Make your answers brief but concise.

And it should always include the reason to support your answer

(legal basis and application)

Example No. 1:

X, an employee of Y Co. was caught stealing the mobile phone of his co-worker E in the workplace.
Can X be dismissed for serious misconduct?

How should you answer this question?

Ideally, your answer should contain the following:

1. Yes or no. (because the question elicits a yes or no answer)
2. Your reason to support your answer, which can be a provision of the law, or a jurisprudence. If
you need to mention the requisites or elements of an act (or in order to be considered as such)
then mention all of the elements.
3. Application to the problem.
(in case elements/ requisites are involved, just mention here what element is missing).

Thus, your answer should read: (please remove the numbering, numbering here is used for reference only)

1. No or No, X cannot be dismissed for serious misconduct.

2. The requisites of serious misconduct are as follows: 1. The act must be serious; 2. It must be
related to the performance of the employees functions; 3. It must render him unfit to perform his
functions.
3. In this case, (or in the case at bar) Xs act of stealing Es phone is not (or does not appear) to be
related to the performance of his official functions. Consequently, X cannot be dismissed based
on serious misconduct, nonetheless, X can be dismissed based on analogous causes because his
act is xxxx.
Nonetheless, in a similar case, the SC held that Xs can be dismissed based on analogous causes
because xxx

No need to write: Therefore, I conclude xxx

Wherefore, premises considered, the complaint should be dismissed xxx
I believe that xxx (remember that the examiner is not asking for your personal opinion)

Use the answer I qualify sparingly. This should only be used when the facts are so vague that you
cannot really determine the correct answer to the problem without the existence of a fact. Or when
required by the question. (because this will show the examiner that you do not know the answer to the
question) But never assume the existence or non existence of a fact unless it is a general accepted
concept/ practice. Example: work rendered by the employee from 8-5 is 8 hours because 1 hour is
considered as non compensable meal period.

Example: X, an employee of Y stabbed E, can X be dismissed for a commission of a crime?

Answer: No, under the LC, an employee may be dismissed only if the crime is committed against the
employer, the immediate members of his family and the employers representative. In this case, it was
not established that E is a relative of X or the employers representative.

But, if the question reads: X, an employee of Y stabbed E, a relative of Y. Can X be dismissed for a
commission of a crime?
Answer: I qualify. (because it was established that E is a relative of Y, but the degree of their
relationship was not stated, and you have no means of determining the degree) then, You can answer: I
qualify, if the E is a relative of Y by consanguinity or affinity up to the 4th civil degree then X can be
validly dismissed based on said ground, however, if E is not a relative of Y within the 4th civil degree,
then he cannot be dismissed based on commission of a crime. ( if you know of a case providing that X
can be dismissed based on analogous causes), you can place it here.

Example No. 2
To cut business costs, X retrenched 10 of his security guards. Thereafter, he hired 2 security
guards on a contractual basis. Feeling aggrieved, the 10 security guards filed a complaint for ULP
against the employer. Decide.

How should you answer this type of question?

Ideally, it should contain the following.

1. Your answer (otherwise referred to as your conclusion)
2. Reason to support your answer and application of your legal basis.

The complaint for ULP will not prosper. (or the complaint will not prosper).
Under the Labor Code, (or under Art xx par xx of the LC) the employer may only be held liable for ULP
when the act of contracting out services is done for the purpose of interfering with the employees right
to self-organization. In this case, the reason for contracting out services was not done to interfere with the
employees right to self organization but to cut business costs which a valid exercise of his management
prerogative.

Question: Do you still need to enumerate all of the acts under Article 248? Not anymore, because the
question refers to a particular provision. However, if the act allegedly committed by the employer is not
included in any of the acts enumerated in Article 248, then, you may enumerate the entire provision. Or if
the act can be found elsewhere then cite the provision where it can be found.

Example:

X filed a complaint for ULP against T Co. He claims that T. Co. committed featherbedding because he
requires them to work on a sunday. Rule on Xs complaint.

Answer:

The complaint should be dismissed. (or the complaint will not prosper, or the complaint lacks merit)
Under the LC, feather bedding is xxx. It is an act which is committed by a LLO and not the employer.
Or Under the LC, feather bedding an act committed by the LLO under Art. 249 because it is an act where
(define featherbedding) besides requiring to an employee to work on a Sunday is not ULP)

(you need not write anymore that the act of requiring the employee to work on a Sunday or
featherbedding is not included in 248 and enumerate 248 to prove it, it is sufficient to state that it is not
one of the acts considered as ULP under 248 instead, it is an act committed by the LLO under 249 besides
requiring to an employee to work on a Sunday is not ULP).

Never leave any item blank.

If you still have time, review your answers and check whether you answered all of the questions. It is
possible that you may have left an item blank.

Read the instructions carefully and manage your time.

Good luck!!!!