rests
on the employer. If its an illegal dismissal case, the burden of proving that there was
a valid termination ground, rests on the employer.
What are the policies with respect to pre-
employment?
ARTICLE 12. Statement of objectives. - It is the policy of the State:
a) To promote and maintain a state of full employment through improved
manpower training, allocation and utilization;
b) To protect every citizen desiring to work locally or overseas by
securing for him the best possible terms and conditions of employment;
c) To facilitate a free choice of available employment by persons seeking
work in conformity with the national interest;
d) To facilitate and regulate the movement of workers in conformity with
the national interest;
e) To regulate the employment of aliens, including the establishment of a
registration and/or work permit system;
f) To strengthen the network of public employment offices and rationalize
the participation of the private sector in the recruitment and placement of
workers, locally and overseas, to serve national development objectives;
g) To insure careful selection of Filipino workers for overseas
employment in order to protect the good name of the Philippines abroad.
Recruitment and placement is undertaken by what sector?
Public Sector.
If you take a look at the conditions on pre-employment, it would seem that there is a
licensing requirement before a private institution can engage in recruitment and
placement as opposed to the public sector which only has the PESO (public
employment service office). For a private sector to enter the picture, there has to be
a proper license.
What is the definition of Recruitment and Placement?
Recruitment and placement refers to any act of canvassing, enlisting,
contracting, transporting, utilizing, hiring or procuring workers, and
includes referrals, contract services, promising or advertising for
employment, locally or abroad, whether for profit or not: Provided, That
any person or entity which, in any manner, offers or promises for a fee,
employment to two or more persons shall be deemed engaged in
recruitment and placement (Section b of Article 13)
What is the role of two-person provision? So, pag less than two, hindi na
recruitment and placement?
As long as the acts mentioned in Article 13 (b) are committed, it is
considered as recruitment and placement regardless of the number of
person. The second paragraph merely provides for a presumption that it
merely lays down the rule on evidence that there are two persons recruited
for employment it means there is recruitment and placement.
Illegal recruitment is what kind of a case?
It is a criminal case. More or less it establishes a rule of evidence when two people
being recruited by the same person. But the fact that only one person is recruited
does not mean na hindi na ito placement. It only to establish the criminal liability in a
criminal case. It creates a presumption on rule on evidence.
RECITATION OF THE CASE OF PEOPLE VS. HERNANDEZ
In the enumeration of recruitment and placement, saan nag fall and People
vs. Hernandez?
The case falls on the act of promising employment and referral.
What happened in this case?
3|P a g e
LABOR STANDARDS LECTURES 2 SANCHEZ ROMAN
Narcisa was a teacher. She was promised by the Spouses that she will be given a
job in Austria because the husband was an Austrian. A complaint arose with 8
information filed.
What was the act of Francisco Hernandez considered as recruitment and
placement?
The act of referring to the Spouses.
How about the Spouses? Were they held guilty of illegal recruitment?
They were guilty of illegal recruitment by a syndicate.
What were the acts of the Spouses?
They promised for employment as a domestic helper. They also required the
payment of processing fee. All these acts were done even if they were not
authorized.
If there was no payment, would the SC ruled the same?
Yes. Because in the definition we have there the qualification, whether for profit or
not.
How did the SC dispense the defense of the wife that she was in Manila?
Even if they were staying in Manila, it does not prevent them to engage recruitment
and placement in Batangas considering that its just a few hours drive.
Would it have mattered if there is one person or two people recruited as
compared to the number of people in this case?
There was no illegal recruitment in this case because there is only one complainant
per case. Dapat nag grupo na lang sila. There should at least three people for it to
be large scale. Large scale illegal recruitment is considered to be an economic
sabotage which will lead to a heavier penalty.
But why is it the penalty is not considered to be an economic sabotage?
The court considered it as illegal recruitment by a syndicate.
What is the definition of a syndicate?
It is illegal recruitment by a syndicate if it is committed by three or more persons
conspiring and confederating together to commit the act.
It is economic sabotage either the victimized is three or more or committed by three
or more.
Bakit may estafa pa? Di ba double jeopardy yan?
There is no double jeopardy in this case.
Estafa in the Revised Penal Code is mala in se. Whereas, illegal recruitment is mala
prohibita.
What is mala in se?
It is punishable under the RPC.
And prohibita?
Punishable under specials laws.
RECITATION OF THE CASE OF PEOPLE VS LALLI.
Who was the complainant and what age?
Lolita, 23 years old.
Lolita was asked by Ronnie if she wants to work in Malaysia. She does not have a
passport but her sister has a passport. She went to the house of her sister because
she intended to use the passport of her sister and replace it with her picture.
What was the job offered to her?
She was offered the job of a restaurant entertainer in Malaysia.
What happened next?
They met with Hadja Lalli. Ronnie told them that they will leave on the 6 th of June
together with Lalli for Malaysia.
So far who are involved?
Ronnie, Lalli and Relampagos.
What is the participation of Ronnie.
Ronnie is the one who referred.
When they went to Malaysia she did not became a restaurant owner but rather a
prostitute.
What is the complaint or cause of action?
Illegal recruitment and trafficking.
What is trafficking?

Trafficking in Persons refers to the recruitment, transportation,
transfer or harboring, or receipt of persons with or without the victims
consent or knowledge, within or across national borders by means of
threat or use of force, or other forms of coercion, abduction, fraud,
deception, abuse of power or of position, taking advantage of the
vulnerability of the person, or, the giving or receiving of payments or
benefits to achieve the consent of a person having control over another
person for the purpose of exploitation which includes at a minimum, the
exploitation or the prostitution of others or other forms of sexual
exploitation, forced labor or services, slavery, servitude or the removal
or sale of organs.
Kung siya ay ginawang domestic helper doon, would there have been
trafficking?
Yes, because the job offered to her was an entertainer and not as a domestic helper.
In the case, was there trafficking?
Yes, because Lolita was illegally recruit to become a prostitute in Malaysia.
What if what was offered is to be a prostitute and she agreed, would the
accused be liable for trafficking and illegal recruitment?
Yes. Illegal recruitment because accused has no authority to transport.
Trafficking because even though there is consent, the accused transported Lolita to
Malaysia for prostitution which is prohibited by the law.
Was there double jeopardy in this case?
None. Trafficking is mala prohibita. Illegal recruitment is mala in se.
What if there is estafa?
As it was held, there is no double jeopardy if there is estafa (mala in se) and illegal
recruitment (mala prohibita).
JULY 8, 2016 : Transcribed by: Krismae Basong
We took up the Rules of Construction and we said that when we take a look at the
cases, it would may seen that, if there would be a need to interpret a certain
provision of law and when there is doubt, it should be resolved in favour of labor. We
saw this in two cases, one in money claim case, where the burden of proving that
payment has been made rests on the employer. We saw it on another case, an
illegal dismissal case where the employer again is burdened with obligation to prove
that the dismissal was any of the causes under the Labor Code. So in both situation,
we see, uy parang bias ang batas natin in favour of labor. However, there is an
attempt to correct this, as you would see in your Labor Relations class when you
take it up, there are some rules where we see the employer winning the case
primarily because they have presented substantial evidence. Of course we also
studied the provision of the Constitution and the Labor Code pertaining the rules on
labor and rules on management. We also discussed the technical definition of
recruitment and placement and also I require you to memorize that because it will be
very important when we try to analyze a situation or try to determine if there is an
illegal recruitment in that case. Of course you will have to enumerate those different
activities that will be considered as illegal recruitment.
We said that there is no double jeopardy when a person is convicted with both illegal
recruitment and estafa, as well as illegal recruitment and human trafficking because
it is malum prohibitum although we are talking the same acts.
Power and authority of the Secretary of Labor. Pursuant to Article
14 of the Labor Code, Employment promotion. - The Secretary of
Labor shall have the power and authority:
a) To organize and establish new employment offices in addition to the
existing employment offices under the Department of Labor as the need
arises;
b) To organize and establish a nationwide job clearance and information
system to inform applicants registering with a particular employment
office of job opportunities in other parts of the country as well as job
opportunities abroad;
c) To develop and organize a program that will facilitate occupational,
industrial and geographical mobility of labor and provide assistance in the
relocation of workers from one area to another; and
d) To require any person, establishment, organization or institution to
submit such employment information as may be prescribed by the
Secretary of Labor.
4|P a g e
LABOR STANDARDS LECTURES 2 SANCHEZ ROMAN
Ang mai-imagine nyo dapat dito are situations where there is war in a particular
country. Thats where the Secretary of Labors power comes in handy. In the
meantime, when the Secretary of Labor could able to repatriate Filipinos who were
working in countries that are at war, she also have the capacity based on the budget
or funding to provide temporary livelihood for the returning OFW. Yun ang nakikita
nating mobility na sinasabi, kasi wala naman tayong control eh kung saan niya
gusting magtrabaho. Pero pag delikado, dapat makabalik siya sa isang lugar na may
employment visa.
Which has the responsibility in recruiting and placing?
As a general rule, it is the public sector pursuant to Section 16 of the Labor
Code.
ARTICLE 16. Private recruitment. Except as provided in Chapter II of
this Title, no person or entity, other than the public employment offfices,
shall engage in the recruitment and placement of workers.
However, Art. 25 of the same code provides:
ARTICLE 25. Private Sector Participation in the Recruitment and
placement of workers. Pursuant to national development objectives and
in order to harness and maximize the use of private sector resources and
initiative in the development and implementation of a comprehensive
employment program, the private employment sector shall participate in the
recruitment and placement of workers, locally and overseas, under such
guidelines, rules and regulations as may be issued by the Secretary of
Labor.
Government Agency that is in charge of recruitment notice for work:
Philippine Employment Service Office. Occasionally, there are job fairs
especially on Labor Day. Jobstreet.com.
Nowadays, dapat may participation na ang ating private sector.
Government agencies are responsible to overseas employment before
POEA:
Overseas Employment Development Board
National Seafarers Board
National Employment Services
Jurisdiction of POEA. Pursuant to Section 6 of RA 8042:
The POEA shall exercise original and exclusive jurisdiction to hear and
decide:
a) all pre-employment/recruitment violation cases which are administrative in
character, involving or arising out of violations of Rules and Regulation
relating to licensing and registration, including refund of fees collected from
the workers or violation of the conditions for issuance of license or authority
to recruit workers; and
b) disciplinary action cases and other special cases, which are administrative
in character, involving employers, principals, contracting partners and OFWs
processed by the POEA.
Before the effectivity of 8042 , POEA has jurisdiction over money claim arising
from an employer-employee relationship by virtue of any law or contract of overseas
employment of the Filipino worker.
*Maam asked about the jurisdiction of the following cases after RA 8042 took effect:
Complaint for unpaid overtime pay NLRC
Refund of placement fees POEA.
Jurisdiction of POEA and NLRC. If you study your POEA rules, you will see there
that one of the grounds of administrative cases is the collection of placement fees
that are not allowed under the law and you will also read there that any money claim
asking for a refund of the placement fees should still be filed before the POEA. So
nakalista lahat nang admin cases, nakalista lahat ang disciplinary cases, so if there
are money claims in connection to any of these items, we still go to POEA. Hindi
pwede na nag-demanda ka sa POEA para ipa-suspend ang license nang agency
tapos palilipatin ka pa sa Labor Arbiter para pa-kolektahin ang money claims. So
you are making it difficult for the employee. So that is why, if you are going to take a
look to the rules very carefully, may provision diyan, nasaan? Hanapin nyo. But all
other money claims should be filed before the NLRC such as illegal dismissal, other
monetary claims that are not collected in the admin or disciplinary cases should be
lodged before the Labor Arbiter.
 LABOR STANDARDS LECTURES 2 SANCHEZ ROMAN

So Labor Arbiter paring court yan. So you have NLRC which is a quasi-judicial
agency which means that it has judicial powers. Judicial Arbiters are like judges. If there is charge for documentation fees, medical examination? Will there
Labor Arbiter is like the RTC. NLRC is the Commission it is like the Court of Appeals. be an administrative case? What is allowed? What is prohibited?

History! Hindi POEA lagi, may mga ibang agencies kaya sinentralize na. Never It is allowable when charging of fees for Land Based OFWS compared to
seafarers. In seafaers, it is stricter. The fact there is collection there must already be
confused OWWA with POEA. OWWA is for the welfare nga, yan yung parang meron
a refund.
silang contribution para if something happens to them, or for any contingency, the
families will get something. That is also a way of documenting OFWs, kaya nga pa When you look at the offenses for Land Based OFWS, it is specific. There can be
ang OFW pinuslit sa bansa, walang OWWA yan. placement. There can be charging of fees, when there is a receipt. That is the
condition. Charging fees before employment in reality, there is already payment.
Ganito kasi yan. Dati, lahat nang related to OFWs is POEA. Ngayon, meron nang
devolution of functions and the jurisdiction of POEA is limited to administrative Example: application, medical examination.
actions and disciplinary cases.
3 Categories of Offenses
Administrative actions these are violations of recruitment laws, rules and
regulations respecting the placement, asking for a refund of placement fees and 1. serious,
2. less serious
other offenses that are committed by placement agencies in the course of licensing.
3. Light
It involves either a warning, suspension of license or cancellation of license.
Enumeration of Serious offenses
Hindi kayo nagbasa. Hindi kayo nagbasa noh! QUIZ!
Section 1, Rule 4: Serious Offenses

July 15, 2016: Transcribed by Betty Belle Irene Fabe Less Serious Offenses and Penalties
Engaging below 18 years of age is not a less serious offense. It is a serious
3 Government Agencies where POEA CAME FROM offense.

1. NATIONAL SEAMEN BOARD A entered with B (agency), salary (1,000 dollars), when A reached the US, A
2. OEDB received less than 1000 dollars? What kind of offense?
3. BUREAU OF EMPLOYMENT SERVICES
Rule 4 (B).
IMPORTANT DATE: with respect to OFWs
If the director of Recruitment and Placement agency, is also a shareholder
in a travel agency?
June 7, 1995 : date of approval of RA 8042
In different capacities.

