Anda di halaman 1dari 9

MY AWESOME 2017 BAR EXAM REVIEWER

LABOR LAW -list of entities disqualified from being issued a license


-duration of validity of license/authority
LABOR STANDARDS -citizenship requirement
-capitalization requirements
RA 8042 (Migrant Workers Act of 1995)
Sec. 2 (a) meaning of OFW People v. Ochoa (2011)
-governs illegal recruitment of migrant workers vs. -accused must give the impression of ability to send
illegal recruitment of local workers (governed by the complainant abroad. (illegal recruitment)
Labor Code)
Sec. 6 other prohibited acts (illegal recruitment) People v. Reyes (1995)
-broadened the concept of illegal recruitment under -a conviction for large scale illegal recruitment must
the LC and provided stiffer penalties. be based on a finding in each case of illegal
recruitment of three or more persons whether
RA 9422 (Act to Strengthen the Regulatory Functions individually or as a group.
of the Philippine Overseas Employment
Administration) People v. Ochoa (supra); People v. Ocden (2011)
-contains the policy of close government regulation of -one convicted for illegal recruitment may still be
recruitment activities convicted of estafa under Art. 315, par. 2(a) of the
RPC.
RA 10022 (Act Amending RA 8042)
Sec. 5 definition of illegal recruitment Serrano v. Gallant Maritime Services, Inc. (2011)
-reincorporated the nullified the 3-month salary cap -invalidated the 3-month salary cap clause for being an
clause after being struck down by the Serrano ruling. invalid classification, in violation of the equal
protection clause. (an illegally dismissed migrant
POEA Rules of 2002 worker shall be entitled to the salary pertaining to the
unexpired portion of his contract, not just to 3
months worth of salary for every year of the Far East Agricultural Supply v. Lebatique (2007)
unexpired portion) -legal test WON one is a field personnel: WON actual
work hours in the field can be determined with
Sameer Overseas Placement Agency v. Cabiles (2014) reasonable certainty by the employer.
-struck the 3-month salary cap clause that was revived
by RA 10022. Declared that the Serrano ruling holds as RA 10361 (Domestic Workers Act or Batas
binding precedent. Kasambahay)

Salazar v. Achacoso (1990) Department of Labor Manual


-Art. 38(c) of the LC is unconstitutional. The SOLE -treatment of travel time
cannot issue an arrest warrant. Only a judge can under
the Constitution. DOLE Advisory No. 02, Series of 2004
-flexible work arrangements
EO 857 (Governing the Remittance to the Philippines -compressed work week
of Foreign Exchange Earnings of Filipino Workers
Abroad and for other Purposes) Damasco v. NLRC (2000)
-composite or package pay (all-inclusive salary
PNOC Energy Development Corp. v. NLRC (1991) wherein the overtime pay is built-in) is not illegal per
-if a GOCC is created by a special/original charter, Civil se.
Service Law applies; if it is created by the General
Corporation Law, then the LC applies. RA 10151 (An Act Allowing the Employment of Night
Workers)
Mercidar Fishing Corporation v. NLRC (1998)
-legal test WON one is a field personnel: WON one is DO 119-12
under the effective control and supervision of the -IRR of RA 10151. Defined what a night worker is.
employer.
RA 9492 RA 8187 (Paternity Leave Act of 1996)
-list of regular and nationwide special holidays PD 851 (The 13th Month Pay Law)

RA 8972 (Solo Parents Welfare Act) Davao Fruits Corp. v. ALU (1993)
-parental leave -for 6 years, the employer had freely, voluntarily, and
continuously included in the computation of its
RA 9262 (Anti-VAWC Act of 2004) employees 13th month pay the payments for sick
-battered woman leave leave, vacation and maternity leaves, premiums. A
company practice favorable to the employees and had
International School Alliance of Educators v. Hon. indeed been established ripened into benefits enjoyed
Quisumbing (2000) by them. Thus, it cannot be reduced, diminished, or
-equal work for equal pay principle. Filipino teachers discontinued.
v. alien teachers
Boie-Takeda v. de la Serna (1993)
Songco v. NLRC (1990) -commissions paid to medical representatives are
-wage v. salary excluded from the term salary because they are
-wage and salary include earned sales commissions merely productivity bonuses and have no clear direct
or necessary relation to the amount of work actually
RA 6727 (Wage Rationalization Act) done by each employee.

