MMKHO Quick Review Notes on Labor Relations Codal Provisions

MMKHO – Quick Review Notes
Lex Pareto/ Answer to BAR Examination Question

Codal Provisions (UP Law Complex)
BOOK FIVE – LABOR RELATIONS
COMPULSORY NATURE OF THE CLOSED SHOP

AGREEMENT VS.
CONSTITUTIONAL GUARANTEE OF FREEDOM OF 1995 Question No. 17:
ASSOCIATION XVII
Reconcile the compulsory nature of the closed
ART. 218. [211] Declaration of Policy. shop provision in a Collective Bargaining
Agreement with the constitutional guarantee of
A. It is the policy of the State: freedom of association. Discuss fully.
(a) To promote and emphasize the primacy of free Answer:

collective bargaining and negotiations, including voluntary
arbitration, mediation and conciliation, as modes of settling Among the policies of the State in the field of
labor or industrial disputes; labor relation is to promote trade unionism and
to foster the organization of a strong and united
(b) To promote free trade unionism as an instrument for labor movement. A union security clause, like a
the enhancement of democracy and the promotion of social closed shop agreement, is one way of
justice and development; implementing the aforementioned labor relations
policy. Implementing to some extent the concept
c) To foster the free and voluntary organization of a strong of freedom of association, an employee who is
and united labor movement; already a member of a union could not be
compelled to become a member of a bargaining
NOTE: Union security clauses like a closed shop union, even if there is a closed shop agreement.
agreement, is one way of implementing the above-
mentioned labor relations policy. Alternative Answer:
It could be argued that a closed shop provision in

a Collective Bargaining Agreement, because it
requires that a person should first be a member
of the bargaining union before he is employed, is
violative of the right to freedom of association,
because said right subsumes not only a right to
join, but also a right not to join a union.
On the other hand, it could be argued that the

exercise of the freedom of association means
that workers should join unions. A closed shop
agreement, as a union security clause,
encourages the joining of unions.
(d) To promote the enlightenment of workers concerning

their rights and obligations as union members and as
employees;
(e) To provide an adequate administrative machinery for

the expeditious settlement of labor or industrial disputes;
(f) To ensure a stable but dynamic and just industrial

peace; and
WORKER’S PARTICIPATION
(g) To ensure the participation of workers in decision and 1994 Question No. 10-1:
policy-making processes affecting their rights, duties and X-1
welfare. Bulacan Medical Hospital (BMH) entered into a
Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) with its
Union, wherein it is expressly stipulated in the
Management Prerogative Clause that BMH shall,
in the exercise of its management prerogative,
NOTE: A distinction must be made between management have the sole and exclusive right to promulgate,
prerogatives regarding business operations per se and amend and modify rules and regulations for the
those which affect the rights of the employees; and as employees within the bargaining unit.
regards the latter, management should see to it that its
employees are properly informed of its decisions or mode A year after the contract was signed; BMH issued
of actions. its Revised Rules and Regulation and furnished a
copy thereof to the Union for dissemination to all
employees covered by the CBA. The Union wrote
BMH demanding that the Revised Rules and
Regulations be first discussed with them before
its implementation. BMH refused. So, the Union
filed an action for unfair labor practice (ULP)
against BMH.
[1] Is the Union correct?
Answer:
[1] The union is correct. A provision in the

collective bargaining agreement concerning
management prerogatives, may not be
interpreted as cession of the employees’ right to
participate in the deliberation of matters which
may affect their right and formulation of policies
relative thereto, such as the formulation of a
code of discipline.
A line must be drawn between management

prerogative regarding business operations per se
and those which affect the rights of the
employees and in treating the latter,
management should see to it that its employees
are at least properly informed of its decisions or
modes of action.
The attainment of a harmonious labor-

management relationship and the existing state
policy of enlightening workers concerning their
rights as employees demand no less than the
observance of transparency in managerial moves
affecting employees’ right. (Philippine Airlines,
Inc. vs National Labor Relations Commissions, et
al., GR NO 85985, 13 August 1993, J, Melo, 225
SRA 258, 301.)
Alternative Answer:
[a] The Union is correct. Workers have the right

to participate in policy and decision-making
processes affecting their rights, benefits and
welfare. (Art. 267. [255])
[b] Yes. The Union is correct in asking for

discussion of the revised rules prior to their
effectivity. The reason is Art. XIII, Sec. 3 of the
1987 Constitution. Allowing workers the right to
participate in policy and decision-making on
matters relative to their welfare and benefits.
The Union’s remedy however should not be to file

a ULP case but to initiate a GRIEVANCE
proceeding, and if unresolved, submit the matter
to voluntary arbitration.
1994 Question No. 10-2:

X-2
[2] Assuming that the CBA was signed or
executed before the 1987 Constitution was
ratified, would your answer to the preceding
question be different?
Answer:
[2] The answer would be the same even if the

CBA was signed or executed before the
ratification of the 1987 Constitution because it
has always been the policy of the State to
promote the enlightenment of workers
concerning their rights and obligations as
employees. Art 211; PAL vs NLRC, GR 85985,
August 13, 1993)
2007 Question No. 1-a

I-1
[a] What is the principle of codetermination?
Suggested Answer:
[a] The principle of codetermination is one which

grants to the workers the right to participate in
policy and decisions-making processes affecting
their rights and benefits. (Art. 267 [255], Labor
Code)
First Alternative Answer:
By the principle of codetermination, the workers

have a right to participate in the decision making
process of employers on matters affecting their
rights and benefits. Through collective bargaining
agreements, grievance, machineries, voluntary
modes of settling disputes and conciliation
proceedings mediated by government.
Second Alternative Answer:
Codetermination is a term identified with

workers’ participation in the determination of
business policy. Under the German model, the
most common form of codetermination,
employees of some firms are allocated control
rights by law, in the form of board seats. It is
based on the conviction that democratic
legitimacy cannot be confined to government but
must apply to all sectors of society. Besides
corporate control rights, the German system
deals with dual channels of representation of
employees by union (at the industry-wide, and
macroeconomic level) and works councils (at
the firm level).
Question No. 1-b
[b] What, if any, is the basis under the

Constitution for adopting it?
Suggested Answer:
[b] Art. XIII, Sec 3 of the Constitution guarantees

labor their right to participate in decision and
policy-making processes affecting their rights,
duties and welfare.
First Alternative Answer:

The adoption of codetermination is based on the

police power of the state and the constitutional
mandate to the State “to promote the principle of
shared responsibility between the workers and
the employees.” The Constitution expressly
provides that: “It shall guarantee the rights of all
workers to xxx collective bargaining and
negotiations, xxx. 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.” (Art. XIII, Sec. 3, 1987 Constitution)
B. To encourage a truly democratic method of regulating

the relations between the employers and employees by
means of agreements freely entered into through collective
bargaining, no court or administrative agency or official
shall have the power to set or fix wages, rates of pay, hours
of work or other terms and conditions of employment,
except as otherwise provided under this Code.
DEFINITIONS/CONCEPTS
ART. 219. [212] Definitions.
(a) "Commission" means the National Labor

Relations Commission or any of its divisions, as the case
may be, as provided under this Code.
(b) "Bureau" means the Bureau of Labor Relations and/or

the Labor Relations Divisions in the regional offices
established under Presidential Decree No. 1, in the
Department of Labor.
(c) "Board" means the National Conciliation and Mediation

Board established under Executive Order No. 126.
(d) "Council" means the Tripartite Voluntary Arbitration