Why is it important to remember that date?
After that date the jurisdiction of POEA is only limited to administrative and
disciplinary cases.
Administrative Cases
Sec. 28 (a) all cases which are administrative in character, involving or
arising out of violations of rules relating to licensing, and registration of
recruiment and employment agencies or entities;
A owner of recruitment and placement agency. 5 agents, 6 th is an applicant,
and accepted?
Rule (4) #8 without prior approval from the Administration. It is an admin. Case.
Penalties?
Less serious offense, suspension of license, 3rd offense, then cancellation
Remember the case when there was Anti-trafficking and illegal recruitment,
with use of a passport of the sister, Admin. Case?
Yes, Falsifying or altering travel documents of applicant worker in relation to
overseas recruitment activities

What kind of seminar is required before an OFW is required before they can
Administrative Cases Involving Seafarers
leave for the country?
PDOS (Pre Departure Overseas Seminar) Briefing, where the applicants are
Why is collection of refund of fees included as admin case? informed about the place where they are supposed to goallowable behavior,
cultural demands
What about Land based?
Without the PDOS, what kind of an offense is it?
Seafarers should not be charged with any fees when they are recruited for Less Serious Offense
work.
Sending entertainers but when they reach the country of destination, they
There is no similar provision in land based workers. Legally speaking, it is supposed end up as GRO(s)? Admin. Case?
to be a money claim, lodged in the Labor Arbiter. However, since it arises from an Engaging in the recruitment or placement of workers in jobs harmful to public
admin case, nag violate sya nung POEA rule, alangan naman ipadala mo pa for the health or morality or to dignity of the Republic of the Philippines. Serious offense.
Labor Arbiter to collect.
FAMILIARIZE OFFENSES AND CATEGORIES.
What law is applicable now with respect to OFWs?
Discplinary Action Cases
RA 8042 and RA 10022
Money claims may be awardedno need to go to regular courts or to the Labor
What are the 2 kinds of cases that can be lodged in the POEA? Arbiter.
What are disciplinary action cases? Who can be liable in disciplinary action Categories: Serious, Less Serious
cases?
Rule IV, Section 1, A & B
(b) disciplinary action cases and other special cases which are
administrative in character involving employers, principals, Differences. Compare and Contrast.
contracting partners and Filipino migrant workers
Where do you file for admin action for both Sea-Based and Land-Based?
If a case for disciplinary action, what is the procedure for Land Based POEA, unfavorable decision? Sec. of Labor, from 15 days from the receipt of
workers? decision.
POEA, then if unfavorable, appeal to the Sec. of Labor within 15 days.
FOR DISCIPLINARY ACTION CASES
Administrative Cases for Land Based workers POEA, for appeal? 15 days

Who is to be held liable in administrative cases? Be familiar with prescriptive period.

Recruiment and placement agency Categories of Discplinary Action Cases

Classification of Penalties 1. Pre Employment offenses and

5|P a g e

2. Offenses during Employment
Grounds for Pre Employment
Can be blacklisted even before employment.
Offenses committed during Employment: Local Employment?
Terminated
Overseas?
Terminated and subject to discplinary action.
Be aware of the penalties. Limitations of Fine and amount. Grounds for Discplinary
Action against Foreign Principals & Employers.
ACCESS v. NLRC
FACTS: Petitioner hired respondent IBNO MEDIALES to work as a mason
in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia with a monthly salary of 1,200 Saudi Riyals (SR).
The term of his contract was (2) years, from February 28, 1995 until
February 28, 1997. On May 26, 1996, respondent applied with petitioner
for vacation leave with pay and was granted. While en route to the
Philippines, his co-workers informed him that he has been dismissed.
respondent filed a complaint with the labor arbiter for illegal dismissal. And
found guilty and to pay the unexpired portion of the respondent s contract
which is 1,200 multiplied by 8 months representing the unexpired portion.
Petitioner appealed to the NLRC but the latter affirmed the decision of labor
arbiter but modified the appealed decision by deleting the order of refund of
excessive placement fee for lack of jurisdiction. Petitioner moved for
reconsideration with respect to the labor arbiters award by invoking
Section 10 RA 8042 that a worker dismissed from overseas employment
without just, valid or authorized cause is entitled to his salary for the
unexpired portion of his employment contract or for (3) months for every
year of the unexpired term, whichever is less that is why it should be three
years should be used for the unexpired portion. NLRC denied the motion.
ISSUE: IS SECTION 10 RA 8042 applicable?
When did he file the case?
1996, after the magic date of June 7, 1995
Reckoning point? When did the Cause of action arise?
Illegal dismissal
HELD: In the case at bar, private respondents cause of action arose only
from the-time he was illegally dismissed by petitioner from service in June
1996, after his vacation leave expired. It is thus clear that R.A. 8042 which
took effect a year earlier in July 1995 applies to the case at bar.
Under Section 10 of R.A. 8042, a worker dismissed from overseas
employment without just, valid or authorized cause is entitled to his salary for
the unexpired portion of his employment contract or for (3) months for every
year of the unexpired term, whichever is less.
In the case at bar, the unexpired portion of respondents employment
contract is 8 months. Respondent should therefore be paid his basic salary
corresponding to 3 months or a total of SR3,600. This same computation
was made by the labor arbiter in the body of his decision. Despite said
computation in the body of the decision, however, the labor arbiter awarded
higher sum SR13,200 in the dispositive portion.
The general rule is that where there is a conflict between the dispositive
portion or the fallo and the body of the decision, the fallo controls. This rule
rests on the theory that the fallo is the final order while the opinion in the
body is merely a statement ordering nothing. However, where the inevitable
conclusion from the body of the decision is so clear as to show that there
was a mistake in the dispositive portion, the body of the decision will prevail.
The labor arbiters award of a higher amount in the dispositive portion was
error for there is nothing in the text of the decision which support the award
of said higher amount. The correct award to private respondent for the
unexpired portion of his employment contract is SR3,600.
Eastern v. POEA
6|P a g e
LABOR STANDARDS LECTURES 2 SANCHEZ ROMAN
ISSUES:
(1) Whether or not Eastern Shipping Lines is engaged in overseas
employment
(2) Whether or not Manuel Zaragozas widow is entitled to Death benefits
HELD:
(1) Applicable here and petitioner admits this in its Petition is Executive Order
No. 797 which abolished the former National Seamen Board and created in its
place the present Philippine Overseas Employment Administration. Section 4
(a) of Executive Order No. 797 expressly provides that the POEA "shall have
original and exclusive jurisdiction over all cases, including money
claims, involving employer-employee relations arising out of or by
virtue of any law or contract involving Filipino workers for overseas
employment, including seamen. " This provision is clarified substantially in
the Rules and Regulations on Overseas Employment issued by the POEA,
Section 1 (d), Rule 1, Book VI of which provides that "claims for death,
disability and other benefits arising out of overseas employment" fall within the
POEA's original and exclusive jurisdiction.
(2) Eastern submitted in evidence Certificate of Philippine Register Nos.
ICGD-78-0428 dated 28 December 1978 11 and ICGD-84-0288 dated 7
August 1984 12 to show that this M/V Eastern Meteor was registered
with the Philippine Coast Guard in 1978 and again in 1984. Eastern
further maintained that M/V Eastern Meteor had always been fully
manned by a Philippine crew. The record also shows, that this vessel was
at the same time also registered in the Republic of Panama as evidenced by
the Patente Permanente de Navegacion Servicio Internacional Nos. 7708-77
(dated 31 March 1977) 13 and 770877-A (dated 27 February 1987).
Petitioner had in fact paid taxes to the Panamanian government in 1978, 1979
1981, 1982 and 1983, presumably because the M/V Eastern Meteor was
during those years operating under a valid Panamanian navigation license. It,
appears that at the time of the death of Manuel Zaragoza, the Eastern
Meteor was both foreign-owned and foreign-registered on one hand
and upon the other band, simultaneously registered in the Philippines.
Interpreting Section D of Memorandum Circular No. 71, it appears clear that
paragraph 1 covers Philippine seamen working in foreign-registered ships
while paragraph 2 applies to Philippine seamen working on Philippine-
registered vessels.
The parenthetical phrase "except foreign-owned vessels bareboat-chartered
to a Philippine shipping company" in paragraph 2 precisely covers the
situation of the Eastern Meteor, that is, a foreign-owned vessel registered in a
foreign country (Panama), with a second registration in the Philippines; such a
vessel is excepted from coverage by paragraph 2, and hence covered by
paragraph 1 instead. If the MN Eastern Meteor had been registered only in
Panama, there would have been no question that it was covered by paragraph
1 of NSB Memorandum Circular No. 71.
It is well- known that foreign-owned and foreign-registered vessels have
frequently also secured Philippine registration where the interest or
convenience of the owners dictated such second or dual registration. The
effect of the parenthetical phrase in paragraph 2 is, as already
indicated, to bring such dual-registered vessel within the scope not of
paragraph 2, but of paragraph 1. The fact that POEA Memorandum
Circular No. 6 (Series of 1986) in upgrading death benefits (P250,000.00 for
master and chief engineers) specified that such upgraded benefits "shall be
applicable to all Filipino seamen on board any ocean-going vessel provided
the cause of action occurs on March 1, 1986 and thereafter" suggests to us
the correctness of our above reading of NSB Memorandum Circular No. 71.
The underlying regulatory policy, as we see it, is that Filipino seamen
working on ocean-going vessels should receive the same wages and
benefits, without regard to the nationality or nationalities of the
vessels on which they serve.
The SC defined what overseas employment isit is not limited to foreign employers.
It is possible that this company, domestic but it is doing work outside the philippines,
it now falls within overseas employment. Also take note of the 2 indicators.
Eastern v. Surio

FACTS: Respondents Estanislao Surio, et al. were former crewmembers of
MT Seadance, a vessel owned by petitioner Eastern Mediterranean Maritime
Ltd. (Eastern).
On December 23, 1993, Eastern filed against Surio, et al. a complaint for
disciplinary action based on breach of discipline and for the reimbursement of
the wage increases in the Workers Assistance and Adjudication Office of the
POEA.
During the pendency of the administrative complaint in the POEA, R.A. No.
8042 (Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995) took effect on July
15, 1995. Section 10 of R.A. No. 8042 vested original and exclusive
jurisdiction over all money claims arising out of employer-employee
relationships involving overseas Filipino workers in the Labor Arbiters. The
jurisdiction over such claims was previously exercised by the POEA under the
POEA Rules and Regulations of 1991 (1991 POEA Rules).
The POEA dismissed the complaint for disciplinary action. Eastern elevated
the matter to the NLRC. The NLRC also dismissed the appeal for lack of
jurisdiction. Likewise, the CA also denied the Easterns petition.
ISSUE: Whether or not the NLRC has jurisdiction to review on appeal cases
decided by the POEA on matters pertaining to disciplinary actions?
HELD: Although Republic Act No. 8042, through its Section 10, transferred
the original and exclusive jurisdiction to hear and decide money claims
involving overseas Filipino workers from the POEA to the Labor Arbiters, the
law did not remove from the POEA the original and exclusive jurisdiction to
hear and decide all disciplinary action cases and other special cases
administrative in character involving such workers.
When Republic Act No. 8042 withheld the appellate jurisdiction of the NLRC in
respect of cases decided by the POEA, the appellate jurisdiction was vested
in the Secretary of Labor in accordance with his power of supervision and
control under Section 38(1), Chapter 7, Title II, Book III of the Revised
Administrative Code of 1987.
Petitioners should have appealed the adverse decision of the POEA to the
Secretary of Labor instead of to the NLRC.
July 22, 2016: Transcribed by Manilyn Pascioles
Last meeting we discussed the following:
Grounds for disciplinary action for land-based and sea-farers
Grounds for administrative action for both land-based and sea-farers
With respect to jurisdiction, there is commonality between the two sets
of workers in terms of disciplinary action and admin actions
Modes of appeal in case of an unfavorable decision
What is the rule with respect to the direct hiring?
Art. 18. Ban on direct-hiring. No employer may hire a Filipino worker for
overseas employment except through the Boards and entities authorized by
the Secretary of Labor. Direct-hiring by members of the diplomatic corps,
international organizations and such other employers as may be allowed by
the Secretary of Labor is exempted from this provision.
What is the policy behind this prohibition? Like if I were in the Philippines
and I have a relative in lets say in Italy whod like to get me as nanny for
her child, why is she for granted to directly communicating with me and
getting me as nanny, relatives naman kami, kilala ko naman sya, so why?
For the protection of the employee, the labor code provides that no employer may
hire a Filipino worker except through the administration or thru the secretary of labor.
If theres an administration, what is the purpose? Why should the POEA
under the picture?
It provides protection for the rights of the employee.
And how does the administration protect the rights of an OFW?
The administration provides certain rules and regulation to be followed by the
employer. In order to protect the worker in overseas employment, it involves
government to government relationship. The POEA sets rules wherein it would allow
workers in a certain country who has all the qualification.
Bakit kailangan pa sumingit sa eksena ang POEA? Eh Qualified naman
ako?
For the protection of the rights of the employee.
How does the POEA protect the rights of the employee?
This is something that we have discussed before. Hmm? We discussed this diba?
7|P a g e
LABOR STANDARDS LECTURES 2 SANCHEZ ROMAN
Policy, there shall be no employment unless the country has the reciprocal
agreement with the Philippines. The element of protection that will be given by
the POEA will disappear if I will just directly go there and get a tourist visa and
makipagsapalaran ako, then jan papasok ang OWWA for the documentation
purposes. There are many OFWs na sabi nga nila na nakakatakot, minsan pupunta
ng ibang bansa, pagbalik dito naka box na, and if you take a look at the OWWA
directory files, the name of the person doesnt appear because she is an
undocumented Filipino worker.
Last time I distributed copies of the standard employment contract, being followed
by the POEA. Yan yung iniimplement ng POEA to all OFWs. And the protection
given by that contract disappears the moment an employee is directly hired. So
thats the reason why there is a ban on direct hiring.
Who is a name-hire?
A name-hire is a worker who is able to secure an overseas contracts under own
efforts without the assistance or participation of any agency. It is possible that an
employee himself would find his own employer but there is a requirement that he still
has to go through the POEA again for proper protection and documentation.
If you look at the exceptions, these are governmental organizations or agencies that
will seek to protect whoever is sent abroad. Example Diplomatic corps, international
organizations, kung baga meron nang safe guarding. Kaya it is possible and
legitimate to directly hire.
What is the issue in the case of Wallem? What was the ground for the
dismissal?
The respondents were illegally dismissed from their work.
And? Was there a ground to dismiss and why?
No, there is no ground to terminate, there was no conspiracy at all, that the
actions of the respondents were just trying to protect their rights. The international
transport federation went aboard the MV Sanaga. The ITF discovered that the
salaries of these workers were below the required salary imposed by ITF. And then
there was a conference between petitioners and ITF. Thru an agreement, ITF and
petitioners agreed for the increase of salaries of the said workers.
Where was this case filed?
This case is filed in the NSB, the predecessor of POEA alongside with OEDB and
BES.
In the case of Chavez, the cause of action is the underpayment, illegal deduction in
relation to the side agreement. Last time I discussed with you the standard
employment contract. Whatever is placed in the standard employment contract
should be the one implemented when the OFW reaches the point of destination. But
in the case of Chavez, the salary agreed on the contract was . What was the
side agreement all about? . The employee just got how much? The basis for the
deduction was the managerial commission.
The ruling of the SC? The SC ruled that the side agreement was void being
contrary to public policy. The side agreement was not approved by the POEA. If the
side agreement was approved by the POEA, the SC must have upheld the validity of
the side agreement. The SC made judgment on the side agreement but it didnt rule
on the nature of the work as entertainer. Maybe no one submitted that issue in the
RTC. So since the side agreement is void, what is the ruling of the SC? The court
ruled that the petitioner is entitled for wage differential. What is the point, why did I
assigned this case? The case shows the significance of the evolution, this case was
filed in the POEA. Where should this case be filed now? It should be filed in Labor
Arbiter. If I want to go to POEA instead of NLRC and get wage differential can I do it
now? It could be filed in the POEA, an administrative case, (PART IV RULE IV land-
based) since there is a contract already approved, there was a substitution or
alteration of the contract. When you filed an admin case and there is a monetary
involved, you dont have to go to the labor to get it, it is possible to go to the arbiter
or the POEA and file an admin action. You can suspend or cancel the license and
ask for refund.
WHO ARE PROHIBITED TO ENGAGE IN RECRUITMENT AND
PLACEMENT?
Art. 26. Travel agencies prohibited to recruit. Travel agencies and
sales agencies of airline companies are prohibited from engaging in the
business of recruitment and placement of workers for overseas
employment whether for profit or not.
WHY?
There is conflict of interest because recruitment and placement itself is
imbued with public interest, the main purpose why this private agencies are
licensed is because they are in position to acceptable, humane, moral
working conditions to employees abroad but if this recruitment agency also