San Miguel Corp. v. CA (2002) RA 7641 (The Retirement Pay Law)


-payment of benefits for Muslim holidays also apply to
non-Muslims. Universal Robina Sugar Milling Corp. v. Caballeda
(2008)
RA 1161 (Social Security Law) -two essential requisites in order that RA 7641 may be
-maternity leave benefits given retroactive effect.
Oxales v. Unilab (2008) RA 7277 (Magna Carta for Disabled Persons)
-RA 7641 only applies when (1) there is no CBA or
other applicable contract providing for retirement San Miguel v. del Rosario (2005) citing Buiser v.
benefits; or (2) there is a CBA or other applicable Leogardo (1984)
employment contract providing for it but is below the -exception to the rule that probationary employment
requirements set for by law. shall not exceed 6 months.
-when the parties agree to a longer probationary
Duncan Association of Detailmen v. Glaxo Wellcome period, such as when established by company policy
(2004) or required by the nature of the work performed.
-employer policy prohibiting an employee from having
a personal or marital relationship with an employee of Mercado v. AMA Computer College (2010)
a competitor is valid. The prohibition was reasonable --exception to the rule that probationary employment
under the circumstances because relationships of shall not exceed 6 months.
such nature might compromise the interest of the -involves the 3-year probationary period of teachers.
company. Employers right to guard trade secrets,
manufacturing formulas, marketing strategies, and Abbott Laboratories Phil. et al. v. Alcaraza (2013)
other confidential information ad programs from -exception to the rule that if employer fails to (1)
competitors. communicate regularization standards to
probationary employee (2) at the time of the
RA 7877 (Anti-Sexual Harassment Act of 1995) employees engagement, employee is deemed a
regular employee.
RA 9231 (Special Protection of Children Against Child -when the job is self-descriptive in nature, for
Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination Act) instance, in case of maids, cooks drivers or
-employment of children messengers.

RA 7796 (TESDA Act of 1994) Samson v. NLRC (1996)


-indicators of project employment -fighting within company premises

Willliam Uy Construction Corp. v. Trinidad (2010) Autobus Workers Union v. NLRC (1998)
-length of time is not applicable in construction -uttering obscene, insulting or offensive words against
industry (WON regular or project employee) a superior.
Brent School v. Zamora (1990)
-recognized the validity of fixed-term employment. Felix v. Enertech Systems Industries (2001)
-fabricating time records.
DO 174-17 of 2017
-superseded DO 18-A of 2011 as regards labor-only Zenco Sales, Inc. v. NLRC (1994)
contracting -using employers property equipment and personnel
in the personal business of the employee.
Norkis Trading v. Buenavista (2012)
-when an entity is declared to be a labor-only Willful disobedience or insubordination
contractor, the employees supplied by the said Sentinel Security Agency, Inc. v. NLRC (1998)
contractor become regular employees of the principal. -refusal to transfer

Nissan Motors Phils., Inc. v. Angelo (2011) Westin Philippine Plaza Hotel v. NLRC (1999)
-accusatory and inflammatory language used by an -refusal to report to new work assignment.
employee to the employer or superior can be a ground
for dismissal or termination. Gross and Habitual Neglect of Duties
Labor et al. v. NLRC (1995)
DO 147-15 of 2015 -habitual tardiness, absenteeism and abandonment.
-amended IRR of Arts. 297-299
Fraud or Willful Breach of Trust
Serious misconduct Top Form Mfg. Co. v. NLRC (1992)
Technol Eight Philippines Corp. v. NLRC (2010) -head supervisor initiating and leading a boycott
-dismissing employees without procedural due
GT Printers v. NLRC (1992) process was illegal. Hence, reinstatement plus full
-habitual absence of managerial employee backwages.