Advisory Council established under Executive Order No.
126, as amended.
(e) "Employer" includes any person acting in the interest of

an employer, directly or indirectly. The term shall not
include any labor organization or any of its officers or
agents except when acting as employer.
(f) "Employee" includes any person in the employ of an

employer. The term shall not be limited to the employees 1990 Question No. 9-2:
of a particular employer, unless the Code so explicitly IX-2
states. It shall include any individual whose work has Pablo, a janitor, was dismissed by VCA Company
ceased as a result of or in connection with any current labor for refusing to withdraw his membership in a
dispute or because of any unfair labor practice if he has not militant labor union. Thereafter, Pablo filed a
obtained any other substantially equivalent and regular case against VCA Company for illegal dismissal
employment. and unfair labor practice before the labor arbiter.
NOTE: An employee cannot be considered as such for While the labor case was pending, Pablo was able
purposes of voting in a certification election pursuant to Art to gain employment as office secretary of the
212 of the Labor Code if his work has ceased as a result of Madasalin Life Insurance Company. He obtained
or in connection with any labor disputes or because of any a higher position in the said insurance company
unfair labor practices and he has obtained another and is now receiving a substantially higher salary
substantially equivalent and regular employment. than the salary he drew under his previous
employment.
After due hearing, the labor arbiter rendered a
decision finding Pablo to have been illegally
dismissed and ordering his reinstatement with
full backwages.
[2] Before the labor arbiter rendered his decision

in Pablo’s case, there was going to be a
certification election in VCA Company. Is Pablo
considered an employee of VCA Company for
purposes of voting in the certification election?
Explain your answer.
Answer:
[2] But for the purpose of the certification

election that will be held in VCA Company, Pablo
cannot be considered an employee of the
company for purposes of voting in the election.
This is because, under the Labor Code (in Art
212), a person is no longer considered an
employee if his work has ceased as a result of or
in connection with any correct labor disputes or
because of any unfair labor practice and he has
obtained another substantially equivalent and
regular employment. In the facts of the case,
Pablo has already obtained such kind of
employment.
(g) "Labor organization" means any union or association of

employees which exists in whole or in part for the purpose
of collective bargaining or of dealing with employers
concerning terms and conditions of employment.
(h) "Legitimate labor organization" means any labor

organization duly registered with the Department of Labor
and Employment, and includes any branch or local thereof.
(i) "Company union" means any labor organization whose

formation, function or administration has been assisted by
any act defined as unfair labor practice by this Code.
BARGAINING REPRESENTATIVE
(j) "Bargaining representative" means a legitimate labor

organization or any officer or agent of such organization 2000 [a] The Ang Sarap Kainan Workers Union
whether or not employed by the employer. XV-a appointed Juan Javier, a law student, as
bargaining representative. Mr. Javier is neither an
employee of Ang Sarap Kainan Company nor a
member of the union. Is the appointment of Mr.
Javier as a bargaining representative in accord
with law? Explain. (3%)
Suggested Answer:
[a] Yes, the law does not require that the

bargaining representative be an employee of the
company nor an officer or member of the union.
[Art. 219 (212) (j), Labor Code].
(k) "Unfair labor practice" means any unfair labor practice

as expressly defined by this Code.
LABOR DISPUTE 1991 Question No. 15

XV
(l) "Labor dispute" includes any controversy or matter The Manila Industrial Corp. has fifty (50) contract
concerning terms and conditions of employment or the workers supplied by the National Employment
association or representation of persons in negotiating, Agency. They joined the Novato Labor Union,
fixing, maintaining, changing or arranging the terms and the sole and exclusive bargaining representative
conditions of employment, regardless of whether the of the rank-and-file workers in the company. In
disputants stand in the proximate relation of employer and turn, the union demanded that the company
employee. consider the fifty new union members as regular
employees in accordance with the Labor Code.
NOTE: If no labor dispute exists, the Regional Trial Court When the company refused to make their
shall have jurisdiction employment regular, the union, after complying
with the requirements, stages a strike. The
Secretary of Labor and Employment assumed
jurisdiction of the case.
Assuming that there is no employer-employee

relationship between the company and the fifty
contract workers is there a labor dispute between
them that properly falls under the jurisdiction of
the Secretary of Labor and Employment?
Answer:
Yes. There is a labor dispute that could properly

fall under the jurisdiction of the Secretary and
Employment assuming that Manila Industrial
Corp. is an industry indispensable to the national
interest, since the dispute between the
corporation and the contract workers is a labor
dispute, even if there is no employer-employee
relationship between the corporation and the
contract workers.
Under the Labor Code, a labor dispute includes

any controversy or matter concerning terms and
conditions of employment or the association or
representation of persons in negotiating, fixing,
maintaining, changing or arranging the terms
and conditions of employment, regardless of
whether the disputants stand in the proximate
relation of employer and employee.
From the above definition, it is noted that there

is a labor dispute regardless of whether the
disputants stand in proximate relation of
employer and employee.
The demand of the union that the company

regularize the employment of the contract worker
is a controversy concerning terms and conditions
of employment.
MANAGERIAL AND SUPERVISORY EMPLOYEES
(m) "Managerial employee" is one who is vested with the 1991 Question No. 16
powers or prerogatives to lay down and execute XVI
management policies and/or to hire, transfer, suspend, lay- Ping Gabo is the Chief Engineer of the National
off, recall, discharge, assign or discipline employees. Publishing Corp. with a monthly salary of
P3,000.00. He works over eight (8) hours daily
Supervisory employees are those who, in the interest of the from Monday to Sunday. In May, June and July
employer, effectively recommend such managerial actions 1991, he rendered, each month, ten (10) hours
if the exercise of such authority is not merely routinary or beyond his regular work schedule.
clerical in nature but requires the use of independent
judgment.
Is he entitled to overtime pay and holiday pay?
All employees not falling within any of the above definitions Why?
are considered rank-and-file employees for purposes of this
Book. Answer:
The entitlement of Gabo to overtime pay and

NOTE: Managerial employees are not entitled to overtime holiday pay is dependent on whether he is a
and holiday pay. managerial employee or not. If he is a
managerial employee, he is not entitled to
overtime pay and holiday pay. The Labor Code
provides that the provisions that grant overtime
pay and holiday pay shall not apply, among
others, to managerial employees.
A managerial employee is defined by the Code

as referring to those whose primary duty
consists of the management of the
establishment in which they are employed or of
a department or subdivision thereof, and to
other officers or members of the managerial
staff.
Gabo, as Chief Engineer, appears to be a

managerial employee. On the other hand, his
monthly pay is rather low for managerial
employee. Despite his title, his duty may not
consist of a management of department or of a
subdivision thereof.
1995 Question No. 7:

VII-1
A supervisor’s union filed a petition for
certification election to determine the exclusive
bargaining representative of the supervisory
employees of Farmers Bank. Included in the list
of supervisory employees attached to the
petition are the Department Managers, Branch
Managers, Cashiers and Comptrollers. Farmers
Bank questions this list arguing that Department
Managers, Branch Managers, Cashier and
Comptrollers inherently possess the powers
enumerated in Art 219 (212), par. (m), of the
Labor Code, i.e., the power and prerogative to
lay down and execute management policies
and/or to hire, transfer, suspend, lay-off, recall,
discharge, assign or discipline employees.
[1] Is the contention of Farmers Bank correct?

Discuss fully.
Answer:
The contention of the Farmers Bank is not

correct, if, on examination of the actual powers
exercised by the Department Managers, Bank
Managers, Cashier and Comptrollers, they are
not vested with powers or prerogatives to lay
down and execute management policies or to
hire, transfer suspend, lay-off, recall, discharge,
assign or discipline employees. If their powers
are to carry out their duties and responsibilities
in accordance with the policies promulgated by
the Board of Directors of the Bank, or by
external authorities, like the Central Bank, then,
they are not managerial but may be supervisory
personnel.
But this may be noted: The Bank officials
mentioned in the case, have control, custody
and/or access to confidential matters. Thus,
they are confidential employees and in
accordance with earlier Supreme Court
decisions, as confidential employees, the Branch
Manager, Cashier, Controller are disqualified
from joining or assisting the supervisor’s union.
Answer:
The contention of the Farmers Bank is partially

correct. The Department managers and Branch
managers, if they in fact have powers implied by
their title, are managerial personnel. In
accordance with the Labor Code, managerial
personnel are not eligible to join and form labor
unions.
On the other hand, cashiers who are in charge

of money received or expended, and
comptrollers who examine and supervise
expenditures, are not managerial personnel,
and if they supervise personnel, they could be
supervisors, and therefore to be included in the
bargaining unit of supervisors.