has travel agency, the interest of the worker takes a back seat and the
private interest of the travel agency will be the priority. So even if the
employer is not acceptable, they will be forcing employee to work because it will
make profit for them, tickets, sales, etc. Take note: private agencies are not
supposed to engage in recruitment and placement, it is actually the government who
has that primary authority but when a person is authorized to engage in recruitment
and placement, there must be an assurance that he will get the best possible
condition for the OFW worker.
Who else is disqualified?
SECTION 2. Disqualification. The following are not qualified to
engage in the business of recruitment and placement of Filipino workers
overseas:
a. Travel agencies and sales agencies of airline companies (ex: ABC
TRAVEL & ABC RECRUITMENT)
b. Officers or members of the Board of any corporation or members in a
partnership engaged in the business of a travel agency (ex: MEMBER OF
ABC RECRUITMENT IS ALSO A MEMBER OF ABC TRAVEL) -
INTERLOCKING
c. Corporations and partnerships, when any of its officers, members of
the board or partners, is also an officer, member of the board or partner of
a corporation or partnership engaged in the business of a travel agency
(ex: MEMBER OF THE BOARD, PARTNER OR DIRECTOR ABC TRAVEL
AGENCY IS THE ONE ENGAGED IN RECRUITMENT BY OPENING A
SINGLE PROPRIETORSHIP RECRUITMENT AGENCY)
d. Persons, partnerships or corporations which have derogatory records,
such as but not limited to the following:
1) Those certified to have derogatory record or information by the
National Bureau of Investigation or by the Anti-Illegal Recruitment Branch
of the POEA
2) Those against whom probable cause or prima facie finding of guilt for
illegal recruitment or other related cases exists
3) Those convicted for illegal recruitment or other related cases and/or
crimes involving moral turpitude; and
4) Those agencies whose licenses have been previously revoked or
cancelled by the Administration for violation of RA 8042, PD 442 as
amended and their implementing rules and regulations as well as these
rules and regulations.
All applicants for issuance/renewal of license shall be required to submit
clearances from the National Bureau of Investigation and Anti-Illegal
Recruitment Branch, POEA, including clearances for their respective
officers and employees.
e. Any official or employee of the DOLE, POEA, OWWA, DFA and other
government agencies directly involved in the implementation of R.A. 8042,
otherwise known as Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipino Act of 1995
and/or any of his/her relatives within the fourth civil degree of consanguinity
or affinity; and
f. Persons or partners, officers and Directors of corporations whose
licenses have been previously cancelled or revoked for violation of
recruitment laws. (Section 2, Rule I, Part II,)
Which is which? Is there a need of conviction?
There are two items. Its either theres a prima facie evidence or theres already a
conviction for a crime.
What if theres a prima facie evidence for a crime involving moral turpitude?
Is that a derogatory record?
Prima facie evidence is not a finding of guilt. Yes, a prima facie evidence
for a crime involving moral torpitude are already considered a derogatory
record. Iba yung prima prima facie evidence or probable cause, iba rin yung
conviction. You have to be very particular.
Whats the next ground?
Persons employed in a dept or other govt offices and their relatives within 4 th civil
degree of consanguinity or affinity. And lastly, partners, officers, and directors of
corporations whose license has been previously cancelled or revoke for a violation
of the labor code or implementing rules or other relevant laws.
8|P a g e
LABOR STANDARDS LECTURES 2 SANCHEZ ROMAN
Sa persons ninyo sino ang kasali sa 4 th degree of consanguinity or affinity?
1st degree cousins and 2nd cousins. By affinity, so kahit di mo kadugo, by
marriage, kasama yan.
What is the required citizenship for an agency?
Only filipino citizens, partnership or corporations or entities of atleast 75% of the
authorized and the voting capital stock that is owned and controlled by filipino
citizens shall be permitted in recruitment and placement of workers locally or
overseas.
What is the capitalization?
For local recruitment agency, for single proprietor or partnership, a minimum net
worth of 200k and for corporations minimum capital of 500k.
Do you agree?
No, For local recruitment agency, for single proprietor or partnership, a minimum
capital of 2M and for corporations minimum capital of 2M.
Is it the same with overseas recruitment?
How about those with old licenses? Renewing their registrations as
recruitment agencies, what is the rule with respect to capitalization?
What is the rule with respect to change of ownership? What will happen to
the license if there is change in ownership?
It is automatically revoked if there is change of ownership.
In partnership, and there is a change in relationship of the partners? For
instance A,B,C are partners forming ABC partnership, B died, there is now
change in partnership. What will happen now to the license issued to
partnership?
It will be automatically revoked.
What if there is an addl travel agent, what is the rule?
POEA rules provides that any addl travel agent, there must be an approval from
the administration.
In the case of bonds, what is the bond requirement under the rules?
Article 31 provides that all applicants for license or authority shall post such cash
and surety bonds as determined by the Secretary of Labor to guarantee compliance
with prescribed recruitment procedures, rules and regulations, and terms and
conditions of employment as may be appropriate.
In the case of Finman. The issue in this case is whether or not Finman is liable.
What was the allegation of Finman?
It alleged that the employees has no cause of action since its not a party to the
transaction between them and pan pacific. And the Supreme Court ruled that the
liability of a surety in a surety bond is joint and several with the principal obligor. In
addition, Art. 31 of labor code provides that And also sec4 rule2 book1 of POEA
rules provides that the bond shall answer for all the other legal claims arising from
violations. In other words, Finman is liable as a surety, as they are solidarily liable to
the employees.
The main purpose of the bond is to ensure that if there is a money claim against the
principal who is not in the phils. Or agent who is in the phils but cannot pay, then the
bonding company will be the one to be held liable. To secure faithful performance of
obligation under employment contract.
What do u mean by solidarily liable? Is it the same with several?
If joint and several, that is solidary. Kapag several, subsidiary ang dating.
In the case of Sameer, the case of Serrano was quoted. Why did I assign
this case under this topic?
This is a complaint for illegal dismissal and reimbursement of placement fee.
Complainant was assigned as a cutter in wacoal company dapat sa quality control
sya. He was informed that he was dismissed from his job. The LA ruled that he has
no cause of action because he was terminated for a just cause since there was
negligence and inefficiency in performance of his job. On appeal, nlrc held that he
was illegally dismissed, there was no sufficient proof of legal termination. On the
issue on monetary award, the nlrc awarded 3mo salary plus plane ticket. Sc ruled
that the award must be equal to the unexpired portion of the contract.
Why? It violates the equal protection clause because it would distinguish
overseas from local workers. Local workers get salary from the time he was illegally
terminated until the decision of the court even w/o working. Local employees get full
back wages. Overseas employees is limited to 3mos. Ofws have fixed employment.
These OFWs have the security of tenure for that said fixed period. Section 10,
amended, now it is only the unexpired portion that will apply. The 3-month provision
was already struck down in the case of serrano as cited in Sameer.

July 29, 2016: Transcribed by Ralph Monday
If it is purely monetary claim at that time POEA siya (Prior to 1995)..but now
it is under the LA.
Admin, Disciplinary POEA, Money claims LA . Anything that has something to do
with license POEA. You cant go to LA and as for cancellation of license.
1.) LA has no granting authority
What are the prohibited practices? Are they applicable to Local recruitment
only?
They also apply to overseas recruitment.
REPUBLIC ACT NO. 8042
ILLEGAL RECRUITMENT
Sec. 6. DEFINITIONS. For purposes of this Act, illegal recruitment
shall mean any act of canvassing, enlisting, contracting, transporting,
utilizing, hiring, procuring workers and includes referring, contact
services, promising or advertising for employment abroad, whether for
profit or not, when undertaken by a non-license or non-holder of
authority contemplated under Article 13(f) of Presidential Decree No.
442, as amended, otherwise known as the Labor Code of the
Philippines. Provided, that such non-license or non-holder, who, in any
manner, offers or promises for a fee employment abroad to two or
more persons shall be deemed so engaged. It shall likewise include
the following acts, whether committed by any persons, whether a non-
licensee, non-holder, licensee or holder of authority.
What are the 3 forms of Illegal Recruitment? How can it be committed?
1.) Non-licensee doing any of the Recruitment activities.
2.) Non-licensee doing any of the Prohibited activities.
3.) Licensee but doing any of the Prohibited activities/practices
in Labor code and 8042.
Prohibited Acts Under RA 8042:
(a) To charge or accept directly or indirectly any amount greater than the
specified in the schedule of allowable fees prescribed by the Secretary of
Labor and Employment, or to make a worker pay any amount greater
than that actually received by him as a loan or advance;
(b) To furnish or publish any false notice or information or document in
relation to recruitment or employment;
(c) To give any false notice, testimony, information or document or commit
any act of misrepresentation for the purpose of securing a license or
authority under the Labor Code;
(d) To induce or attempt to induce a worker already employed to quit his
employment in order to offer him another unless the transfer is designed
to liberate a worker from oppressive terms and conditions of employment;
(e) To influence or attempt to influence any persons or entity not to
employ any worker who has not applied for employment through his
agency;
(f) To engage in the recruitment of placement of workers in jobs harmful
to public health or morality or to dignity of the Republic of the Philippines;
(g) To obstruct or attempt to obstruct inspection by the Secretary of Labor
and Employment or by his duly authorized representative:
(h) To fail to submit reports on the status of employment, placement
vacancies, remittances of foreign exchange earnings, separations from
jobs, departures and such other matters or information as may be
required by the Secretary of Labor and Employment;
(i) To substitute or alter to the prejudice of the worker, employment
contracts approved and verified by the Department of Labor and
Employment from the time of actual signing thereof by the parties up to
9|P a g e
LABOR STANDARDS LECTURES 2 SANCHEZ ROMAN
and including the period of the expiration of the same without the
approval of the Department of Labor and Employment;
(j) For an officer or agent of a recruitment or placement agency to
become an officer or member of the Board of any corporation engaged in
travel agency or to be engaged directly on indirectly in the management
of a travel agency;
(k) To withhold or deny travel documents from applicant workers before
departure for monetary or financial considerations other than those
authorized under the Labor Code and its implementing rules and
regulations;
(l) Failure to actually deploy without valid reasons as determined by the
Department of Labor and Employment; and
m) Failure to reimburse expenses incurred by the workers in connection
with his documentation and processing for purposes of deployment, in
cases where the deployment does not actually take place without the
workers fault. Illegal recruitment when committed by a syndicate or in
large scale shall be considered as offense involving economic sabotage.
Illegal recruitment is deemed committed by a syndicate carried out by a
group of three (3) or more persons conspiring or confederating with one
another. It is deemed committed in large scale if committed against three
(3) or more persons individually or as a group.
The persons criminally liable for the above offenses are the principals,
accomplices and accessories. In case of juridical persons, the officers
having control, management or direction of their business shall be liable.
Were there items familiar? Some are taken from? As in pag mememorize
mo yung sa admin ito narin ang prohibited?
Student: Some provisions in LC 34 may also be found in administrative...
Admin is a longer list... When we are talking of admin we are talking about
overseas...
Does Article 34 of Labor Code Pertain to Overseas?
Atty S: Local lang? Titingnan nyo okay, 34 is the wording for 34 only for local only for
overseas. For both local and overseas? Cross refer to admin. Grounds for
administrative case for land based and for sea fearers...
Dapat alam nyo na yan. Example may nag ask sainyo... chinarge ng sobra ng
recuiter and local saan yan under?
Art 34 LC vs. RA 8042 sec 6 vs. RA 10022 sec 5
RA 10022
Section 5. Section 6 of Republic Act No. 8042, as amended, is hereby
amended to read as follows:
"SEC. 6. Definition. - For purposes of this Act, illegal recruitment shall
mean any act of canvassing, enlisting, contracting, transporting, utilizing,
hiring, or procuring workers and includes referring, contract services,
promising or advertising for employment abroad, whether for profit or not,
when undertaken by non-licensee or non-holder of authority contemplated
under Article 13(f) of Presidential Decree No. 442, as amended, otherwise
known as the Labor Code of the Philippines: Provided, That any such non-
licensee or non-holder who, in any manner, offers or promises for a fee
employment abroad to two or more persons shall be deemed so engaged.
It shall likewise include the following acts, whether committed by any
person, whether a non-licensee, non-holder, licensee or holder of authority:
"(a) To charge or accept directly or indirectly any amount greater than that
specified in the schedule of allowable fees prescribed by the Secretary of
Labor and Employment, or to make a worker pay or acknowledge any
amount greater than that actually received by him as a loan or advance;
"(b) To furnish or publish any false notice or information or document in
relation to recruitment or employment;
"(c) To give any false notice, testimony, information or document or commit
any act of misrepresentation for the purpose of securing a license or
authority under the Labor Code, or for the purpose of documenting hired
workers with the POEA, which include the act of reprocessing workers
through a job order that pertains to nonexistent work, work different from

