LABOR LAW MOCK BAR ANSWERS

I.

A.) The salient feature of the constitution for the protection of the labor are; that labor legislation
is vested with public interest; that there should be due process; to level the plain between the
employees and the employers; the right to join or form unions or associations should not be
abridge.

B.) Co-determination is a situation where the employees is allowed to take part in the policy
formation and management up to a certain extent.

II.

No, the wage order is not valid.

Under the labor code, wage orders was based solely on the demands of the labor
federations. Such action violated the right of the employers to due process.

Hence, the wage order is not valid.

III.

Pullgoso is not correct.

Under the labor code the arbiter shall have jurisdiction on cases where an employer and
employee relationship exist or grounded or incidental to the above mentioned relationship; such
as illegal termination with claim for reinstatement and monetary claims.

In the case at bar, the ground of the suit does not involved the employee and employer
relationship. Rather, based upon fraud resulting to the claim of damages.

Hence, the RTC has valid jurisdiction over the suit.

 IV.

A.) Overtime is the work performed by a rank and file employee or by a labourer beyond
the hours of work provided by law.
B.) All employees are entitled to overtime pay, except the following; managerial
employees, government employees, field personnel; piece rate workers and those paid
by result.
C.) No, seafarers are not entitled to overtime pay as a general rule.
Under the law, seafarers as a general rule is not entitled to overtime pay even though
they are staying in the ship.
However, as an exception, seafarers are given overtime pay when required to
work more than the working hours.

V.

A.) No, the action of the handicapped employees shall not prosper.

Under, the labor law, employment for a period is valid provided that the period is less
than 6months and that the employee is informed of the duration of the employment.

In the case presented, the handicapped employees where made known that the
employment shall be for only 5months.

Hence, the suit will not prosper.

B.) the rights of the disabled workers under the Magna Carta for disabled workers are;

1.) Right against discrimination;

2.) Right to facilities for disabled persons;

3.) Right to equal opportunity in employment;

4.) Right to security of tenure;

 VI.

A.) No, the CBA provision is not valid.

Under the law, the CBA shall apply to all the employees whether a member or not
of the union.

Based on the facts the religious belief of the employees prohibits them from
joining any union.

However, it is unlawful to exclude them from the effects of the CBA.

B.) No, the company should not terminate the members of the religious sect.

Under the law, a closed shop is a provision in a CBA where in, all newly hired
employees must join the union to maintain there employment. However, for those
employee who at the time the CBA took effect where already employees of the company
has the option to join or not to join the union.

In the case at the bar, the employees who did not join the union are already
employees at the time the CBA took effect. Hence, has the right to join or not to join the
union.

VII.

A.) Yes, closure based on losses and financial reverses is valid.

As counsel for the corporation, I would notify the employees 60days prior to the
closure.

I would advise the corporation to prepare all the documents the employees would
require to search for a new employment and that to settle their back wages.

B.) Yes, the employees are entitled to separation pay.

Under the law, employees are entitled to separation pay in case of closure. The
amount shall be equivalent to 1 month’s wages multiplied to the number of years
employed.
 VIII.

A.) No, the employer is not correct.

Under the law, kasambahay are paid monthly, not on the daily rate.

In the present case, Nena shall received her ½ month salary in full upon departure and
shall resume pay upon her return.

B.) Househelpers are those employed to the personal benefit of the employer and
members of the household, while, homeworkers are those employed and conducts
their work in the confinement of their homes.

IX

The petition for injunction filed by with the RTC by the management is not correct.

The law prohibits the issuance of injunctions by the courts in labor disputes, hence, the
petition must be denied.

The suit for damages filed by MUMO with the RTC is not correct.

Under the law, the RTC has no jurisdiction over labor disputes involving ULP. The case
falls under the jurisdiction of the Labor Arbiter.

Hence, the RTC must dismiss the suit for lack of jurisdiction.
 X

No, Manny did not commit acts of sexual harassment.

Under the law, the core requisite of sexual harassment is the act of asking for sexual
favors in return for beneficial conditions by a person with moral ascendancy over the other.

Based on the facts, Manny did not ask for any sexual favors nor commit sexual acts
against Rosa, hence, there was no sexual harassment.

XI

Yes, the illegal dismissal suit will prosper.

Under the labor code, to avail for early or optional retirement, the employee must give his
voluntary consent.

In the present case, the employer proceeded to retire Marcia despite her objection, hence,
it is case of illegal dismissal.

XII

a.) Project employment is a form of employment for the duration of the project and shall
cease upon its completion. While a Fixed Period employment is based on a fixed
determinable time or duration and upon its happening or expiration shall terminate the
employment.

b.) Under the law, a Project employee becomes a regular employee when upon the
completion of the project his service is continued.
 XIII

The RTC should deny the petition to dismiss the case.

Under the labor code, the Labor Arbiter has jusrisdiction over labor disputes over money
claims involving employer-employee relationships.

In the present case, the loans and advances made by Pabla is grounded on a debtor-
creditor agreement. Hence, the RTC has jurisdiction over the case.

XIV

Nica shall receive P735 for the service rendered on November 1.

Under the law, an employee made to work on a regular working day which walls on her
rest day, shall receive an additional Premium pay which is 50% of her regular daily rate.

XV

Yes, the petition for certification election must be entertained.

Under the law, a petition for certification election may be filed during the freedom period
which is 60 days before the expiration of the CBA.

Based on the facts, the petition was made 30 days prior the expiration of the CBA, well
within the Freedom Period. Hence, the petition is valid.
 XVI

Yes, MINI’s action would be legal.

Under the law, only the Exclusive Bargaining Representative may file for a notice of
strike.

In the present case, in the instance that MINI wins in the Certification Election and
acquires the status of an EBR, then it may validly file the notice of strike.

XVII

A.) Yes, closure based on losses and financial reverses is valid.

As counsel for the corporation, I would notify the employees 60days prior to the
closure.

I would advise the corporation to prepare all the documents the employees would
require to search for a new employment and that to settle their back wages.

B.) Yes, the employees are entitled to separation pay.

Under the law, employees are entitled to separation pay in case of closure. The
amount shall be equivalent to 1 month’s wages multiplied to the number of years
employed.

C.) Yes, the closure of the corporation due to old age of the owners is valid.

Under the law, the life of the corporation may be cut short by the board of directors
upon concurrence of the stockholders.

In the case at bar, closure by the corporation due to the old age of the owners is valid,
however, they must comply with the advance notice rule and provide severance pay
to the affected employees.
 XVIII

Yes, the dismissal is proper.

In a case decided by the Supreme Court, the dismissal of employees on the ground of
conflict of interest to protect confidential matters is a valid exercise of management prerogative.

Based on the facts, Alkady’s marriage to Olga, an employee of a competitor would give
rise to a possibility of conflict of interest. Hence the dismissal is valid.

XIX

Yes, the Secretary of Labor acted properly in assuming jurisdiction over the labor
dispute.

Under the law, the Secretary of Labor, at any time may assume jurisdiction of labor
disputes where public interest is involved to prevent further damage to the parties and the public.

In the present case, the Secretary’s action to assume jurisdiction over a labor dispute
involving a bank, where public interest involved prior to a strike is a valid action.