III-1
[1] Who are the managerial, supervisory and
rank-and-file employees?
Answer:
“Manager employee” is one who is vested with

powers or prerogatives to lay down and execute
management policies or to hire, transfer,
suspend, layoff, 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 who are the neither managerial

nor supervisory employees are considered rank-
and-file employees. (Art 212 (m) of the Labor
Code)
2002 [a] Distinguish managerial employees from

XVIII- supervisory employees. (3%)
A
Suggested Answer:
[a] A managerial employees is one who is

vested with 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, on the other hand, 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.
In a case, the Supreme Court said: “In the

petition before us, a thorough dissection of the
job description of the concerned supervisory
employees and section heads indisputably show
that they are not actually managerial but only
supervisory employees since they do not lay
down the company policies. PICOP’s
contention that they subject section heads and
unit manager exercise the authority to hire and
fire is ambiguous and quite misleading for the
reason that any authority they exercise is not
supreme but merely advisory in character.
Theirs is not a final determination of the
company policies inasmuch as any action taken
by them on matters relative to hiring,
promotion, transfer, suspension and termination
of employees is still subject to confirmation and
approval by their respective superior. [See Atlas
Lithographic Services, Inc. v. Laguesma, 205
SCRA 12, 17 (1992)]. Thus, where such power,
which is in effect recommendatory in character,
is subject to evaluation, review and final action
by the department heads and higher executives
of the company, the same, although present, is
not effective and not an exercise of independent
judgment as required by law. [Philippine
Appliance Corp. v. Laguesma, 226 SCRA 730,
737 (1993) citing Franklin Baker Company of the
Company of the Philippines v. Trajano, 157 SRA
416, 422-433 (1988)]. (Paper Industries Corp.
of the Philippines v. Bienvenido E. Leguesma,
330 SCRA 295, (2000)]
2003 [6%]
V
The Labor Code treats differently in various
aspects the employment of (i) managerial
employees, (ii) supervisory employees, and (iii)
rank-and-file employees. State the basic
distinguishing features of each type of
employment.
Suggested Answer:
Under Book Three of the Labor Code, a

managerial employee refers to one whose
primary duty consists of the management of the
establishment in which he is employed or of a
department or subdivision thereof, and to other
officers or members of the managerial staff. A
supervisor and a rank and file employee can be
considered as members of the managerial staff,
and therefore, a managerial employee if their
primary duty consists of work directly related to
management policies; if they customarily and
regularly exercise discretion and independent
judgment; regularly and directly assist a
proprietor or a managerial employee whose
primary duty consist of the management of the
establishment in which they are employed or
subdivision thereof; or execute under general
supervision work along specialized or technical
lines requiring special training, experience, or
knowledge; or execute under general
supervision special assignments and tasks; and
who do not devote more than 20 percent of their
hours worked in a work-week to activities which
are not directly and closely related to the
performance of the work described above. All
others are rank and file employees under said
Book (Art 82, Labor Code, Sec 2 (c ), Rule 1,
Book III, Omnibus Rules Implementing the
Labor Code).
Under Book Five of the Labor Code, “Managerial

employee” is one who is vested with powers or
prerogatives to lay down, and execute
management policies and/or hire, transfer,
suspend, lay-off, recall, discharge, assign or
discipline employees. A supervisory employee is
one who, in the interest of the employer,
effectively recommends 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
employee for purposes of this BOOK (Art
212(m), Labor Code).
On the matter of right to self-organization, a

managerial employee cannot exercise such
right; while a supervisor and rank and file
employee can (Art 245, 243, Labor Code).
(n) "Voluntary Arbitrator" means any person accredited by

the Board as such, or any person named or designated in
the Collective Bargaining Agreement by the parties to act
as their Voluntary Arbitrator, or one chosen with or without
the assistance of the National Conciliation and Mediation
Board, pursuant to a selection procedure agreed upon in
the Collective Bargaining Agreement, or any official that
may be authorized by the Secretary of Labor and
Employment to act as Voluntary Arbitrator upon the written
request and agreement of the parties to a labor dispute.
STRIKE
(o) "Strike" means any temporary stoppage of work by the 1998 The day following the workers’ voluntary return
concerted action of employees as a result of an industrial XIX to work, the Company Production Manager
or labor dispute. discovered an unusual and sharp drop in
workers output. It was evidently clear that
workers are engaged in work slowdown activity.
NOTE: Slowdown is not a valid form of strike
Is the work slowdown a valid form of strike
NOTE: To be valid, procedural requirements must be activity? [5%]
followed (see Art 278 [263] of the Labor Code). Moreover,
absence of a recognized bargaining agent does not Suggested Answer:
preclude valid declaration of strike by a legitimate labor
organization on the ground of ULP. See also Primer on A work slowdown is not a valid form of strike
Strike, Picketing and Lockout prepared and issued by activity. If workers are to strike, there should
NCMB. be temporary stoppage of work by the
concerted action of employees as result of an
NOTE: “No work, no pay” principle applies during strike industrial or labor dispute (See Article 212 (o) of
period. the Labor Code.
NOTE: For further reading re: strikes, see Santa Rosa Another Suggested Answer:
Coca-Cola Plant Employees Union, Donrico vs Sebastian, et
al. vs Coca-Cola Bottlers Phils., In., 512 SCRA 2007. No, a slowdown is not a valid form of strike
activity. The Supreme Court in Ilaw at Buklod
ng Manggagawa v. NLRC, 198 SRA 586 (1991)
ruled –
The Court is in substantial agreement with the

petitioner’s concept of a slowdown as a “strike
on the installment plan”, as a willful reduction in
the rate of work by concerted action of workers
for the purpose of restricting the output of the
employer, in relation to a labor dispute, as an
activity by which workers, without a complete
stoppage of work retard production or their
performance of their duties… The Court also
agrees that such slowdown is generally
condemned as inherently illicit and unjustifiable,
because while the employees “continue to work
and remain at their positions, and accept wages
paid to them”, they at the same time select what
part of their allotted tasks they acre to perform
of their own volition or refuse openly, or
secretly, to the employers damage, to do other
work; in other words, they work on their own
terms.
Likewise, a slowdown is not a valid form of

concerted activity, absent a labor dispute
between the parties. The Labor Code reads –
Art. 219 (212). – xxx
[o] “Strike” means any temporary stoppage of

work by the concerted action of employees as a
result of an industrial or labor dispute.
Another Suggested Answer:
No. It is a prohibited activity. It can be said to

be a violation of the duty to bargain collectively,
the union is guilty of bad faith. The workers
should resume operation under the same terms
and conditions prevailing prior to the strike.
2000 A division manager of a company taunted a

XVII- union officer two days after the union submitted
a to the Department of Labor and Employment
(DOLE) the result of the strike vote. The division
manager said: “Your union threat of an unfair
labor practice strike is phony or a bluff. Not
even ten percent (10%) of your members will
join the strike.” To prove union member support
for the strike, the union officer immediately
instructed its members to cease working and
walk out. Two hours after the walkout, the
workers voluntarily returned to work.
[a] Was the walkout a strike? And if so, was it a

valid activity? (3%)
Suggested Answer:
[a] Yes, it was a strike because there was a work

stoppage by concerted action and there is an
existing labor dispute. It was not a valid
because the requisites for a valid strike were not
observed. [Art. 219 (212), (o), (l) Labor Code].
2000 [b] Can the union officer who led the short walk-
XVII- out, but who likewise voluntarily led the workers
b
back to work, be disciplined by the employer?
(3%)
Suggested Answer:
[b] Yes, the employer may discipline the union

officer. An illegal strike is a cause for the union
officer to be declared to have lost his
employment status. [Art. 278 (263) (c ), (d), (e
), (f); Art. 264 (a), Labor Code].
2002 Eaglestar Company required a 24-hour