the actual overseas work, or work with a different employer whether
registered or not with the POEA;
"(d) To include or attempt to induce a worker already employed to quit his
employment in order to offer him another unless the transfer is designed to
liberate a worker from oppressive terms and conditions of employment;
"(e) To influence or attempt to influence any person or entity not to employ
any worker who has not applied for employment through his agency or who
has formed, joined or supported, or has contacted or is supported by any
union or workers' organization;
"(f) To engage in the recruitment or placement of workers in jobs harmful to
public health or morality or to the dignity of the Republic of the Philippines;
"(h) To fail to submit reports on the status of employment, placement
vacancies, remittance of foreign exchange earnings, separation from jobs,
departures and such other matters or information as may be required by
the Secretary of Labor and Employment;
"(i) To substitute or alter to the prejudice of the worker, employment
contracts approved and verified by the Department of Labor and
Employment from the time of actual signing thereof by the parties up to and
including the period of the expiration of the same without the approval of
the Department of Labor and Employment;
"(j) For an officer or agent of a recruitment or placement agency to become
an officer or member of the Board of any corporation engaged in travel
agency or to be engaged directly or indirectly in the management of travel
agency;
"(k) To withhold or deny travel documents from applicant workers before
departure for monetary or financial considerations, or for any other
reasons, other than those authorized under the Labor Code and its
implementing rules and regulations;
"(l) Failure to actually deploy a contracted worker without valid reason as
determined by the Department of Labor and Employment;
"(m) Failure to reimburse expenses incurred by the worker in connection
with his documentation and processing for purposes of deployment, in
cases where the deployment does not actually take place without the
worker's fault. Illegal recruitment when committed by a syndicate or in large
scale shall be considered an offense involving economic sabotage; and
"(n) To allow a non-Filipino citizen to head or manage a licensed
recruitment/manning agency.
"Illegal recruitment is deemed committed by a syndicate if carried out by a
group of three (3) or more persons conspiring or confederating with one
another. It is deemed committed in large scale if committed against three
(3) or more persons individually or as a group.
"In addition to the acts enumerated above, it shall also be unlawful
for any person or entity to commit the following prohibited acts:
"(1) Grant a loan to an overseas Filipino worker with interest exceeding
eight percent (8%) per annum, which will be used for payment of legal and
allowable placement fees and make the migrant worker issue, either
personally or through a guarantor or accommodation party, postdated
checks in relation to the said loan;
"(2) Impose a compulsory and exclusive arrangement whereby an
overseas Filipino worker is required to avail of a loan only from specifically
designated institutions, entities or persons;
"(3) Refuse to condone or renegotiate a loan incurred by an overseas
Filipino worker after the latter's employment contract has been prematurely
terminated through no fault of his or her own;
(Atty S- Very important ito.. na no fault)
"(4) Impose a compulsory and exclusive arrangement whereby an
overseas Filipino worker is required to undergo health examinations only
from specifically designated medical clinics, institutions, entities or persons,
10 | P a g e
LABOR STANDARDS LECTURES 2 SANCHEZ ROMAN
except in the case of a seafarer whose medical examination cost is
shouldered by the principal/shipowner;
"(5) Impose a compulsory and exclusive arrangement whereby an
overseas Filipino worker is required to undergo training, seminar,
instruction or schooling of any kind only from specifically designated
institutions, entities or persons, except fpr recommendatory trainings
mandated by principals/shipowners where the latter shoulder the cost of
such trainings;
"(6) For a suspended recruitment/manning agency to engage in any kind of
recruitment activity including the processing of pending workers'
applications; and
(dj vu nanaman yan saan ninyo nakita? Take note )
"(7) For a recruitment/manning agency or a foreign principal/employer to
pass on the overseas Filipino worker or deduct from his or her salary the
payment of the cost of insurance fees, premium or other insurance related
charges, as provided under the compulsory worker's insurance coverage.
What if OFW charged for immunization for dengue will that be a prohibitted
practice?
Diba sinabi natin sa prohibition pag inoculation dapat nag sign na siya ng
emploment contract. Commence employment then ....
Charging of employee for that is not a prohibiteed practice.
What if there was a publication for oppening for Domestic helpers.. but
once the worker arrived in Kuwait she became a GRO? Is there illegal
recuitment?
Yes. Basis:
(b) To furnish or publish any false notice or information or document in relation to
recruitment or employment;
(i) To substitute or alter to the prejudice of the worker, employment contracts
approved and verified by the DOLE from the time of actual signing thereof by the
parties up to and including the period of the expiration of the same without the
approval of the DOLE;
(f) To engage in the recruitment or placement of workers in jobs harmful to public
health or morality or to the dignity of the Republic of the Philippines as may be
prohibited by law or duly constituted authority; (Ito ang mas obvious)
In the case of Cruz. For a Quitclaim to be reasonable it must be at
least 50% of the claim
The prohibited act in this case was the alteration of salary of the domestic
helper.
(i) To substitute or alter to the prejudice of the worker, employment
contracts approved and verified by the DOLE from the time of actual
signing thereof by the parties up to and including the period of the
expiration of the same without the approval of the DOLE;
The following guidelines were likewise set in Periquet v. NLRC:
Not all waivers and quitclaims are invalid as against public policy. If the
agreement was voluntarily entered into and represents a reasonable
settlement, it is binding on the parties and may not later be disowned
simply because of a change of mind. It is only where there is clear proof
that the waiver was wangled from an unsuspecting or gullible person, or
the terms of settlement are unconscionable on its face, that the law will
step in to annul the questionable transaction.
The Court is convinced that the petitioner was not fully aware of the import
and consequences of the Affidavit of Desistance when she executed it,
allegedly with the assistance of counsel. Except for the disputable
presumptions invoked by the private respondent, such assistance has not
been established against the petitioner's allegation that the "Attorney"
Alvarado who supposedly counseled her was not even a lawyer. Indeed,
even assuming that such assistance had been duly given, there is still the
question of the intrinsic validity of the quitclaim in view of the gross
disparity between the amount of the settlement and the petitioner's original
claim. It is difficult to believe that the petitioner would agree to waive her

total claim of P88,840.00 for the unseemly settlement of only P2,400.00.
And even if she did, the waiver would still be null and void as violative of
public policy.
It remains to state that, contrary to the contention of the private respondent
in the proceedings below that it has no privity of contract with the petitioner,
we have held in a long line of cases that the local recruiter is solidarily
liable with the foreign principal for all damages sustained by the overseas
worker in connection with his contract of employment. Such liability is
provided for in Section 1, Rule II, Book II, of the POEA Rules and
Regulations, which we have consistently sustained.
Who has the authority to issue licenses of Private recruitment agencies?
POEA and Secretary of Labor. Basis:
Article 35. Suspension and/or cancellation of license or authority. The
Minister of Labor shall have the power to suspend or cancel any license or
authority to recruit employees for overseas employment for violation of
rules and regulations issued by the Ministry of Labor, the Overseas
Employment Development Board, or for violation of the provisions of this
and other applicable laws, General Orders and Letters of Instructions.
For POEA saan ang basis?
Under Executive Order No. 797 3 (E.O. No. 797) and Executive Order No. 247
(E.O. No. 247), the POEA was established and mandated to assume the functions
of the Overseas Employment Development Board (OEDB), the National Seamen
Board (NSB), and the overseas employment function of the Bureau of Employment
Services (BES). Petitioner theorizes that when POEA absorbed the powers of these
agencies, Article 35 of the Labor Code, as amended, was rendered ineffective.
In the case of TransAction
Violations Committed
1 "Art. 32. Fees to be paid by workers. Any person applying with a
private fee-charging employment agency for employment assistance shall
not be charged any fee until he has obtained employment through its
efforts or has actually commenced employment. Such fee shall be always
covered with the appropriate receipt clearly showing the amount paid. The
Secretary of Labor shall promulgate a schedule of allowable fees."
"Art. 34. Prohibited practices. It shall be unlawful for any individual,
entity, licensee, or holder of authority:
(a) To charge or accept, directly or indirectly, any amount greater than that
specified in the schedule of allowable fees prescribed by the Secretary of
Labor, or to make a worker pay any amount greater than that actually
received by him as a loan or advance; . . ."
Bakit cancellation? Penalty kasi nga nag exceed nang 12 months that is
tantamount to cancellation
Respondent agency is liable for twenty eight (28) counts of violation of
Article 32 and five (5) counts of Article 34 (a) with a corresponding
suspension in the aggregate period of sixty six (66) months. Considering
however, that under the schedule of penalties, any suspension amounting
to a period of 12 months merits the imposition of the penalty of
cancellation, the license of respondent TRANS ACTION OVERSEAS
CORPORATION to participate in the overseas placement and recruitment
of workers is hereby ordered CANCELLED, effective immediately .
In view of the Court's disposition on the matter, we rule that the power to
suspend or cancel any license or authority to recruit employees for
overseas employment is concurrently vested with the POEA and the
Secretary of Labo.
Can POEA cancel the license of a Local Recruiter?
NO. Jurisdiction is limited to overseas employment for Local Recruiters it is the
secretary of labor who is in charge for the cancellation and issuance of license.
Can POEA issue warrant of Arrest?
No. As held in the case of Salazar vs Achacoso Under the new Constitution, . . .
no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable cause to be
determined personally by the judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the
complainant and the witnesses he may produce, and particularly describing the
11 | P a g e
LABOR STANDARDS LECTURES 2 SANCHEZ ROMAN
place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized. Mayors and
prosecuting officers cannot issue warrants of seizure or arrest. The Closure and
Seizure Order was based on Article 38 of the Labor Code. The Supreme Court held,
We reiterate that the Secretary of Labor, not being a judge, may no longer issue
search or arrest warrants. Hence, the authorities must go through the judicial
process. To that extent, we declare Article 38, paragraph (c), of the Labor Code,
unconstitutional and of no force and effect
For Labor cases what is the burden of proof required?
Substantial Evidence. (Pinaka mababa compared sa civil and crim)
What is the difference between Syndicated Recruitment vs. Large Scale
Illegal recruitment?
September 2, 2016: Transcribed by Elsie Cayetano
We discussed the Filipinos working abroad and Filipinos working in the Philippines.
This time we will be discussing the other way around, if a foreigner or expatriate
working in the Philippines.
Expat-ibig sabihin malaki sweldo mo.
Thats no longer the case . In the advent of globalization even a laborer can come to
the Philippines and work not exactly as an officer, as a manager or trainor but a
laborer or rank in file because of the advent of globalization and the exercise of
bilateral and multilateral agreements between the other countries and the
Philippines.
Q: If a foreigner working abroad now works in the Philippines what will he
do? How will you advice him, what will you do about it?
R: If a foreigner wanted to be employed here in the Philippines then I will advise him
to secure a permit under Article 40.
Q: What do you call that permit?
Recit2: It is called Alien Employment Permit (AEP)
Bago nyo sa siya advisan ng ganun dapat sabihin nyo muna namay employer ka
muna dito. Diba? Is it possible that an expatriate comes here in the Philippines and
secure a permit without an employer?
Q: Is it possible?
Recit1: No maam there has to be an employer.
Okay, so first things first. You have to have a job/employment here a definite
employer and thats the time that you can advise him to obtain that what we call
Alien Employment Permit
Q: Where do we apply this?
Recit1: At the Department of Labor and Employment.
Q: If the work is in Laguna? Where will you apply for AEP?
Recit2: You will apply before the DOLE in the Regional office.
Q: What region is that? (REGIONS)
Dun siya mag aaply, di siya pupunta sa main office pupunta siya sa sub-office sa
Laguna or under Region IV Rgional office no. 4A for Alien Employment Permit.
Q: What are the requirements for application of AEP? I want you to see R.A.
7506 be familiar with it.
There is a need to get an Alien Employment Permit, of what kind of alien?
R: Non-resident alien.
Q: Is this an all encompassing rule? For all non-resident alien?
R: No maam. That is the general rule but we have exceptions. The following are
foreign national that are exempt from securing employment permit:
1) All members of the diplomatic service foreign government officials;
a) Officers of the international organizations such as United Nations;
b) Foreign nationals elected as member of the governing Board
 LABOR STANDARDS LECTURES 2 SANCHEZ ROMAN

Q: Governing Board of what? Is it a Foreign Corporation? You have to be
very specific.
R: Domestic Corporation
Its a domestic corporation, NOT a foreign corporation because IF its a foreign
corporation all the more that we require an alien employment permit.
18-19.In the case of Bernardo, were the handicapped workers considered
regular employees? Why?
20.Under RA 9547 under what condition can a college student avail of the
program?