San Miguel Corp. v. NLRC (1992) Wenphil v. NLRC (1989)


-failure of cashier to account for the shortage of -if dismissal was for just or authorized cause but no
company funds procedural due process, termination was valid but
employer is liable for indemnity.
SME Bank, Inc. v. De Guzman (2013) -belated due process rule
-asset sales v. stock sales
Serrano v. NLRC (2000)
Seastar Marine Service Inc. v. Bul-an Jr. (2004) -modified Wenphil. Such termination is not illegal but
-a formal trial-type hearing is not at all times and in all ineffectual. Employer liable for full backwages plus
instances essential to due process. nominal and moral damages. If dismissal was for
authorized cause, separation pay.
Quijano v. Mercury Drug Corp. (1998)
-strained relations doctrine Agabon v. NLRC (2004)
-payment of separation pay over reinstatement -abandoned Serrano and revived Wenphil. If
termination was for just or authorized case but
Planters Products, Inc. v. NLRC (1989) procedural process was not observed, termination is
-separation pay is basic salary plus regular allowance, valid but liable for nominal damages.
e.g. transportation and emergency living allowances.
Westin Phil. Plaza Hotel v. NLRC (1999)
Wenphil v. Serrano v. Agabon -employer has the right to transfer employees in
pursuit of its legitimate business interest, provided
Pre-wenphil there is no demotion in rank or diminution of salary,
benefits and other privileges and not motivated by
discrimination or made in bad faith or effected as a working hours of its employees so long as such
form of punishment or demotion without sufficient prerogative is exercised in good faith for the
cause. advancement of the employers interest and to for the
purpose of defeating the right of employees.
Jonathan Morales v. Harbor Centre Port Terminal, Inc.
(2012) RA 8282 (SSS Law)
-in cases of transfer of an employee, the rule is settled
that the employer is charged with the burden of RA 8291 (GSIS Law)
proving that its conduct and action are for valid and
legitimate grounds such as genuine business necessity LABOR RELATIONS
and that the transfer is not unreasonable,
inconvenient or prejudicial to the employee. Reyes v. Trajano (1992)
The right to form or join a labor organization
Traders Royal Bank v. NLRC (1990) necessarily includes the right to refuse or refrain
-a bonus is a gratuity or act of liberality of the given from exercising said right.
which the recipient has no right to demand as a matter
of right. It is basically a management prerogative Toyota Motor Phil. Corp. v. Toyota Phil. Corp. Labor
which cannot be forced upon the employer. Union (1997)
-rationale why supervisory employees cannot join
Kimberly-Clark Philippines, Inc. v. Dimayuga (2009) same labor organization as rank-and-file EEs.
-matter of giving bonuses over and above the workers
lawful salaries and allowances is entirely dependent DO 14 Series of 2001 (Guidelines Governing the
on the financial capability of the employer to give it. Employment and Working Conditions of Security
Guards and Similar Personnel in the Private Security
Sime Darby Pilipinas, Inc. v. NLRC (1998) Industry)
-management retains the prerogative, whenever
exigencies of the service so require, to change the Manila Electric Co. v. SOLE (1991)
-security guards may now freely join a labor regardless of their degree of participation in the
organization with rank-and-file or supervisory union, business.
depending on their rank.
EO 180 (Guideline for the Exercise of the Right to
San Miguel Supervisors and Exempt Union v. Organize of Government Employees)
Laguesma (1997) -high-level employees of the government whose
-nature of access test for confidential employees functions are normally considered as policy-making or
-(1) must assist or act in a confidential capacity and (2) managerial shall not be eligible to join a union.
to persons who formulate, determine, and effectuate -neither can the members of the AFP, policemen,
management policies in the field of labor relations. police officers, firemen, and jailguards.

Metrolab Industries Inc. v. Roldan-Confessor (1996)


-why confidential employees cant form, join, assist
labor unions.

Standard Chartered Bank Employees Union v. SCB


(2008)
-the prohibition in the LC against managerial
employees has been extended by jurisprudence to
confidential employees.

Batangas Electric Cooperative Labor Union v. Young


(1988); Benguet Electric Cooperative v. Ferrer-Calleja
(1989)
-members of a cooperative are not entitled to form,
join, assist union because they are co-owners
CRIMINAL LAW

Book I

Anda mungkin juga menyukai