X operation and embodied this requirement in the
employment contracts of its employee. The
employees agreed to work on Sunday and
Holiday if their work schedule required them to
do so for which they would be paid additional
compensation as provided by law. Last March
2000, the union filed a notice of strike. Upon
Eaglestar’s petition, the Secretary of Labor
certified the labor dispute to the NLRC for
compulsory arbitration. On April 20, 2000
(Maundy Thursday), while conciliation meetings
were pending, the union officers and members
who were supposed to be on duty did not report
for work. Neither did they report for work on
April 21 (Good Friday) and on April 22 (Black
Saturday), disrupting the factory’s operations
and causing it huge losses. The union denied it
had gone on a strike because the days when its
officers and members were absent from work
were legal holidays. Is the contention of the
union correct? Explain briefly. (5%)
Suggested Answer:
The contention of the union is NOT correct.
In the case, it is clear that the employees agreed

to work on Sundays and Holidays if their work
schedule required them to do so for which they
would be paid additional compensation as
provided by law.
The above-mentioned agreement that the

employees voluntarily entered into is valid. It is
not contrary to law. It is provided in the
agreement that if they will work Sundays or
Holidays that they will be paid additional
compensation as provided by law. Neither is the
agreement contrary to morals, good customs,
public order or public policy.
Thus, when the workers did not report for work

when by agreement they were supposed to be
on duty, there was a temporary stoppage of
work by the concerted action of the employees
as a result of an industrial or labor dispute
because they were on strike. [See Interphil
Laboratories Employees Union-FFW v. Interphil
Laboratories Inc., GR No. 142824, December
19, 2001]
2008 On the day that the Union could validly declare

VI-a a strike, the Secretary of Labor issued an order
assuming jurisdiction over the dispute and
enjoining the strike, or if one has commenced,
ordering the striking workers to immediately
return to work. The return-to-return order
required the employees to return to work within
twenty-four hours and was served at 8am of the
day the strike was to start. The order at the
same time directed the Company to accept all
employees under the same terms and conditions
of employment prior to the work stoppage. The
Union members did not return to work on the
day the Secretary’s assumption order was
served, nor on the next day; instead, they held
a continuing protest rally against the company’s
alleged unfair labor practices. Because of the
accompanying picket, some of the employees
who wanted to return to work failed to do so.
On the 3rd day, the workers reported for work,
claiming that they do so in compliance with the
Secretary’s return-to-work order that binds
them as well as the Company. The Company,
however, refused to admit them back since they
had violated the Secretary’s return-to-work
order and now considered to have lost their
employment status.
The Union officers and members filed a

complaint for illegal dismissal arguing that there
was no strike but a protest rally which is a valid
exercise of the workers’ constitutional right to
peaceable assembly and freedom of expression.
Hence, there was no basis for the termination of
their employment.
You are the Labor Arbiter to whom the case was

raffled. Decide, ruling on the following issues:
[a] was there a strike? (4%)
Suggested Answer:
[a] Yes, there was a strike because of the

concerted stoppage of work by the union
members.
Another Suggested Answer:
Yes, there was a strike. No matter how they call

it, the “continuing protest rally against the
company’s alleged unfair labor practices”
constitutes a “temporary stoppage of work by
he concerted action of employees as a result of
an industrial or labor dispute” – a case of strike
as defined in Art. 212(o) of the Labor Code.
Recently, in Santa Rosa Coca-Cola Plant

Employees Union, et al. vs Coca-Cola Bottlers
Phil., Inc. (512 SCRA 437 [2007]), the Supreme
Court clarified that a strike comes in varied
forms, from “slowdowns, mass leaves, sit
downs” to other “similar activities”. A protest
rally which results in temporary stoppage of
work by the concerted action of employees, as
a result of a labor or industrial dispute, is clearly
a case of strike.
2008 The rank-and-file union staged a strike in the

XIII company premises which caused the disruption
of business operations. The supervisors’ union
of the same e company filed a money claim for
unpaid salaries for the duration of the strike,
arguing the supervisors’ failure to report for
work was attributable to them. The company
contended that it was equally faultless, for the
strike was not the direct consequence of any
lockout or unfair labor practice. May the
company be held liable for the salaries of the
supervisors? Decide. (6%)
Suggested Answer:
No. I will apply the “No Work No Pay” principle.

The supervisors are not entitled to their money
claim for unpaid salaries, as they should not be
compensated for services skipped during the
strike of the rank-and-file union.
The age-old rule governing the relation between

labor and capital, or management and employee
of a “fair day’s wage for a fair day’s labor”
remains as the basis factor in determining
employees’ wages (Aklan Electric Cooperative,
Inc. v. NLRC, 323 SCRA 258 [2000]).
2010 On the first day of collective bargaining

XVI-A negotiations between rank-and-file Union A and
B Bus Company, the former proposed a P45/day
increase. The company insisted that the ground
rules for negotiations should first be established,
to which the union agree. After seeing on
ground rules on the second day, the union
representatives reiterated their proposal for a
wage increase. When company representative
suggested a discussion of political provisions in
the Collective bargaining Agreement as
stipulated in the ground rules, union members
on mass leave the next day to participate in a
whole-day prayer rally in front of the company
building.
[A] The company filed a petition for assumption

of jurisdiction with the Secretary of Labor and
Employment. The Union opposed the petition,
arguing that it did not intend to stage a strike.
Should the petition be granted? Explain. (2%)
Suggested Answer:
YES.
There was a strike. What the union engaged in

was actually a “work stoppage” in the guise of a
protest rally.
Article 212 (o) of the Labor Code defines strike

as a temporary stoppage of work by the
concerted action of employees as a result of an
industrial or labor dispute. The fact that the
conventional term “strike” was not used by the
striking employees to describe their common
course of action is inconsequential. What is
controlling is the substance of the situation, and
not its appearance.
The term “strike” encompasses not only

concerted work stoppage, but also slowdowns,
mass leaves, sit downs, attempts to damage,
destroy or sabotage plant equipment and
facilities, and similar activities (Santa Rosa Coca-
Coal Plant Employees Union, Donrico v.
Sebastian, et al. v. Coca-Cola Bottlers Phils.,
Inc., 512 SCRA 437 [2007]).
2013 II. When there is no recognized collective

II bargaining agent, can a legitimate labor
(mcq) organization validly declare a strike against
employer? (1%)
Suggested Answer:
[D] Yes, but only in case of unfair labor practice.
Basis: Article 263 [c] (now Article 269 [c]) of the

Labor Code.
2014 [C] If due to prolonged strike, Lazo Corporation

VIII- hired replacements, can it refuse to admit the
C replaced strikers?
Suggested Answer:
No. Sec 3, Art XIII of the Constitution

guarantees workers the right to strike in
accordance with law, and prolonged strike is not
prohibited by law. With Art. 212(o) defining
strike as “any temporary stoppage of work as a
result of an industrial or labor dispute, it is the
prerogative of strikers to cut short or prolong a
strike. By striking, the employees have not
abandoned their employment. Rather, they
have only ceased temporarily from rendering
work. The striking employees have not lost their
right to go back to their position, because the
declaration of a strike is not a renunciation of
their employment, much less their employee-
employer relationship.
Alternative Answer:
No. As a general rule, replacement take their

employment as conditional, i.e., subject to the
rights of strikers to return to work.
However, since this is an economic strike, the

striker are entitled to reinstatement only in case
Lazo Corporation has not yet hired permanent
replacements (Consolidated Labor Associations
v. Marsman & Co., GR No L-17038, July 31, 1964
11 SCRA 589)
PROTECTED PICKETING
1991 [c] During the strike, may the striking union
Peaceful picketing in an “establishment warehouse, depots, XIII-c picket the company-owned but independent
plants or offices, including the sites or premises used as dealers?
run-away shops of the employer struck against, as well as
the immediate vicinity actually used by picketing strikers in Answer:
moving to and from before all points of entrance to and exit
from said establishment” is protected by the Labor Code. Peaceful picketing conducted by employees in
a strike are during any labor controversy is
given protection by the Labor Code.
Thus, if the place being picketed is a strike

area which is defined by the Labor Code as
“the establishment, warehouse, depots, plants
or offices, including the sites or premises used
as runaways shops, of the employer struck
against, as well as the immediate vicinity
actually used by picketing strikers in moving to
fro before all points of entrance to and exit
from said establishment,” then the – picketing
is protected, if it is peaceful.
In the question giver, however, since the

striking union is picketing the company’s
outside who are not company owned but
independent dealers, the picketing is not in a
strike are, thus the picketing is not protected
by the Code.
NOTE: In the case, People of the Philippines vs. Calica 2004 [B] President FX, head of a newly formed labor
(March 1, 1957), the right to picket is guaranteed under the VI-B union composed of 1/3 of the total number of
Constitution under the freedom of speech clause. It rank-and-file employees in Super Stores, Inc.,
covered by the procedural requirements for a lawful strike, agitated his fellow employees to demand from
however, like any other freedoms, it is also regulated; management pay increases and overtime pay.
hence picketing which involves illegal acts cannot go His supervisor summoned him to explain his
unpunished. tardiness and refusal to obey regulations.
Feeling threatened, he gathered 20 of his
NOTE: “Innocent by-standers” or those persons or members and staged a 2-day picket in front of
establishment who have no interest over a labor dispute the shopping mall. Security staff arrived and
may protect themselves from picketing by securing dismantled the placards and barricades
protection of the courts. blocking the employees’ entry to the mall. In
retaliation, FX threw stones at the guards, but
the other striking workers just stood by
watching him. Seven days after the picket, FX
who had absent without leave returned to the
mall and announced that he had filed a
complaint for illegal dismissal and unfair labor
practice against SSI.
SSI learned that FX’s group was not registered.