Q: who are exempted pa? from getting AEP? PART FIVE: CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT
R: (4) Owners and representative of foreign principals whose companies are Transcribed by: Krismae C. Basong
Health personnel in cities and municipalities with a population of at least one
accredited by POEA and these aliens only come in the Philippines for a limited Atty. Sagmit Intro: I think it is basic for you that Labor Code does not apply to
million (1,000,000) or in hospitals and clinics with a bed capacity of at least one
period of time. employees of the government service. So if there is someone whould ask you, why
hundred (100) shall hold regular office hours for eight (8) hours a day, for five (5)
is it that there is no night shift differential in our agency? Where do you work, yun
Q: For what purpose? days a week, exclusive of time for meals, except where the exigencies of the
muna, where do you work? If you are a part of the government, it is the Civil Service
R: Solely for the purpose of interviewing Filipinos for employment abroad. service require that such personnel work for six (6) days or forty-eight (48)
Commission Rules which will apply. Of course some people find that, it is unfair
Mag iinterview ka lang hindi mo na kailangan ng AEP. Nandito ka lang for lets say 1 hours, in which case, they shall be entitled to an additional compensation of at
when you heard about people in the government service who had been in
month, 3 months or short period. Theres no need to get an AEP. least thirty percent (30%) of their regular wage for work on the sixth day. For
employment for many years, compared in the private sector. Yun ang pinaka-basic.
Hindipurposes
muna tayoof this Article, health
mag-uusap nan publicpersonnel
dito, angshall include resident
pag-uusapan natin ayphysicians,
yun in the
Q: Who else? nurses, nutritionists, dietitians, pharmacists, social workers, laboratory
R: All foreign nationals exempted by law and foreign nationals who come to the private sector.
technicians, paramedical technicians, psychologists, midwives, attendants and
Philippines as visiting Chair (inuadible) all other hospital or clinic
A. Working Conditions andpersonnel.
Rest Periods
What does Article 82 provides?
Q: Who else? ARTICLE 82. 84.
Coverage.
R: Resident Aliens. ARTICLE Hours worked. - Hours worked shall include (a) all time during
GR:which
The provisions
an employee of this Title shall
is required to apply
be ontoduty
employees
or to be in
at all establishments
a prescribed and
workplace;
Yung mga married sa Filipino/Filipinas who are considered as resident aliens are no
undertakings whether for profit or not,
and (b) all time during which an employee is suffered or permitted to work.
longer required to get an alien employment permit.
but not to: (EXPN)
chanroblespublishingcompany
1. government employees,
Q: What are the requirements? The documentary requirements for the 2. managerial employees,
application? Are they easy or difficult to comply? Restpersonnel,
3. field periods of short duration during working hours shall be counted as hours
R: The requirements are easy to comply. The requirements are the following: worked. of the family of the employer who are dependent on him for support,
4. members
5. domestic helpers, persons in the personal service of another, and
1) Duly accomplished affidavit form; 6. workers
ARTICLE who85.
areMeal
paid by results -asSubject
periods. determined by the
to such Secretary
regulations asofthe
Labor in
Secretary of
2) Photocopy of passport, visa or certificate of recognition for refugees; appropriate
Labor may regulations.
prescribe, it shall be the duty of every employer to give his
3) Contract of employment, appointment or Board secretary certificate of
employees not less than sixty (60) minutes time-off for their regular meals.
election ; What benefits are we talking about? What benefits are not supposed to be
4) Photocopy of Mayors permit to operate business ; and given to the 86.
employees youve mentioned? Nasa title dibah!
ARTICLE Night shift differential. - Every employee shall beGive
paidme the
a night
5) Photocopy of the AEP coverage, Articlesofblank to than
blank.
shift differential not less ten Pag
percent binigyan
(10%) of kayo nang situation,
his regular pag
wage for each
tinatanong
hour of worksa performed
inyo service betweenincentive leaves.
ten oclock in theYang
evening mgaand yan. Whatin are
six oclock the
Q: How much do you pay for the processing and application of AEP? covered in this title. What benefits are we talking about?
R: 8, 000 which is good for 1 year. morning.

Q: What is the rule in case of termination of employment during the period
of the AEP?
R: The alien must have the option to renew the permit and in case of termination ..
Q: Employment is terminated after 3 months the AEP is good for 1 year.
What is the consequence?
R: If the foreign national will be terminated before the expiration of the AEP. It will be
automatically revoked because he would not have the requirement of having an
employer.
Q: What if he transfers to another corporation?
R: He is not allowed to transfer to another employer. He is prohibited to transfer for
the meantime because his AEP is valid only with respect to the original employer.
Q: So if he transfers what will happen?
R: If he transfers, he needs to obtain another AEP.
He cannot use the old AEP instead he needs to apply for a new one. This time
indicating the name of the new employer and comply with all the requirements
again. Kasi, if you look at the requirements may contract of employment diba? So
thats already exclusive to the one of the original employer. Hindi yan transferrable.
Q: What is the requirement with respect to understudies? What is the
purpose?
employee shall not exceed eight (8) hours a day.
Quiz:
ARTICLE 87. Overtime work. - Work may be performed beyond eight (8)
GR: ARTICLE 82. Coverage. - The provisions of this Title shall apply to
hours a day provided that the employee is paid for the overtime work, an
employees in all establishments and undertakings whether for profit or not,
additional compensation equivalent to his regular wage plus at least twenty-five
but not to government employees, managerial employees, field personnel,
percent (25%) thereof. Work performed beyond eight hours on a holiday or rest
members of the family of the employer who are dependent on him for
day shall be paid an additional compensation equivalent to the rate of the first
support, domestic helpers, persons in the personal service of another, and
eight hours on a holiday or rest day plus at least thirty percent (30%) thereof.
workers who are paid by results as determined by the Secretary of Labor in
appropriate regulations. chanroblespublishingcompany
ARTICLE 88. Undertime not offset by overtime. - Undertime work on any
particular day shall not be offset by overtime work on any other day. Permission
As used herein, managerial employees refer to those whose primary duty
given to the employee to go on leave on some other day of the week shall not
consists of the management of the establishment in which they are
exempt the employer from paying the additional compensation required in this
employed or of a department or subdivision thereof, and to other officers or
Chapter.
members of the managerial staff. chanroblespublishingcompany
ARTICLE 89. Emergency overtime work. - Any employee may be required
Field personnel shall refer to non-agricultural employees who regularly
by the employer to perform overtime work in any of the following cases:
perform their duties away from the principal place of business or branch
office of the employer and whose actual hours of work in the field cannot be
(a) When the country is at war or when any other national or local emergency
determined with reasonable certainty.
has been declared by the National Assembly or the Chief Executive;
EXPTNS:
(b) When it is necessary to prevent loss of life or property or in case of imminent
danger to public safety due to an actual or impending emergency in the locality
ARTICLE 83. Normal hours of work. - The normal hours of work of any
caused by serious accidents, fire, flood, typhoon, earthquake, epidemic, or other
disaster or calamity; chanroblespublishingcompany

1.How long is the duration of an alien employment permit? (c) When there is urgent work to be performed on machines, installations, or
equipment, in order to avoid serious loss or damage to the employer or some
2.What is the purpose of having 2 Filipino understudies? other cause of similar nature;

3.hat is the reportorial requirement with respect to the employment of an (d) When the work is necessary to prevent loss or damage to perishable goods;
alien? and

4.What was the ruling of the SC in the case of Almodeil? (e) Where the completion or continuation of the work started before the eighth
hour is necessary to prevent serious obstruction or prejudice to the business or
5-7.Give 3 types of aliens who are exempted from AEP. operations of the employer.
8.What does TESDA stand for?
Any employee required to render overtime work under this Article shall be paid
the additional compensation required in this Chapter.
9-11.Give 3 differences between apprentices and Learners.
12. What was the ruling in the case of Nitto? chanroblespublishingcompany
13-15.Give 3 apprenticeable occupations.
16-17.In the case of Yrasegui vs. PAL, was the worker considered a ARTICLE 90. Computation of additional compensation. - For purposes of
handicapped worker? Explain. computing overtime and other additional remuneration as required by this
Chapter, the regular wage of an employee shall include the cash wage only,
12 | P a g e without deduction on account of facilities provided by the employer.
 LABOR STANDARDS LECTURES 2 SANCHEZ ROMAN

earthquake, epidemic or other disaster or calamity to prevent loss of life and

property, or imminent danger to public safety;

(b) In cases of urgent work to be performed on the machinery, equipment, or

installation, to avoid serious loss which the employer would otherwise suffer;
chanroblespublishingcompany

(c) In the event of abnormal pressure of work due to special circumstances, where
the employer cannot ordinarily be expected to resort to other measures;

(d) To prevent loss or damage to perishable goods; chanroblespublishingcompany

(e) Where the nature of the work requires continuous operations and the stoppage
of work may result in irreparable injury or loss to the employer; and

(f) Under other circumstances analogous or similar to the foregoing as determined

by the Secretary of Labor and Employment.

ARTICLE 93. Compensation for rest day, Sunday or holiday work.

(a) Where an employee is made or permitted to work on his scheduled rest day, he
shall be paid an additional compensation of at least thirty percent (30%) of his
regular wage. An employee shall be entitled to such additional compensation for
work performed on Sunday only when it is his established rest day.

(b) When the nature of the work of the employee is such that he has no regular
workdays and no regular rest days can be scheduled, he shall be paid an
additional compensation of at least thirty percent (30%) of his regular wage for
work performed on Sundays and holidays.

(c) Work performed on any special holiday shall be paid an additional

compensation of at least thirty percent (30%) of the regular wage of the employee. Atty. Sagmitt: This is the weird part, you have the General Provisions and you have
Where such holiday work falls on the employees scheduled rest day, he shall be the Exception provisions listing down . Malilito kayo ehh. Like meal period. 82-96 ba
entitled to an additional compensation of at least fifty per cent (50%) of his regular yan. Dapat alam nyo. So thats why you have to familiarize yourselves what covers
wage. chanroblespublishingcompany the title and to who are these people are not entitled to. Basic pa yan, very basic.

(d) Where the collective bargaining agreement or other applicable employment What is the definition of managerial employees, crossed-refer to Article
contract stipulates the payment of a higher premium pay than that prescribed 212(m)?
under this Article, the employer shall pay such higher rate. As used herein, managerial employees refer to those whose:
1. primary duty consists of the management of the establishment in which they are
Chapter III employed or of a department or subdivision thereof, and 2. to other officers or
HOLIDAYS, SERVICE INCENTIVE LEAVES members of the managerial staff.
AND SERVICE CHARGES
Article 212(m) Managerial employee is one who is vested with the powers or
ARTICLE 94. Right to holiday pay. - (a) Every worker shall be paid his regular daily prerogatives to lay down and execute management policies and/or to hire, transfer,
wage during regular holidays, except in retail and service establishments regularly suspend, lay-off, recall, discharge, assign or discipline employees. Supervisory
employing less than ten (10) workers; chanroblespublishingcompany employees are those who, in the interest of the employer, effectively recommend
such managerial actions if the exercise of such authority is not merely routinary or
(b) The employer may require an employee to work on any holiday but such clerical in nature but requires the use of independent judgment. All employees not
employee shall be paid a compensation equivalent to twice his regular rate; and falling within any of the above definitions are considered rank-and-file employees for
purposes of this Book.
(c) As used in this Article, holiday includes: New Years Day, Maundy Thursday, Note: 212(m) is the definition used in Labor Relations
Good Friday, the ninth of April, the first of May, the twelfth of June, the fourth of
Atty. Sagmit: A is an employee, a department manager. Everynight he goes
July, the thirtieth of November, the twenty-fifth and thirtieth of December and the
around
In thethe case
factory,
of checks
Penarandathe attendance
v. Baganga. of theWe people. Checks ifwith
are dealing they the
are
day designated by law for holding a general election.
in their properInuniform
manager. additionand goesdefinition,
to the back to hisof aoffice. Is he a employee
managerial manager?under What
is the essence
Article of ahave
82, you managerial
definitionfunction. Yung work
under 212(m). na case
In the ginawa of niya is it
Penaranda,
ARTICLE 95. Right to service incentive leave. - (a) Every employee who has
under
sinothose
pa dawin the
angenumeration?
manager? What are the guidelines?
rendered at least one year of service shall be entitled to a yearly service incentive
Bear
He wasin mind.
not aWhen we talk
manager butabout managers,
a member of a they have thestaff
managerial power to lay down
because of
leave of five days with pay.
and4 formulate
reasons/ policies.
criteria.Sila ang gumagawa. Hindi lang sila nag i-implement. Tapos
pagdating sa Supervisor,
The guidelines are ashindi raw tinally. Kung si Supervisor ka bawal ang tinally
follows:
(b) This provision shall not apply to those who are already enjoying the benefit
edi lalo na si Manager. The title as already held is not controlling. Thats the problem
herein provided, those enjoying vacation leave with pay of at least five days and
when(1) you
Theare
primary duty consists
not familiar with yourofprovision.
the performance
When you of just
workreall
directly
read, related to
you cannot
those employed in establishments regularly employing less than ten employees or management
analyze becausepolicies
you justofread
the the
employer;
provision.Is there an exercise of discretion at all?
in establishments exempted from granting this benefit by the Secretary of Labor
Teka mag-iisip muna ako-independent judgment. Oh manager ka hindi.
and Employment after considering the viability or financial condition of such "(2) Customarily and regularly exercise discretion and independent judgment;
establishment.
"(3) (i) Regularly and directly assist a proprietor or a managerial employee
(c) The grant of benefit in excess of that provided herein shall not be made a whose primary duty consists of the management of the establishment in which
subject of arbitration or any court or administrative action. he is employed or subdivision thereof; or (ii) execute under general supervision
work along specialized or technical lines requiring special training, experience,
or knowledge; or (iii) execute under general supervision special assignments
ARTICLE 96. Service charges. - All service charges collected by hotels, and tasks; and
restaurants and similar establishments shall be distributed at the rate of eighty-five
13 percent
| P a g e(85%) for all covered employees and fifteen percent (15%) for
"(4) who do not devote more than 20 percent of their hours worked in a
management. The share of the employees shall be equally distributed among workweek to activities which are not directly and closely related to the
them. In case the service charge is abolished, the share of the covered employees performance of the work described in paragraphs (1), (2), and (3) above."
shall be considered integrated in their wages.
Okay you have to familiarize yourselves with Art.212(m) and Art. 82.
 LABOR STANDARDS LECTURES 2 SANCHEZ ROMAN

Oh, Why would your employer label you as a branch manager? To deprive you of
the benefits under Art. 83-96. Tapos iikaw nagpabola ka. Andon ka gabi-gabi, wala
kang overtime tapos inisip-isip mo yung sinusupervise mo. Yung iba pinopromote
nila para hindi maka-organize nang union. Leader-leader ha. In Labor Relations a
manager cannot organize a union.

