LABOR LAW

I.

(A) No. Art. 27 of the LC mandates that for a corporation to validly engage in recruitment and
placement of workers, locally and overseas, at least 75% of its authorized and voting capital stock
must be owned and controlled by Filipino citizens. Since only 70% of its authorized capital stock
is owned by Filipinos, it consequently cannot validly engage in recruitment and placement of
workers, both locally and overseas. (2%)
(B) Under Sec. 6(m) of RA 8042, illegal recruitment is considered economic sabotage if it is committed
by a syndicate or is large scale in scope. It is syndicated illegal recruitment if the illegal recruitment
is carried out by 3 or more conspirators; and it is large scale in scope when it is committed against
3 or more persons, individually or as a group. (2%)

II.

No. a change in work schedule is a management prerogative of LKG. Thus, Carding has no cause
of action against LKG, if as a result of its change to 2 shifts, he can only expect a maximum of 4
hours overtime work. Besides, art. 97 of the LC does not guarantee Carding a certain number of
hours of OT work. In Manila Jockey v. Manila Jockey Club, the SC held that the basis of OT claim is
an employee’s having been “permitted to work”. Otherwise, as in this case, such is not
demandable. (4%)

III.

No, the arrangement is not allowed. The models are Benito’s employees. As such, their services
require compensation in legal tender (Art. 102 LC). The 3 sets of clothes, regardless of value, are
in kind; hence, the former’s compensation is not in the form prescribed by law. (2%)

IV.

Katrina’s objection is justified. Having enjoyed the across-the-board bonuses, Katrina has earned
a vested right. Hence, none of them can be withheld or reduced. In the problem, the company
has not proven its alleged losses to be substantial. Permitting reduction of pay at the slightest
indication of losses is contrary to the policy of the state to afford full protection to labor and
promote full employment.

As to the withheld productivity-based bonuses, Katrina is deemed to have earned them because
of her excellent performance ratings for 3 quarters. On this basis, they cannot be withheld without
violating the principle of non-dimunition of benefits.

Moreover, it is evident from the facts of the case that what was withdrawn by FEB was a
productivity bonus. Protected by RA 6791 which mandates that the monetary value of the
productivity improvement be shared with the employees, the “productivity-based incentive”
scheme of FEB cannot just be withdrawn without the consent of its affected employees. (3%)

V.
 Soledad’s defense is meritorious. Sec. 4(d) of the Kasambahay Law (RA No. 10361) provides that
the term “domestic worker” shall not include children who are under foster family arrangement,
and are provided access to education and given an allowance incidental to education, i.e. “baon”,
transportation, school projects and school activities. (4%)

VI.

(A) Yes. With Ador’s simply executing Nico’s instruction, Nico, who now has control over Ador’s work,
has become the employer of Ador. The SC held that control is the most important determinant of
employer-employee relationship. (4%)
(B) Yes, as under Sec. 9 of the Social Security Law, coverage in the SSS shall be compulsory upon all
employees not over 60 years of age and their employers. (2%)

VII.

As Labor Arbiter, I will decide in favor of Don Don. Given the nature of his work, which consists of
activities usually or desirable in the usual business of CALLHELP, Don Don should be considered a
regular employee.

CALLHELP’s termination of Don Don’s service in the guise of “poor performance” is not valid.
Whether for a probationary or regular employee, the requisites of dismissal on that ground do
not appear to have been complied with by the employer here. (4%)

VIII.

Yes. People Plus is a labor only contractor because it is not substantially capitalized. Neither does
it carry on an independent business in which it uses its own investment in the form of tools,
equipment, machineries or work premises. Hence, it is just an agent or recruiter of workers who
perform work directly related to the trade of Star Crafts. Since both the essential element and the
conforming element of labor-only contracting are present, Star Crafts becomes the employer of
the supplied worker.

As principal, SC will always be an employer in relation to the workers supplied by its contractor.
Its status as employer is either direct or indirect depending on whether the contractor is
legitimate or not. Thus even if PP were a legitimate job contractor, still SC will be treated as a
statutory employer for purposes of paying the workers’ unpaid wages and benefits. (4%)

IX.

I will advise Din Din to sue her boss and the supermarket for illegal dismissal. She cannot be
compelled to accept the promotion. Her unsatisfactory evaluations as well as her boss’ insistence
that she should agree to the intended transfer to Visayas are badges of an abuse of management
prerogative. The SC has held that managerial prerogative to transfer personnel must be exercised
without abuse of discretion, bearing in mind the basic elements of justice and fair play. Hence,
Din Din’s dismissal is illegal. (4%)

X.
 No, the preventive suspension of Katrina is not valid. The Employer may place an employee under
preventive suspension if his/her continued employment would pose a serious and imminent
threat to the life or property of the employer or of his/her co-employees. These requirements are
not present here. (4%)

XI.

Matatag does not have to await the result of the criminal case before exercising its prerogative to
dismiss. Dismissal is not affected by a criminal case. Under the Three-Fold Liability Rule, a single
act may result in three liabilities, two of which are criminal and administrative. To establish them,
the evidence of the crime must amount to proof beyond reasonable doubt; whereas, the evidence
of the ground for dismissal is substantial evidence only. In this regard, the company has some
basis already for withholding the trust it reposed on its manager. Hence, Rico’s conviction need
not preclude the employee’s dismissal. (4%)

XII.