No strike vote and strike notice were filed prior
to the picket. The guards were told not to
allow FX entry to the company premises as
management considered him effectively
terminated. Other union members were
accepted back to work by SSI.
Was the dismissal of FX for valid cause? Was

due process observed? (5%)
Suggested Answer:
There is a valid cause for the dismissal of FX,

but due process was not observed.
Peaceful picketing is part of the constitutional

freedom of speech. The right to free speech,
however, has its limits, and picketing as a
concerted activity is subject to the same
limitations as a strike, particularly as to lawful
purpose and lawful means. But it does not
have to comply with the procedural
requirements for a lawful strike, like the notice
of strike or the strike vote. However, in the
problem given, picketing became illegal
because of unlawful means, as barricades
blocked the employees’ entry to the mall, and
violence, ensued when FX threw stones at the
guards. There was thus, valid cause for the
dismissal of FX, however, due process was not
observed because SSI did not comply with the
twin requirements of notice and hearing.
(p) "Lockout" means any temporary refusal of an employer
to furnish work as a result of an industrial or labor dispute.
(q) "Internal union dispute" includes all disputes or

grievances arising from any violation of or disagreement
over any provision of the constitution and by-laws of a
union, including any violation of the rights and conditions
of union membership provided for in this Code.
(r) "Strike-breaker" means any person who obstructs,

impedes, or interferes with
by force, violence, coercion, threats, or intimidation any
peaceful picketing affecting wages, hours or conditions of
work or in the exercise of the right of self-organization or
collective bargaining.
(s) "Strike area" means the establishment, warehouses,

depots, plants or offices, including the sites or premises
used as runaway shops, of the employer struck against, as
well as the immediate vicinity actually used by picketing
strikers in moving to and fro before all points of entrance
to and exit from said establishment
Art. 213 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS
COMMISSION
WHEN THE NLRC MAY SIT EN BANC

1993 Question No 13:
The NLRC shall sit en banc only for purposes of XIII
promulgating rules and regulations governing the hearing What matters may be taken up by the National
and disposition of cases before any of its divisions and Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) En Banc?
regional branches and formulating policies affecting its
administrative and operations. Answer:
Also, the NLRC sitting en banc may, on temporary or The NLRC shall sit en banc only for purposes
emergency basis, allow cases within the jurisdiction of any of promulgating rules and regulations
division to the heard and decided by any other division governing the hearing and disposition of cases
whose docket allows the additional workload and such before any its divisions and regional branches
transfer will not expose litigants to unnecessary additional and formulating policies affecting its
expense. administration and operations (Art. 213 Labor
Code).
ART. 220. [213] National Labor Relations Commission. –
There shall be a National Labor Relations Commission

which shall be attached to the Department of Labor and
Employment solely for program and policy coordination,
composed of a Chairman and twenty-three (23) members.
Eight (8) members each shall be chosen only from among

the nominees of the workers and employers organizations,
respectively. The Chairman and the seven (7) remaining
members shall come from the public sector, with the latter
to be chosen preferably from among the incumbent labor
arbiters.
Upon assumption into office, the members nominated by

the workers and employers organizations shall divest
themselves of any affiliation with or interest in the
federation or association to which they belong.
The Commission may sit en banc or in eight (8) divisions,

each composed of three (3) members. The Commission
shall sit en banc only for purposes of promulgating rules
and regulations governing the hearing and disposition of
cases before any of its divisions and regional branches and
formulating policies affecting its administration and
operations.
The Commission shall exercise its adjudicatory and all other

powers, functions and duties through its divisions. Of the
eight (8) divisions,
the first, second, third, fourth, fifth and sixth divisions shall
handle cases coming from the National Capital Region and
other parts of Luzon, and the seventh and eighth divisions,
cases from the Visayas and Mindanao, respectively:
Provided, That the Commission sitting en banc may, on
temporary or emergency basis, allow cases within the
jurisdiction of any division to be heard and decided by any
other division whose docket allows the additional workload
and such transfer will not expose litigants to unnecessary
additional expense.
The divisions of the Commission shall have exclusive

appellate jurisdiction over cases within their respective
territorial jurisdiction.
The concurrence of two (2) Commissioners of a division
shall be necessary for the pronouncement of judgment or
resolution. Whenever the required membership in a division
is not complete and the concurrence of two (2)
Commissioners to arrive at a judgment or resolution cannot
be obtained, the Chairman shall designate such number of
additional Commissioners from the other divisions as may
be necessary.
The conclusions of a division on any case submitted to it

for decision shall be reached in consultation before the case
is assigned to a member for the writing of the opinion. It
shall be mandatory for the division to meet for purposes of
the consultation ordained therein. A certification to this
effect signed by the Presiding Commissioner of the division
shall be issued, and a copy thereof attached to the record
of the case and served upon the parties.
The Chairman shall be the Presiding Commissioner of the

first division, and the seven (7) other members from the
public sector shall be the Presiding Commissioners of the
second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh and eighth
divisions, respectively. In case of the effective absence or
incapacity of the Chairman, the Presiding Commissioner of
the second division shall be the Acting Chairman.
The Chairman, aided by the Executive Clerk of the

Commission, shall have exclusive administrative
supervision over the Commission and its regional branches
and all its personnel, including the Labor Arbiters.
The Commission, when sitting en banc, shall be assisted by

the same Executive Clerk, and, when acting thru its
Divisions, by said Executive Clerk for its first division and
seven (7) other Deputy Executive Clerks for the second,
third, fourth fifth, sixth, seventh and eighth Divisions,
respectively, in the performance of such similar or
equivalent functions and duties as are discharged by the
Clerk of Court and Deputy Clerks of Court of the Court of
Appeals.
The Commission and its eight (8) divisions shall be assisted

by the Commission Attorneys in its appellate and
adjudicatory functions whose term shall be coterminous
with the Commissioners with whom they are assigned. The
Commission Attorneys shall be members of the Philippine
Bar with at least one (1) year experience or exposure in the
field of labor-management relations. They shall receive
annual salaries and shall be entitled to the same allowances
and benefits as
those falling under Salary Grade twenty-six (SG 26). There
shall be as many Commission Attorneys as may be
necessary for the effective and efficient operation of the
Commission but in no case more than five (5) assigned to
the Office of the Chairman and each Commissioner.
ART. 221. [214] Headquarters, Branches and Provincial

Extension Units. –
The Commission and its first, second, third, fourth, fifth and
sixth divisions shall have their main offices in Metropolitan
Manila, and the seventh and eight divisions in the cities of
Cebu and Cagayan de Oro, respectively. The Commission
shall establish as many regional branches as there are
regional offices of the Department of Labor and
Employment, sub-regional branches or provincial extension
units. There shall be as many Labor Arbiters as may be
necessary for the effective and efficient operation of the
Commission.
ART. 222. [215] Appointment and Qualifications.-
The Chairman and other Commissioners shall be members

of the Philippine Bar and must have been engaged in the
practice of law in the Philippines for at least fifteen (15)
years, with at least five (5) years experience or exposure in
the field of labor-management relations, and shall
preferably be residents of the region where they shall hold
office.
The Labor Arbiters shall likewise be members of the