Aside from Managerial Employees, Art. 82 defines Field Personnel.

Field personnel shall refer to

1. non-agricultural employees who
2. regularly perform their duties away from the principal place of business or branch
office of the employer and
3. whose actual hours of work in the field cannot be determined with reasonable
certainty.

(MEMORIZE Art. 82)

How about a driver, is he a field personnel? How about in the case of
Lebatique, was he categorize as a fieeld personnel? We are jumping
because we are connecting with 82 right? Andun eeh edi i-tackle natin.
Lopez v. Bodega City
The woman was terminated and she was claiming that she was an
employee and not a concessionaire.
Pets contention: she could not have entered into the said agreement with
respondents because she did not sign the document evidencing the same.
SC: Settled is the rule that contracts are perfected by mere consent, upon the
acceptance by the offeree of the offer made by the offeror. For a contract, to
arise, the acceptance must be made known to the offeror.

Far East v. Lebatique
SC: As correctly found by the Court of Appeals, Lebatique is not a field
personnel as defined above for the following reasons:
(1) company drivers, including Lebatique, are directed to deliver the goods at a
specified time and place;
(2) they are not given the discretion to solicit, select and contact prospective
clients; and
(3) Far East issued a directive that company drivers should stay at the clients
premises during truck-ban hours which is from 5:00 to 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 to
9:00 p.m. Even petitioners admit that the drivers can report early in the morning,
to make their deliveries, or in the afternoon, depending on the production of
animal feeds.
Taon-taon sa Bar Exam may 4-fold test. The three may be absent but
if the control test, may employer employee relationship.
1) The right to selection and engagement
2) The right to pay wages
3) The right to discipline
4) The right to control
There was this allowance given to Lopez, which she said was
equivalent to minimum wage, hence there is payment of wages.
SC: solitary petty cash voucher did not prove that petitioner had been
receiving salary from respondents or that she had been respondents'
employee for 10 years.

Drivers, like Lebatique, are under the control and supervision of management What evidences should have been presented?
officers. Lebatique, therefore, is a regular employee whose tasks are usually Indeed, if petitioner was really an employee of respondents for that length
necessary and desirable to the usual trade and business of the company. Thus, of time, she should have been able to present salary vouchers or pay slips
he is entitled to the benefits accorded to regular employees of Far East, and not just a single petty cash voucher. The Court agrees with respondents
including overtime pay and service incentive leave pay.
that petitioner could have easily shown other pieces of evidence such as a
Note that all money claims arising from an employer-employee relationship contract of employment, SSS or Medicare forms, or certificates of withholding
shall be filed within three years from the time the cause of action accrued; tax on compensation income; or she could have presented witnesses to prove
otherwise, they shall be forever barred. her contention that she was an employee of respondents. Petitioner failed to
do so.
Atty. Sagmit: What if Lebatique was given his task for today, no bundy in and
out. Do you think SC would still rule in the same. What if may contract of employment?
4-fold test should still be satisfied to determine whether there exist ER-EE
No. (Look at your definition of field personnel) The definition under Art. 82 relationship.
The contract of employment is not a conclusive proof, and 4-fold test should
Field personnel shall refer to non-agricultural employees who regularly
be satisfied.
perform their duties away from the principal place of business or branch office
Sevilla v. CA
of the employer and whose actual hours of work in the field cannot be
determined with reasonable certainty. ID CardRadyo
anv.evidence.
Atty: Sagmit: What are the three relationships that were entertained by Bombo Secretary As to the ID card, it is true that the words
the SC as relationship between the travel agency and Sevilla. "EMPLOYEE'S NAME"
What was the relationship appear
of printed below petitioner's name. However, she
the parties?
Atty. Sagmit.
1) Dibah hindi bundy in-out, malay mo ilang oras lang tapos
Venture failedSagmit:
Atty. to dispute respondents'
Nai-inis evidence
ako sa DOLE diyanconsisting of Habitan's
na case. Bakit testimony, that
ako nai-inis?
na yan.2) Pano siya ngayon babayaran
Employer-employee relationshipnang overtime. Mamaya 2pm he and the
Okay other
at the time"contractors"
of inspection,of DOLE
BodegahadCity such as because
jurisdiction the singers and
there band
was a
tapos kana
3) tapos magdedemand ka nang overtime or 3pm tapos na
Principal-agency performers,regarding
complaint were also issued
Labor the same
Standard ID cards
Benefits, for theone
however, purpose of enabling
of the defenses of
magna-night shift deferential ka. As oppose to Lebatique, you are
them
Bombo to Radyo
enter the
waspremises of no
there was Bodega
ER-EECity.
relationship. The moment this issue
Whatdid make the SC ruled that there is no ER-EE rel. but there is
principal-agency relationship? comes out, this should have referred by DOLE to NLRC. Why?
Main Reason: Absent of control Atty. Sagmit:
1) Because it isAlla legal
your question.
cases ruled that the presentation of the ID card
Indicators of absent of control: willSabi
2) be sa
sufficient
decision,tothere establish
was no ER-EE.
opportunity
IF to
you
present
notice,
evidence
tinanggalsa DOLE.
ko yun
No fixed schedule 3) In my
kasi opinion,and
andali naman this is not magpalit
kasing to demeannang
DOLE,IDitongayon.
very practical.
ID is AaDOLE
WEAK
No quota to reach Regional
INDICATOR.Director is not always a lawyer. Its not a requirement. This is a
question of law which should entail presentation of substantial evidence. So
So in this case, sabi Branch Manager siya. If you take a look of it, pwede the moment there is an issue ER-EE relationship, DOLE SHOULD NOT
siyang manager. How did the SC ruled on that allegation? TOUCH THE CASE.

Branch mgr does not make her employee. The fact that Sevilla had been
14 | designated
P a g e 'branch manager" does not make her, ergo, Tourist World's
employee. As we said, employment is determined by the right-of-control test
and certain economic parameters. But titles are weak indicators.
Kaya ako nainis kasi nag-hari harian si DOLE. Sabi niya aha, employee ka
tapos ito ang dapat mong bayaran. Ikaw employer ito dapat mong bayaran.
So the moment may ganyang issue. Do not touch it and refer it to NLRC,
unless there is an amicable settlement.

What were the evidences presented to establish ER-EE?
Sample ID to show that these person are certified employee-this statement
does not appear to the ID of the employee here.
If hes not an employee, what was he?
Radio Talent
So DOLE has no jurisdiction because there was no ER-EE relationship.
Flores v. Nuestra
Ano trabaho nila?
utility man and, embalmer
bookkeeper andcashier
LA: No ER-EE but paid piece-rate.
SC:
What is the major evidence? SSS. That the respondent had registered the
petitioners with the Social Security System is proof that they were indeed his
employees. The coverage of Social Security Law is predicated on the
existence of an employer-employee relationship.
Issue on Illegal Dismissal, was there abandonment of work?
On the issue of abandonment, however, we find the ruling of the NLRC that
petitioners had abandoned their employment to be contrary to the evidence.
To constitute abandonment, there must be a clear and deliberate intent to
discontinue one's employment without any intention of returning back . The
record shows that petitioners were only compelled to leave the premises,
which they regarded as their home, when the respondent inflicted physical
injuries upon petitioner Herminio Flores. Apparently, what they had given up
was only their place of residence but not their jobs. The immediate filing of a
complaint for illegal dismissal against respondent with a prayer for
reinstatement shows that petitioners were not abandoning their work .
As aptly observed by the Solicitor General, to uphold the ruling of the
respondent Commission that the petitioners abandoned their job "is to put a
premium on the commission of a crime by an employer against an employee
to force the latter to leave his employment so as to preclude said employee
Equitable
from seekingv. reinstatement
NLRC with backwages.
Who was Sadac?
Vice-President for the Legal Department and General Counsel of
petitioner Equitable Banking Corporation.
What gave rise to the case?
The bank asked Sadac for his resignation, in other words he was forced
to resign.
What were the two relationships according to two parties?
Equitable:Sadac is only a retainership
Sadac: He is an employee.
4-Fold Test:
1) Right to selection and engagement
2) Right of payment of wages
3) Right of disciplinary actions
4) Right to control not only with the end result but the manner and methods
this end is achieved.
True or false. All of these rights must be exercised to establish ER-
EE relationship?
False. It is not necessary that the employer exercises these rights, but
what matters is that he possesses the right.
Ganyan ang pag-analyze ha. If you were suppose to say, merong ER-EE.
1) Right of Selection and Engagement. He was not engaged as a
retained lawyer but as an employee.
2)Right to Payment of wages. There were payslips indicating his wages
and he was given SSS. The money he received could not be a retainer fee
15 but
| P aasalary.
ge
LABOR STANDARDS LECTURES 2 SANCHEZ ROMAN
3) Right to Discipline. There was a right to dismiss. The fact of forcing him
to resign is not a manifestation of retainership agreement. Diba sinabi pa nga
na we are just waiting for you to resign. For a retained lawyer, you just have
to end a contract.
4) Right to Control. Indicators of control in the case:
Sadac was monitored through a logbook.
He was suppose to update hiis biographical data every now and then.
Control yun. Pwede mo bang utusan ang retained lawyer mo na i-update mo
biodata mo every six months? No!
He has a workingschedule
He was also mandated to attend planning seminar
In the right to pay wages, there was a car plan gven to him.
Phil. Fuji v. NLRC
What is the job here?
Machine operator
Ruling: There was an ER-EE relationship.
1) Petitioner contends that the service provided by Skillpower, Inc., namely,
operating petitioners xerox machine, is not directly related nor necessary to
the business of selling and leasing copier machines of petitioner.
We disagree. As correctly held by the NLRC, at the very least, the Xerox
Copier Project of petitioners promotes goodwill for the company. It may not
generate income for the company but there are activities which a company
may find necessary to engage in because they ultimately redound to its
benefit. Operating the companys copiers at its branches advertises the
quality of their products and promotes the companys reputation and public
image. It also advertises the utility and convenience of having a copier
machine. It is noteworthy that while not operated for profit the copying service
is not intended either to be promotional, as, indeed, petitioner charged a fee
for the copies made.
It is wrong to say that if a task is not directly related to the employers
business, or it falls under what may be considered housekeeping activities,
the one performing the task is a job contractor. The determination of the
existence of an employer-employee relationship is defined by law according
to the facts of each case, regardless of the nature of the activities involved.
The Rules to Implement of the Labor Code, Book III, Rule VIII, 8, provide that
there is job contracting when the following conditions are fulfilled:
(1) The contractor carries on an independent business and undertakes the
contract work on his own account under his own responsibility according to
his own manner and method, free from the control and direction of his
employer or principal in all matters connected with the performance of the
work except as to the results thereof; and
(2) The contractor has substantial capital or investment in the form of tools,
equipment, machineries, work premises, and other materials which are
necessary in the conduct of his business.
Otherwise, according to Art. 106 of the Labor Code, There is labor-only
contracting where the person supplying workers to an employer does not
have substantial capital or investment in the form of tools, equipment,
machineries, work premises, among others, and the workers recruited and
placed by such persons are performing activities which are directly related to
the principal business of such employer. In such cases, the person or
intermediary shall be considered merely as an agent of the employer who
shall be responsible to the workers in the same manner and extent as if the
latter were directly employed by him.
Skillpower supply manpower to Fuji Xerox.Petitioner Fuji Xerox argues
that Skillpower, Inc. had typewriters and service vehicles for the conduct of its
business independently of the petitioner. But typewriters and vehicles bear no
direct relationship to the job for which Skillpower, Inc. contracted its service of
operating copier machines and offering copying services to the public. The
fact is that Skillpower, Inc. did not have copying machines of its own. What it
did was simply to supply manpower to Fuji Xerox.
The phrase substantial capital and investment in the form of tools, equipment,
machineries, work premises, and other materials which are necessary in the
AFP v. NLRC
conduct of his business, in the Implementing Rules clearly contemplates
SC: Noequipment,
tools, ER-EE relationship.
etc., whichHeare
wasdirectly
a salesrelated
agent. to the service it is being
contracted to render. One who does not have an independent business for
undertaking the job contracted for is just an agent of the employer.
In this case, it gives us a glimpse of what right to control is. Not all
forms of control. He is supposed to be bound by regulations, meron
Thus, Skilipower, Inc. is, therefore, a labor-only contractor and Garado is not
kang territorial assignment diba. You are supposed to sell in this place.
its employee. No grave abuse of discretion can thus be imputed to the NLRC
You are supposed to follow instructions.
for declaring petitioner Fuji Xerox guilty of illegal dismissal of private
1) The right to control means, work schedule is indicated.
2) Quota is set.
3) There is supervision of the work schedule.
In this case, control was absent. So tignan nyo muna ang nature of
work.
 LABOR STANDARDS LECTURES 2 SANCHEZ ROMAN

Feati v. Bautista Atty. Sagmit: My problem here is how did they compute the benefits.
What is the job?