Philippine Bar and must have been engaged in the practice
of law in the Philippines for at least ten (10) years, with at
least five (5) years experience or exposure in the field of
labor-management relations.
The Chairman, the other Commissioners and the Labor

Arbiters shall hold office during good behavior until they
reach the age of sixty-five (65) years, unless sooner
removed for cause as provided by law or become
incapacitated to discharge the duties of their office:
Provided, however, That the President of the Republic of
the Philippines may extend the services of the
Commissioners and Labor Arbiters up to the maximum age
of seventy (70) years upon the recommendation of the
Commission en banc The Chairman, the Division Presiding
Commissioners and other Commissioners shall all be
appointed by the President. Appointment to any vacancy in
a specific division shall come only from the nominees of the
sector which nominated the predecessor. The Labor
Arbiters shall also be appointed by the President, upon
recommendation of the Commission en banc and shall be
subject to the Civil Service Law, rules and regulations.
The Chairman of the Commission shall appoint the staff and

employees of the Commission and its regional branches as
the needs of the service may require, subject to the Civil
Service Law, rules and regulations, and upgrade their
current salaries, benefits and other emoluments in
accordance with law.
ART. 223. [216] Salaries, Benefits and Emoluments.164

The Chairman and members of the Commission shall have
the same rank, receive an annual salary equivalent to, and
be entitled to the same allowances, retirement and benefits
as those of the Presiding Justice and Associate Justices of
the Court of Appeals, respectively. Labor Arbiters shall have
the same rank, receive an annual salary equivalent to and
be entitled to the same allowances, retirement and other
benefits and privileges as those of the judges of the
Regional Trial Courts. In no case, however, shall the
provision of this Article result in the diminution of the
existing salaries, allowances and benefits of the
aforementioned officials.
ART. 224. [217] Jurisdiction of the Labor Arbiters and the 1990 I- A was dismissed from the service by his
Commission. 1 employer for theft of goods owned by the
(a) Except as otherwise provided under this Code, the Labor company. He was also prosecuted for theft
Arbiters shall have original and exclusive jurisdiction to hear before the Regional Trial Court of Pasay City.
and decide, within thirty (30) calendar days after the Meanwhile, A filed a complaint for illegal
submission of the case by the parties for decision without dismissal against the employer before the
extension, even in the absence of stenographic notes, the labor arbiter. The trial court subsequently
following cases involving all workers, whether agricultural or acquitted A and ordered his reinstatement with
non-agricultural:
backwages from the time of his separation to
(1) Unfair labor practice cases; the date of his actual reinstatement.
(2) Termination disputes; [1] Is the decision of the court correct? State
your reasons.
(3) If accompanied with a claim for reinstatement,
those cases that workers may file involving wages,
rates of pay, hours of work and other terms and
Answer:
conditions of employment;
[1] The decision of the court is not entirely
(4) Claims for actual, moral, exemplary and other correct.
forms of damages arising from the employer-
employee relations; It is within the jurisdiction of the Regional Trial
Court to acquit A. As a regular court, the RTC
(5) Cases arising from any violation of Article 264 of has jurisdiction over criminal cases. But it is
this Code, including questions involving the legality of outside of the jurisdiction of the RTC to order
strikes and lockouts; and
the reinstatement of A with backwages. A
(6) Except claims for Employees Compensation, termination dispute, which could give rise to a
Social Security, Medicare and maternity benefits, all decision for the reinstatement of an illegally
other claims arising from employer-employee dismissed employee and the payment of his
relations, including those of persons in domestic or backwages is outside the jurisdiction of the
household service, involving an amount exceeding RTC. It is within the original and exclusive
five thousand pesos (P5,000.00) regardless of jurisdiction of labor arbiters. (Art. 217, Labor
whether accompanied with a claim for reinstatement. Code)
(b) The Commission shall have exclusive appellate jurisdiction
1990 I- [2] Even with such acquittal, may the labor
over all cases decided by Labor Arbiters.
2 arbiter still proceed to resolve the complaint
(c) Cases arising from the interpretation or implementation of for illegal dismissal filed by A? State your
collective bargaining agreements and those arising from the reasons.
interpretation or enforcement of company personnel policies
shall be disposed of by the Labor Arbiter by referring the same Answer:
to the grievance machinery and voluntary arbitration as may
be provided in said agreements. Even with A’s acquittal, the labor arbiter should
still proceed to resolve the complaint for illegal
dismissal filed by A. An action for illegal
dismissal is entirely separate and distinct from
a criminal action. (Pepsi Cola Bottling
Company of the Philippines vs. Guanzon, GR
NO. 81162, April 19, 1989).
In many decisions, the Supreme Court has

ruled that the acquittal of an employee in a
criminal case does not mean that there could
be no basis for legally dismissing the employee
for, say, willful breach of trust, which is a just
cause for termination. Conviction in a criminal
case requires proof beyond reasonable doubt.
In a termination dispute, it is enough that
there is substantial evidence to prove that
there has been willful breach of trust.
1991 Angel Excelente was the head of the Physics

V-a Department of the University of San Perpetuo.
He had served in that capacity for the last ten
years and held various faculty posts for fifteen
years prior hereto. He is well-known in his
filed and was the recipient of awards here and
abroad for his researches. Following an
altercation with the University President over
teaching loads of professors, the President
dismissed Excelente by serving on him a notice
of termination of employment effective upon
receipt thereof, for gross incompetence,
insubordination and dereliction of duty.
[a] As the lawyer of Mr. Excelente, state the

nature of your action or complaint to be filed
against the university, the proper body or court
before which it may be filed, the laws to be
invoked, and the facts or evidence to be
adduced.
Answer:
As lawyer of Mr. Excelente, I will file a

complaint questing the legally of his dismissal.
I will file the complaint with the Labor Arbiter

in the Regional Arbitration Branch of the NLRC
having jurisdiction over the place where Mr.
Excelente works.
I will invoke the provisions of the Labor Code

which are found in its Book VI that guarantee
the right of workers to security of tenure.
I will adduce facts or evidence that will

disprove the allegations of the University
President that have been given as reasons for
dismissing Mr. Excelente. The fact that he had
served the University for twenty five years,
was well known in his field and has received
many awards should disprove the allegation of
gross incompetence. I will content that the
alteration over teaching loads of professors is
not tantamount to insubordination and
dereliction of duty.
1991 [b] May the University President be impleaded

V-b as co-respondent? If so, what will be the
nature of his liability?
Answer:
The University President may not be

impleaded if his acts in connection with the
termination of Mr. Excelente were official.
But he may be pleaded if he acted without or

in excess of his authority or was motivated by
personal ill will towards Mr. Excelente. If he is
thus impleaded, the University President shall
be personally liable for the payment of
backwages and damages, if any, that Mr.
Excelente will be entitled to receive if it is
found that he has been unjustly dismissed.
1995 V Question No. 5:
Pablo Bagsakin, a law graduate who got tired

of taking the bar examination after several
unsuccessful attempts, joined the investigation
Division of Warak Transport Company. From
the very beginning Pablo never liked his
manager because the latter always made fun
of the former’s accident reports. When Pablo’s
patience ran out he walked up to his manager
who was reviewing the investigator’s
assignments and workload and boxed him until
the latter collapsed. The incident happened
during office hours at the Investigation
Division in the presence of his co-employers.
Pablo was dismissed without any investigation
and was no longer allowed to enter the
company premises.
The manager filed a complaint for damages

against Pablo before the Pasig Regional Trial
Court (RTC). In turn Pablo filed a case for
illegal dismissal with the Labor Arbiter against
the manager and the transport company.
Pablo asked for reinstatement without loss of
seniority rights with full back wages. Pablo
also filed before the Pasig RTC a motion to
dismiss the damage suit against him alleging
that the Labor Arbiter before whom the case
for illegal dismissal was pending had exclusive
jurisdiction over both cases.
Resolve the motion to dismiss. Discuss fully.
Answer:
The motion to dismiss filed by Pablo before the

Pasig RTC should be denied.
The damage suit filed by the manager against

Pablo does not arise from employer-employee
relationship. While the case involves an
employer and his employee, it is not the
employer-employee relationship between the
two that gives rise to the damage suit.
Instead, it is based solely on a alleged tort
which could give rise to a damage suit under
the Civil Code. Thus, the Labor Arbiter has no
jurisdiction over the damage suit.