Teachers SEPTEMBER 16, 2016 : Transcribed by PATICIA NICOLE M. BALGOA

What is the allegation of FEATI here?
But the University claims that it is not an employer within the contemplation
of Republic Act No. 875, because it is not an industrial establishment. At most, it
says, it is only a lessee of the services of its professors and/or instructors
pursuant to a contract of services entered into between them.
SC: There is ER-EE. We find no merit in this claim
Among these statutory exemptions, educational institutions are not included;
hence, they can be included in the term "employer". This Court, however, has
ruled that those educational institutions that are not operated for profit are not
within the purview of Republic Act No. 875.
Before we discuss what benefits should be given to a person, that person must
establish that he is an employee of that particular person. If there is a denial of
employment relationship, then that has to be proven first. The one who is alleging
should have evidence to establish that kind of relationship. Of course, Art. 82 also
gives us the exemptions kung sinong klaseng mga empleyado ang hindi covered
under that particular title. And you are supposed to be aware also what provisions
are covered under the title.
We also have to be wary of the title of the work because as we have discussed, titles
are weak indicators of work.
We also have 212(m) which tells us what a managerial employee is.
212m:

As stated above, Republic Act No. 875 does not give a comprehensive but only
a complementary definition of the term "employer". The term encompasses
those that are in ordinary parlance "employers."
The Minimum Wage Law states that "employer includes any person acting
directly or indirectly in the interest of the employer in relation to an employee
and shall include the Government and the government corporations". [Rep. Act
No. 602, Sec. 2(b)].
"Managerial employee" is one who is vested with the powers or prerogatives to lay
down and execute management policies and/or to hire, transfer, suspend, lay-off,
recall, discharge, assign or discipline employees. Supervisory employees are
those who, in the interest of the employer, effectively recommend such managerial
actions if the exercise of such authority is not merely routinary or clerical in nature
but requires the use of independent judgment. All employees not falling within any of
the above definitions are considered rank-and-file employees for purposes of this
Book.

The Social Security Act defines employer as "any person, natural or juridical,
domestic or foreign, who carries in the Philippines any trade, business, industry, MAKATI HABERDASHERY CASE
undertaking, or activity of any kind and uses the services of another person who
Finding of SC?
is under his orders as regards the employment, except the Government and
any of its political subdivisions, branches or instrumentalities, including 4th element of control is present.
corporations owned or controlled by the Government."
Aside from the four-fold test, what did the SC say about the positions?
Teachers are "employees' has been held in a number of cases. This Court in
the Far Eastern University case, supra, considered university instructors as The positions were necessary and desirable for the operation of the business.
employees and declared Republic Act No. 875 applicable to them in their
employment relations with their school. The professors and/or instructors of the How was control established?
University neither ceased to be employees when they struck, for Section 2 of
Rep. Act 875 includes among employees any individual whose work has They have to report for work regularly from 9:30 a.m. to 6:00 or 7:00 p.m. and are
ceased as consequence of, or in connection with a current labor dispute. paid an additional allowance of P 3.00 daily if they report for work before 9:30 a.m.
Striking employees maintain their status as employees of the employer. and which is forfeited when they arrive at or after 9:30 a.m. 11. As to the tailors,
there was a memorandum which was issued for them to strictly comply with.
The contention of the University that the professors and/or instructors
are independent contractors, because the University does not exercise So the tailors in this case are considered to be (1) employees, and statutory-wise (2)
control over their work, is likewise untenable. This Court takes judicial regular employees.
notice that a university controls the work of the members of its faculty; that a
university prescribes the courses or subjects that professors teach, and when
and where to teach; that the professors' work is characterized by regularity and
continuity for a fixed duration; that professors are compensated for their
services by wages and salaries, rather than by profits; that the professors
and/or instructors cannot substitute others to do their work without the consent CAURDANETAAN CASE
of the university; and that the professors can be laid off if their work is found not
satisfactory. All these indicate that the university has control over their work; What is the issue?
Jardin
and v. NLRCare, therefore, employees and not independent contractors.
professors
What are
There does his work?
authorities in support of this view. Whether or not the cargadores are employees of Corfarm Ricemill.
Taxi driver
Employers contention?
The principal consideration
lessor-lessee relationshipin determining whether a workman is an employee What were they carrying?
or an independent contractor is the right to control the manner of doing the
work, and it is not the actual exercise of the right by interfering with the work, As cargadores, they are in-charge of loading and unloading the sacks of palay.
but the right to control, which constitutes the test.
SC: The relationship between jeepney owners/operators on one hand and Allegations of the rice milling company?
jeepney drivers on the other under the boundary system is that of employer-
Employees
employee andare notthose who are compensated
of lessor-lessee. for their
We explained that in the labor
lease or services
of chattels,
by According to the rice milling company, they are not regular employees because they
thewages rathercomplete
lessor loses than by control
profits.over the chattel leased although the lessee
were just street-hired workers.
cannot be reckless in the use thereof, otherwise he would be responsible for
the damages to the lessor. In the case of jeepney owners/operators and Ruling of SC?
jeepney drivers, the former exercise supervision and control over the latter.
The management of the business is in the owner's hands. The owner as SC held that they are employees of Corfarm because the work done by the
holder of the certificate of public convenience must see to it that the driver cargadores are necessary and vital to the operations of the rice mill.
follows the route prescribed by the franchising authority and the rules
promulgated as regards its operation.

Now, the fact that the drivers do not receive fixed wages but get only that in RUGA CASE
excess of the so-called "boundary" they pay to the owner/operator is not
sufficient to withdraw the relationship between them from that of employer What was the work done?
and employee. We have applied by analogy the abovestated doctrine to the
16 relationships
| P a g e between bus owner/operator and bus conductor, auto-calesa
owner/operator and driver, and recently between taxi owners/operators and
taxi drivers. Hence, petitioners are undoubtedly employees of private
respondent because as taxi drivers they perform activities which are usually
necessary or desirable in the usual business or trade of their employer.

They were fishermen crew members.
*How different is this case from the case of dela Cruz? Are they the same?
No, they are not the same. In the case of Ruga, they are considered as covered by
Article 82, while in the case of dela Cruz, the fishermen are considered as managers
and are not covered by Article 82.
They are the same because there is employment relationship. There is also a
distinction because one set of employees is rank-and-file, while the employee in
dela Cruz is considered as manager.
Was there employment relationship in the case of Ruga?
Yes, because the element of control is present.
How was control established?
There was control in this case since de Guzman, through its operations manager,
supervised and controlled the conduct of their fishing operations as to the fixing of
the schedule of the fishing trips, the direction of the fishing vessel, the volume or
number of tubes of the fish-catch the time to return to the fishing port, which were
communicated to the patron/pilot by radio (single side band). While performing the
fishing operations, petitioners received instructions via a single-side band radio from
private respondent's operations manager who called the patron/pilot in the morning.
They are told to report their activities, their position, and the number of tubes of fish-
catch in one day. Clearly thus, the conduct of the fishing operations was monitored
by private respondent thru the patron/pilot of 7/B Sandyman II who is responsible for
disseminating the instructions to the crew members.
So you see an element of control here which is the most important indicator in the
four-fold test, and the control is not only as to the result but also as to the manner by
which the end-result is achieved.
MARAGUINOT CASE
What was the nature of their work?
Petitioners tasks consisted of loading, unloading and arranging movie equipment in
the shooting area as instructed by the cameraman, returning the equipment to Viva
Films warehouse, assisting in the fixing of the lighting system, and performing other
tasks that the cameraman and/or director may assign.
What gave rise to the case?
When the petitioners asked for their salary to be adjusted to the minimum wage rate,
instead of getting an increase, they were asked to sign a blank document. When
they refused, their services were terminated.
What was the main defense of Viva Films?
Viva denied that they are the employer of petitioners, saying that it was primarily
engaged in the distribution and exhibition of movies -- but not in the business of
making movies; Viva also asserted that they contract persons called producers --
also referred to as associate producers.
Ruling of SC?
SC ruled that petitioners are regular employees of Viva, NOT project employees.
They are regular employees not of the associate producer, but of Viva Films,
applying the four-fold test where the element of control is herein present.
There was quality-control, sinasabi kung saan ka assigned na movie. Hindi pwede
na kung saan gusto mo ma-assign dun lang. They were not classified as project
employees because there is a need for a cameraman. Here, i-pu-pull out nila,
dadalhin sa isang movie. Kung kailangan na naman dito, i-pu-pull-out na naman. So
hindi yan specific or particular na project.
DAVID CASE
What was the job of the one alleging to be an employee?
Butcher.
What was the defense of the hog-dealer?
That there is no employment relationship.
Ruling of Arbiter with respect to the relationship?
That it was Pakyaw and there was no employment relationship.
NLRC Ruling?
17 | P a g e
LABOR STANDARDS LECTURES 2 SANCHEZ ROMAN
Affirmed Arbiter ruling.
CA Ruling?
Affirmed that it was Pakyaw, but said that he is a field personnel.
SC Ruling?
That there is employer-employee relationship basing on the four-fold test.
First, David engaged the services of Macasio, thus satisfying the element of
"selection and engagement of the employee." David categorically confirmed this fact
when, in his "Sinumpaang Salaysay," he stated that "nag apply po siya sa akin at
kinuha ko siya na chopper[.]"39
Second, David paid Macasios wages.
Third, David had been setting the day and time when Macasio should report for
work. This power to determine the work schedule obviously implies power of control.
By having the power to control Macasios work schedule, David could regulate
Macasios work and could even refuse to give him any assignment, thereby
effectively dismissing him.
And fourth, David had the right and power to control and supervise Macasios work
as to the means and methods of performing it. In addition to setting the day and time
when Macasio should report for work, the established facts show that David rents
the place where Macasio had been performing his tasks. Moreover, Macasio would
leave the workplace only after he had finished chopping all of the hog meats given to
him for the days task. Also, David would still engage Macasios services and have
him report for work even during the days when only few hogs were delivered for
butchering.
Did butcher work within the premises of the hog-dealer? Was is the same place that
the hog-dealer operated? If not, how can there be control?
NO, it was not the usual work place. HOWEVER, the place where the butcher works
was rented by the hog-dealer. It was established that David was the one leasing the
property so that the butcher can work there and he can only leave after he has
performed his work.
Could the SC rule on the same way if the butcher was working in his own home?
YES. There would still be control by David if David still demands the manner by
which the work is to be done.
How about the fact that he is paid by Pakyaw? Does it mean that he is not an
employee?
NO. Pakyaw is just the mode of compensation. The mode of compensation is not a
patent indicator of presence or absence of employment relationship. (TAKE NOTE
OF THIS!!!)
What will determine employment relationship is still the FOUR-FOLD TEST.
SAN MIGUEL CASE
What is the issue?
The issue is on the management prerogative of San Miguel.
What is management prerogative?
MANAGEMENT PREROGATIVE means that except as limited by special laws, an
employer is free to regulate, according to his own discretion and judgment, all
aspects of employment, including hiring, work assignments, working methods, time,
place and manner of work, tools to be used, processes to be followed, supervision of
workers, working regulations, transfer of employees, work supervision, lay-off of
workers and the discipline, dismissal and recall of work. (Nag ask si maam to
recite this without reading. So I think we should MEMORIZE this)
In short, it is the right of every employer to regulate every aspect of
employment.
How much management prerogative should be exercised?
Management prerogative should be exercised in good faith for the advancement of
the employer's interest and not for the purpose of defeating or circumventing the
rights of the employees under special laws or under valid agreements.
Was there a valid exercise of management prerogative in this case?