IX-1
[1] Give the original and exclusive jurisdiction
of Labor Arbiters.
Answer:
Labor Arbiters have original and exclusive

jurisdiction over:
a) Unfair labor practices;

b) Termination disputes;
c) Cases accompanied with a claim for
reinstatement, and involving wages,
rates of pay, hours ow work, and other
terms and conditions of employment;
d) Claims for actual, moral, exemplary
and other forms of damages arising
from employee-employee relations;
e) Cases arising from any violation of
Article 264 of the Labor Code,
including questions involving the
legality of strikes and lockout; and
f) Except claims of Employees
Compensation, Social Security,
Medicare and maternity benefits, all
other claims arising from employer-
employee relations including those
person in domestic or household
service, involving an amount
exceeding five thousand pesos
(P500.00) regardless of whether
accompanied with a claim for
reinstatement.
1995 [2] How are cases arising from the

IX-2 interpretation or implementation of collective
bargaining agreements handled and disposed?
Answer:
Through the grievance machinery and if not

resolved by the grievance machinery, through
voluntary arbitration.
2014 Lionel, an American citizen whose parents

XI-B migrated the US from the Philippine, was hired
by JP Morgan in New York as a call center
specialist. Hearing about the phenomenal
growth of the call center industry in his
parents’ native land, Lionel sought and was
granted a transfer as a call center manager for
JP Morgan’s operations in Taguig City. Lionel’s
employment contract did ot specify a period
for his stay in the Philippines. After three years
of working in the Philippines, Lionel was
advised that he was being recalled to new York
and being promoted to the position of director
of international call center operations.
However, because of certain “family reasons,”
Lionel advised the company of his preference
to stay in the Philippines. He was dismissed
by the company. Lionel now seeks your legal
advice on (6%)
[B] whether he can file a case in the Philippines
Answer:
Yes. Since this is a case illegal dismissal, the

Lbor Arbiters have jurisdiction over the same
(Art 217 (a0, Labor Code). Under the 2011
NLRC Rules of Procedure, all cases which
Labor Arbiters have authority to hear and
decide, may be filed in the Regional Arbitration
Branch having jurisdiction over the workplace
of the complainant or petitioner (Rule IV, Sec
1).
2014 Lincoln was in the business of trading

XIX broadcast equipment used by television and
radio networks. He employed Lionel as his
agent. Subsequently, Lincoln set up Liberty
Communications to formally engage in the
same business. He requested Lionel to be one
of the incorporators and assigned to him 100
Liberty shares. Lionel was also given the title
Assistant Vice-President of Sales and Head of
Technical Coordination. After several months,
there were allegations that Lionel was
engaged in “under the table dealings” and
received “confidential commissions” from
Liberty’s clients and suppliers. He was,
therefore, charged with serious misconduct
and willful breach of trust, and was given forty-
eight (48) hours to present his explanation on
the charges. Lionel was unable to comply with
the 48-hour deadline and was subsequently
barred from entering company premises.
Lionel then filed a complaint with the Labor
Arbiter claiming constructive dismissal. Among
others, the company sought the dismissal of
the complaint alleging that the case involved
an intra-corporate controversy which was
within the jurisdiction of the Regional Trial
Court (RTC).
If you were the Labor Arbiter assigned to the

case, how would you rule on the company’s
motion to dismiss? (5%)
Suggested Answer:
I will deny the motion to dismiss. “Corporate

officer” in the context of Presidential Decree
No. 902-A are those officers of the corporation
who are given that character by the
Corporation Code or by the corporation’s by
law. Sec. 25 of the Corporation Code
enumerated three specific officers that in law
are considered as corporate officers – the
president, secretary and the treasurer. Lincoln
is not one of them. There is likewise no
showing that his position as Assistant Vice-
President is a corporate officer in the
company’s by-laws. The Labor Arbiter
therefore, has jurisdiction over the case (art
217 (a) (2), Labor Code).
2014 Liwanag Corporation is engaged in the power

XXVI-B generation business. A stalemate was reached
during the collective bargaining negotiations
between its management and the union. After
following all the requisites provided by law, the
union decided to stage a strike. The
management sought the assistance of the
Secretary of Labor and Employment, who
assumed jurisdiction over the strike and issued
a return-to-work order. The union defied the
latter and continued the strike. Without
providing any notice, Liwanag Corporation
declared everyone who participated in the
strike as having lost their employment, (4%)
[B] If before the DOLE Secretary assumed

jurisdiction, the striking un ion members
communicated in writing their desire to return
to work, which offer Liwanag Corporation
refused to accept, what remedy, if any, does
the union have?
Suggested Answer:
File a case for illegal dismissal [Art 217 (a) (2),

Labor Code].
NOTE: Referral of unresolved issues in collective bargaining 2001 I Company A and Union B had a 3-year CBA that
negotiations to the Labor Arbiter is void for want of expired on June 12, 1990. Negotiations
jurisdiction. This includes determining the period of proved futile so the unresolved issues were
retroactivity or period of duration of a Collective Bargaining referred to an Arbiter who rendered a decision
Agreement. on March 15, 1992 retroactive to December
14, 1990. Is the Arbiter’s decision providing
NOTE: Labor Arbiter’s power to issue injunctions as for retroactivity tenable or not? Why? (5%)
ancillary remedy has been deleted by the NLRC Rules of
Procedure. Suggested Answer:
NOTE: Also, Labor Arbiters have no jurisdiction, among The referral of the unresolved issues of the
others, over the following: collective bargaining negotiations to an Arbiter
is not within the jurisdiction of the Arbiter.
a) Members of cooperatives as contradistinguished
with employees (in cases of labor dispute) thereof; But assuming that the unresolved issues in the
b) Intra-corporate disputes; collective bargaining negotiations were
c) Torts; properly referred to the Arbiter pursuant to the
d) Local water districts; provision of the Labor Code (Art 262) that
e) Entities immune form suit states that a Voluntary Arbitrator may hear
f) Government corporations with original charters; and decide any labor dispute, including
g) Religious objectors bargaining deadlocks, the Arbiter’s decision
providing for retroactivity is tenable.
Exercising his compulsory arbitration power,
the Arbiter could decide the issue of
retroactivity in any way which is not contrary
to law, moral, good customs, public order or
public policy.
But in a case (Manila Electric Co vs Secretary

of Labor Leonardo Quisumsing, GR No.
127598, February 22, 2000), the Supreme
Court said that an arbitral award shall retroact
to the first day after the six-month period
following the expiration of the last day of the
CBA that was being re-negotiated.
The retroactive Order of the Labor Arbiter is

void for want of jurisdiction. Jurisdiction is
conferred by law. Nowhere in the Labor Code,
more specifically, Article 2217, is the Labor
Arbiter given jurisdiction over unresolved
issues in collective bargaining, including
determining the period or duration of a
Collective Bargaining Agreement.
POWERS OF THE COMMISSION
ART. 225. [218] Powers of the Commission.

The Commission shall have the power and authority:
(a) To promulgate rules and regulations governing the hearing

and disposition of cases before it and its regional branches, as
well as those pertaining to its internal functions and such rules
and regulations as may be necessary to carry out the purposes
of this Code;
(b) To administer oaths, summon the parties to a controversy,

issue subpoenas requiring the attendance and testimony of
witnesses or the production of such books, papers, contracts,
records, statement of accounts, agreements, and others as
may be material to a just determination of the matter under
investigation, and to testify in any investigation or hearing
conducted in pursuance of this Code;
(c) To conduct investigation for the determination of a

question, matter or controversy within its jurisdiction, proceed
to hear and determine the disputes in the absence of any party
thereto who has been summoned or served with notice to
appear, conduct its proceedings or any part thereof in public
or in private, adjourn its hearings to any time and place, refer
technical matters or accounts to an expert and to accept his
report as evidence after hearing of the parties upon due notice,
direct parties to be joined in or excluded from the proceedings,
correct, amend, or waive any error, defect or irregularity
whether in substance or in form, give all such directions as it
may deem necessary or expedient in the determination of the
dispute before it, and dismiss any matter or refrain from further
hearing or from determining the dispute or part thereof, where
it is trivial or where further proceedings by the Commission are
not necessary or desirable; and
(d) To hold any person in contempt directly or indirectly and

impose appropriate penalties therefor in accordance with law.
A person guilty of misbehavior in the presence of or so near

the Chairman or any member of the Commission or any Labor
Arbiter as to obstruct or interrupt the proceedings before the
same, including disrespect toward said officials, offensive
personalities toward others, or refusal to be sworn, or to
answer as a witness or to
subscribe an affidavit or deposition when lawfully required to
do so, may be summarily adjudged in direct contempt by said
officials and punished by fine not exceeding five hundred
pesos (P500) or imprisonment not exceeding five (5) days, or
both, if it be the Commission or a member thereof, or by a fine
not exceeding one hundred pesos (P100) or imprisonment not
exceeding one (1) day, or both, if it be a Labor Arbiter.
The person adjudged in direct contempt by a Labor Arbiter

may appeal to the Commission and the execution of the
judgment shall be suspended pending the resolution of the
appeal upon the filing by such person of a bond on condition
that he will abide by and perform the judgment of the
Commission should the appeal be decided against him.
Judgment of the Commission on direct contempt is
immediately executory and unappealable. Indirect contempt
shall be dealt with by the Commission or Labor Arbiter in the
manner prescribed under Rule 71 of the Revised Rules of
Court; and
INJUNCTIVE
POWERS OF THE NLRC
(e) To enjoin or restrain any actual or threatened commission

of any or all prohibited or unlawful acts or to require the
1992 V Question No. 5:
performance of a particular act in any labor dispute which, if
not restrained or performed forthwith, may cause grave or A food processing company (the company)
irreparable damage to any party or render ineffectual any engaged the services of duly licensed
decision in favor of such party: Provided, That no temporary independent contractors in connection with
or permanent injunction in any case involving or growing out the operation of its business. The contractors
of a labor dispute as defined in this Code shall be issued deployed workers in the Company. The
except after hearing the testimony of witnesses, with contractors’ workers joined ABC, the union of
opportunity for cross-examination, in support of the rank-and-file employees of Company, and later
allegations of a complaint made under oath, and testimony in
demanded that they be made regular
opposition thereto, if offered, and only after a finding of fact
by the Commission, to the effect: (See also Art 254 and Art
employees because they are performing
212) functions necessary and desirable in the usual
business of the Company. The Company
questioned the contractors’ workers joining
NOTE: Said injunctive powers can only be exercised in ABC and rejected their demand for
relation with labor disputes. regularization. ABC filed a notice of strike with
the Department of Labor and Employment. In
a petition filed with the Regional Trial Court,
(1) That prohibited or unlawful acts have been the Company asked the court to enjoin ABC
threatened and will be committed unless restrained, and the contractors’ workers from declaring a
or have been committed and will be continued strike, asserting that the workers are not
unless restrained, but no injunction or temporary
employees of the Company and that there is
restraining order shall be issued on account of any
threat, prohibited or unlawful act, except against the
no labor dispute between the workers and the
person or persons, association or organization Company as in agreement is only with the
making the threat or committing the prohibited or contractors.
unlawful act or
actually authorizing or ratifying the same after actual As trial judge, will you issue an injunction
knowledge thereof; against ABC and the workers? Explain.
(2) That substantial and irreparable injury to Suggested Answer:

complainant’s property will follow;
(3) That as to each item of relief to be granted,

greater injury will be inflicted upon complainant by
the denial of relief than will be inflicted upon 1993 V
defendants by the granting of relief;
(4) That complainant has no adequate remedy at

law; and property are unable or unwilling to furnish
adequate protection.
Such hearing shall be held after due and personal notice

thereof has been served, in such manner as the Commission
shall direct, to all known persons against whom relief is sought,
and also to the Chief Executive and other public officials of the
province or city within which the unlawful acts have been
threatened or Provided, however, That if a complainant shall
also allege that, unless a temporary restraining order shall be
issued without notice, a substantial and irreparable injury to be
issued upon testimony under oath, sufficient, if sustained, to
justify the Commission in issuing a temporary injunction upon
hearing after notice. Such a temporary restraining order shall
be effective for no longer than twenty (20) days and shall
become void at the expiration of said twenty (20) days. No
such temporary restraining order or temporary injunction shall
be issued except on condition that
complainant shall first file an undertaking with adequate
security in an amount to be fixed by the Commission sufficient
to recompense those enjoined for any loss, expense or
damage caused by the improvident or erroneous issuance of
such order fee, and expense of defense against the order or
against the granting of any injunctive relief sought in the same
proceeding and subsequently denied by the Commission.
The undertaking herein mentioned shall be understood to

constitute an agreement entered into by the complainant and
the surety upon which an order may be rendered in the same
suit or proceeding against said complainant and surety, upon
a hearing to assess damages, of which hearing, complainant
and surety shall have reasonable notice, the said complainant
and surety submitting themselves to the jurisdiction of the
Commission for that purpose. But nothing herein contained
shall deprive any party having a claim or cause of action under
or upon such undertaking from electing to pursue his ordinary
remedy by suit at law or in equity:
Provided, further, That the reception of evidence for the

application of a writ of injunction may be delegated by the
Commission to any of its Labor Arbiters who shall conduct
such hearings in such places as he may determine to be
accessible to the parties and their witnesses and shall submit
thereafter his recommendation to the Commission.

MMKHO Quick Review Notes on Labor Relations Codal Provisions

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

MMKHO Quick Review Notes on Labor Relations Codal Provisions

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

MMKHO – Quick Review Notes

Lex Pareto/ Answer to BAR Examination Question

COMPULSORY NATURE OF THE CLOSED SHOP

(a) To promote and emphasize the primacy of free Answer:

It could be argued that a closed shop provision in

On the other hand, it could be argued that the

(d) To promote the enlightenment of workers concerning

(e) To provide an adequate administrative machinery for

(f) To ensure a stable but dynamic and just industrial

[1] Is the Union correct?

[1] The union is correct. A provision in the

A line must be drawn between management

The attainment of a harmonious labor-

[a] The Union is correct. Workers have the right

[b] Yes. The Union is correct in asking for

The Union’s remedy however should not be to file

1994 Question No. 10-2:

[2] The answer would be the same even if the

2007 Question No. 1-a

[a] The principle of codetermination is one which

First Alternative Answer:

By the principle of codetermination, the workers

Second Alternative Answer:

Codetermination is a term identified with

Question No. 1-b

[b] What, if any, is the basis under the

[b] Art. XIII, Sec 3 of the Constitution guarantees

First Alternative Answer:

The adoption of codetermination is based on the

B. To encourage a truly democratic method of regulating

ART. 219. [212] Definitions.

(a) "Commission" means the National Labor

(b) "Bureau" means the Bureau of Labor Relations and/or

(c) "Board" means the National Conciliation and Mediation

(d) "Council" means the Tripartite Voluntary Arbitration

(e) "Employer" includes any person acting in the interest of

(f) "Employee" includes any person in the employ of an

[2] Before the labor arbiter rendered his decision

[2] But for the purpose of the certification

(g) "Labor organization" means any union or association of

(h) "Legitimate labor organization" means any labor

(i) "Company union" means any labor organization whose

(j) "Bargaining representative" means a legitimate labor

[a] Yes, the law does not require that the

(k) "Unfair labor practice" means any unfair labor practice

LABOR DISPUTE 1991 Question No. 15

Assuming that there is no employer-employee

Yes. There is a labor dispute that could properly

Under the Labor Code, a labor dispute includes

From the above definition, it is noted that there

The demand of the union that the company

MANAGERIAL AND SUPERVISORY EMPLOYEES

The entitlement of Gabo to overtime pay and

A managerial employee is defined by the Code

Gabo, as Chief Engineer, appears to be a

1995 Question No. 7:

[1] Is the contention of Farmers Bank correct?

The contention of the Farmers Bank is not

The contention of the Farmers Bank is partially

On the other hand, cashiers who are in charge

1996 Question No. 3:

“Manager employee” is one who is vested with

Supervisory employees are those who, in the