YES. Although there was an introduction of a new marketing system, there was no
diminution of the incentives that will be received by the workers.
If it does not violate any of the existing rights, it is still part and parcel of what we call
as management prerogative.
Bottomline, management prerogative is something that is possessed by the
employer but it is subject to censure when there is unreasonableness. When the
intention is to defeat the rights given to the workers, hindi na valid.
SONZA/MURILLO/NAZARENO CASES
In the case of Sonza, there was no employment relationship. In Murillo, there was an
employment relationship.
Similarity: Both appearing on tv.
Ruling in the case of Sonza?
There was no employer-employee relationship.
Applying the four-fold test:
ABS-CBN engaged SONZAs services to co-host its television and radio programs
because of SONZAs peculiar skills, talent and celebrity status. Independent
contractors often present themselves to possess unique skills, expertise or talent to
distinguish them from ordinary employees. If SONZA did not possess such unique
skills, talent and celebrity status, ABS-CBN would not have entered into the
Agreement with SONZA but would have hired him through its personnel department
just like any other employee.
ABS-CBN directly paid SONZA his monthly talent fees with no part of his fees going
to MJMDC. SONZAs talent fees, amounting to P317,000 monthly in the second and
third year, are so huge and out of the ordinary that they indicate more an
independent contractual relationship rather than an employer-employee relationship.
ABS-CBN agreed to pay SONZA such huge talent fees precisely because of
SONZAs unique skills, talent and celebrity status not possessed by ordinary
employees. The power to bargain talent fees way above the salary scales of
ordinary employees is a circumstance indicative, but not conclusive, of an
independent contractual relationship.
For violation of any provision of the Agreement, either party may terminate their
relationship. SONZA failed to show that ABS-CBN could terminate his services on
grounds other than breach of contract, such as retrenchment to prevent losses as
provided under labor laws. Moreover, the manner by which SONZA terminated his
relationship with ABS-CBN is immaterial. Whether SONZA rescinded the Agreement
or resigned from work does not determine his status as employee or independent
contractor.
Applying the control test to the present case, we find that SONZA is not an
employee but an independent contractor. The greater the supervision and control the
hirer exercises, the more likely the worker is deemed an employee. ABS-CBN
engaged SONZAs services specifically to co-host the "Mel & Jay" programs. How
SONZA delivered his lines, appeared on television, and sounded on radio were
outside ABS-CBNs control. ABS-CBN could not dictate the contents of SONZAs
script. The clear implication is that SONZA had a free hand on what to say or
discuss in his shows provided he did not attack ABS-CBN or its interests.
What was the indicator of control in the case of Murillo?
Murillo is a newscaster. Thus, TV5 controls what Murillo says, which is not present
in the case of Sonza. She is also not earning as much as Sonza, indicating that
there was no talent-network relationship.
How do you compare Sonza with Nazareno?
In Nazareno the workers are production assistants. There is an employer-employee
relationship in Nazareno, but there is none in the Sonza case.
Applying the four-fold test (even if the 3 are absent, as long as the element of
control is present, then there is employment relationship) in the case of Nazareno:
Right to hire: comparing to the Sonza case, the petitioners in this case are not hired
for their special skills. So they are not talents.
Payment of wages: they are receiving a fixed amount and they cannot demand for
wage adjustment.
Right to discipline: in case ABS-CBN is not satisfied with their work, it can terminate
them, subject to rules and regulations.
Right to control: ABS-CBN applies control through the supervisors. They are rank-
and-file employees who are under the stipulations of the collective bargaining
agreement (CBA), contrary to talents who are excluded from the stipulations of the
CBA.
18 | P a g e
LABOR STANDARDS LECTURES 2 SANCHEZ ROMAN
Which cases are the same?
The cases of Murillo and Nazareno are the same since there is employer-employee
relationship in both cases.
Memorize the indicators of MANAGERIAL POSTS. Meron kayong pertinent-
pertinent dyan. Very important! (I dont know aha ni makita)
ULTRAVILLA CASE
What is the issue in tthis case?
Whether he is a personal driver or a regular employee.
Why is it important to determine whether or not he is a personal driver?
It is important because there is also a question on whether or not he is also entitled
to certain incentives, thirteenth-month pay, overtime pay, and premium pay.
Of course, Article 82 tells us what?
It tells us that personal drivers, or those in the personal service of another, are
excluded from the coverage of articles 83-96 of the Labor Code.
What is the ruling of the SC?
Driver is considered as a personal driver. Thus, he is excluded from the payment of
the abovementioned pays.
Isnt it that there is no mention of personal driver under Article 82?
The court here referred to Article 141 of the Labor Code in ruling that personal
drivers are under the personal service of another.
Art. 141. Coverage. This Chapter shall apply to all persons rendering services
in households for compensation.
Domestic or household service" shall mean services in the employers home which is
usually necessary or desirable for the maintenance and enjoyment thereof and
includes ministering to the personal comfort and convenience of the members of the
employers household, including services of family drivers.
Personal drivers or family drivers are included in the concept of domestic helpers.
Since they are domestic helpers by nature, Article 82excludes them from the
coverage.
DELA CRUZ CASE
Why is it different from the Ruga case?
It is different because he was the chief patron. As chief patron, he was considered a
manager and is excluded from the coverage of Article 82.
Was there employment relationship?
YES, there was employment relationship. But he is not entitled to any of the benefits
in Articles 83-96.
September 21, 2016: Transcribed by Jessalyn Puerin
Last time we finished Article 82.
Exclusion of employees:
1. Managerial
2. Domestic (helper, housekeeper)
3. Field Personnel
4. In Personal Service (e.g. alalay, masseur, stylist)
What is the usual working hours a day?
Article 83. Normal hours of work. The normal hours of work of any
employee shall not exceed eight (8) hours a day.

Health personnel in cities and municipalities with a population of at
least one million (1,000,000) or in hospitals and clinics with a bed
capacity of at least one hundred (100) shall hold regular office hours
for eight (8) hours a day, for five (5) days a week, exclusive of time
for meals, except where the exigencies of the service require that
such personnel work for six (6) days or forty-eight (48) hours, in
which case, they shall be entitled to an additional compensation of at
least thirty percent (30%) of their regular wage for work on the sixth
day. For purposes of this Article, "health personnel" shall include
resident physicians, nurses, nutritionists, dietitians, pharmacists,
social workers, laboratory technicians, paramedical technicians,
psychologists, midwives, attendants and all other hospital or clinic
personnel.
If the usual hour here on a regular basis assuming P100, how much is our
basic pay on sixth day?
Answer: P130 (P100 X 1.30)
Who are considered employees in a hospital/medical institutions?
Answer: Resident physicians, nurses, nutritionists, dietitians, pharmacists, social
workers, laboratory technicians, paramedical technicians, psychologists, midwives,
attendants and all other hospital or clinic personnel
What Article 84 provides?
Article 84. Hours worked. Hours worked shall include-
(a) all time during which an employee is required to be on duty or to
be at a prescribed workplace; and (b) all time during which an
employee is suffered or permitted to work.
Rest periods of short duration during working hours shall be
counted as hours worked.
What if an employee takes a nap for 10 minutes, will he be paid for that
time or can be considered as rest time?
Answer: No. Rest periods of short duration during working hours shall be counted as
hours worked (last paragraph of Art. 84). However some employers considered it
depending on the nature of the operations. Its a case to case basis to be considered
the napping/resting as compensable.
There are principles in determining working hours. What are these
principles?
IRR BOOK III RULE 1
SECTION 3. Hours worked. The following shall be considered as
compensable hours worked:
(a) All time during which an employee is required to be on duty or to
be at the employer's premises or to be at a prescribed work place;
and
(b) All time during which an employee is suffered or permitted to
work.cralaw
SECTION 4. Principles in determining hours worked. The
following general principles shall govern in determining whether the
time spent by an employee is considered hours worked for purposes
of this Rule:
(a) All hours are hours worked which the employee is required to
give his employer, regardless of whether or not such hours are spent
in productive labor or involve physical or mental exertion.
(b) An employee need not leave the premises of the work place in
order that his rest period shall not be counted, it being enough that
he stops working, may rest completely and may leave his work
19 | P a g e
LABOR STANDARDS LECTURES 2 SANCHEZ ROMAN
place, to go elsewhere, whether within or outside the premises of his
work place.
(c) If the work performed was necessary, or it benefited the employer,
or the employee could not abandon his work at the end of his normal
working hours because he had no replacement, all time spent for
such work shall be considered as hours worked, if the work was with
the knowledge of his employer or immediate supervisor.
(d) The time during which an employee is inactive by reason of
interruptions in his work beyond his control shall be considered
working time either if the imminence of the resumption of work
requires the employee's presence at the place of work or if the
interval is too brief to be utilized effectively and gainfully in the
employee's own interest.
Maam: If there are interruptions that you cannot do personal, then that is
still considered compensable.
Related case: PAL vs NLRC, where the person involved was flight surgeon.
Issue: Whether he can be considered to have abandoned his work because
he left the premises to get his dinner?
He was suspended for abandonment of work. So you will connect it now to
the break time na sa ating provision ngayon no. Number question yong
flight surgeon ba, was he supposed to be out of the premises that he can
be considered as resting?
No Maam.
Maam: No because the implementing rules par. B of Sec. 4 IRR BookIII
RULE I
SC: There is no abandonment of post and the flight surgeon is in good faith.
Maam: How about ahmm, what if the driver waits for the time the truck can
already drive the normal_____ area(may truck ban tayo di ba).
Is the waiting time compensable?
SECTION 5. Waiting time. (a) Waiting time spent by an employee
shall be considered as working time if waiting is an integral part of his
work or the employee is required or engaged by the employer to wait.
(b) An employee who is required to remain on call in the employer's
premises or so close thereto that he cannot use the time effectively
and gainfully for his own purpose shall be considered as working while
on call. An employee who is not required to leave word at his home or
with company officials where he may be reached is not working while
on call.
Maam: What if yong driver nagantay ng anak ng amo na makauwi tapos
while waiting nagtotong 8s siya? Yon ba dapat bayaran?
YES as long as integral part of his work.
Maam: What if inabot siya ng 12 ng gabi kakahintay sa kanyang amo
nagtotong-its siya?
Presumption is family driver siya. Noh he is a family driver and his wasting
time, he will not be compensated for that time.
Maam: How about there is maintenance of machine and nagkantaon
kailangan imaintain weekday ayon si Pedro nagaantay , so he will be paid
for that time na he is waiting for the maintenance to be done?
Yes. The basis is the Pan American case. It is the combination of the
interruption outside their control and waiting time which is the integral part
of their job. He is to wait because he cannot work without the machine.
What is the person is on call? He can roam around but he is on call, are we
supposed to pay him for the time he is on call?
Paragraph b of Section 5 Rule1 Book 3 of IRR:

(b) An employee who is required to remain on call in the employer's
premises or so close thereto that he cannot use the time effectively
and gainfully for his own purpose shall be considered as working while
on call. An employee who is not required to leave word at his home or
with company officials where he may be reached is not working while
on call.
What is the rule on trainings, lectures and meetings?
SECTION 6 (IRR Rule1 Book 3). Lectures, meetings, training programs.
Attendance at lectures, meetings, training programs, and other
similar activities shall not be counted as working time if all of the
following conditions are met:
(a) Attendance is outside of the employee's regular working hours;
(b) Attendance is in fact voluntary; and
(c) The employee does not perform any productive work during such
attendance.
Related case: NDC vs CIR
Ruling: The one hour meal time period is compensable. The work was
continuous.
Maam: Principle during that time to determine if need to give overtime pay?
Commonwealth Act 444
Pan America World vs Pan America Employees
Ruling: Yes. The one-hour meal period is compensable since mechanics
were required to stand by for emergency works.
What is the rule on Travel?
Rule: Time spent travelling to or from the place of work may or may not be
considered working time. It depends upon the kind of travel involved.
1. Travel from home to work
2. Travel that is all the days work
3. Travel away from home
Maam: What if attend seminar from here to Manila? What aspect can
considered as compensable?
When a person supposed to be outside the premises, the rule is the time
spent to that day and even going back is considered as compensable.
Nagkakaroon lang tayo ng issue ng papunta at pabalik kung papunta ng
office, it is compensable at ang pauwi ang hindi. Pero pag out of town, ang
papunta at pauwi ay considered compensable time. Hindi na issue kung
papunta o pabalik.
Maam: In the case of PRISCO vs CIR, when is the time it was
compensated? Activity?
Security Guards: Reporting one hour before time of duty
Maam: Purpose?
For disciplining/disciplinary measure.
Maam: So there was tacit affirmation na to discipline or eenforce yong
policy. The SC said that since it was a policy implemented by the
management and since the 3 requirements hindi na satisfy.
3 elements not counted as working time:
(a) Attendance is outside of the employee's regular working
hours;
(b) Attendance is in fact voluntary; and
(c) The employee does not perform any productive work during
such attendance.
Sibal vs Notre Dame
Maam: Petitioner was a school nurse. There was change of terms and
conditions of employment and it was not tackled by the administration and
later on, after 3 summers hndi binigyan ng vacation leave.
20 | P a g e
LABOR STANDARDS LECTURES 2 SANCHEZ ROMAN
SC: Semestral Break is considered as hours worked.
Maam: Even if it is not work, the absence/interruption is something not
within their control.
What is the peculiarity in circumstances of seamen? Whats peculiar about
their employment?
Seamen are required to stay on board their vessels by the very nature of
their duties, and it is for this reason that, in addition to their regular
compensation, they are given free living quarters and subsistence
allowances when required to be on board. It could not have been the
purpose of our law to require their employers to pay the overtime even
when they are not actually working; otherwise, every sailor on board a
vessel would be entitled to overcome for sixteen hours each day, even if he
had spent all those hours resting or sleeping in his bunk, after his regular
tour of duty.
What about the meal periods that shoud be given by employees? How long
is the meal period?
Article 85. Meal periods. Subject to such regulations as the Secretary
of Labor may prescribe, it shall be the duty of every employer to give
his employees not less than sixty (60) minutes time-off for their regular
meals.
Can there be a shorter period? There can be short periods. Under what
circumstances and how long?
SECTION 7. Meal and Rest Periods. Every employer shall give
his employees, regardless of sex, not less than one (1) hour time-off
for regular meals, except in the following cases when a meal period of
not less than twenty (20) minutes may be given by the employer
provided that such shorter meal period is credited as compensable
hours worked of the employee:
(a) Where the work is non-manual work in nature or does not involve
strenuous physical exertion;
(b) Where the establishment regularly operates not less than sixteen
(16) hours a day;
(c) In case of actual or impending emergencies or there is urgent work
to be performed on machineries, equipment or installations to avoid
serious loss which the employer would otherwise suffer; and
(d) Where the work is necessary to prevent serious loss of perishable
goods.
Rest periods or coffee breaks running from five (5) to twenty (20)
minutes shall be considered as compensable working time.
Maam: How about 60 minutes, is that compensable?
No.
Maam: If you have period of 60 minutes or more, shall not be considered
as compensable if the employees devote their time for their own personal
use.
How about coffee break, is that compensable?
Rest periods or coffee breaks running from five (5) to twenty (20) minutes
shall be considered as compensable working time. (last paragraph of Sec.7
Rule 1 Book 3 of IRR)
Maam: Puwede meal period on a daily basis 60 minutes pero pag may
emergency puwede 20 minutes ka. Or halimbawa today may perishable
goods ka then you can require your employee to have a meal period of 20
minutes lang pero ang practice niyo talaga 60 minutes. Puwede ganun.
Pero hindi iimpose yong 20-minute meal break kung hindi na satisfy yong
requirements.
Rationale was for efficiency of employee. Managements prerogative.
How much is the rate for overtime and holidays?
 LABOR STANDARDS LECTURES 2 SANCHEZ ROMAN

Article 87. Overtime work. Work may be performed beyond eight (8)
hours a day provided that the employee is paid for the overtime work,
an additional compensation equivalent to his regular wage plus
at least twenty-five percent (25%) thereof. Work performed beyond
eight hours on a holiday or rest day shall be paid an additional
compensation equivalent to the rate of the first eight hours on a
holiday or rest day plus at least thirty percent (30%) thereof.

How about the night shift differentials?

Article 86. Night shift differential. Every employee shall be paid a night
shift differential of not less than ten percent (10%) of his regular wage
for each hour of work performed between ten oclock in the evening and
six oclock in the morning.

Maam: 10% additional compensation (graveyard) kasi nga hindi natural to a

person to be functioning and working during that time.

21 | P a g e