Labor Prelims - Solon
Labor Prelims - Solon
Labor Prelims - Solon
ESSAY / CASE PROBLEMS. Discuss the issue and make your argument and
conclusion based on the given question. Make your answer Accurate, Brief and
Concise.
1. As between the policy under Article 4 of the Labor and the concomitant exception
under the Principle of Management Prerogative, explain the apparent conflict, the
given consideration as to how it can be reconciled, and exception. Discuss and
provide reasons.
Article 4 of the Labor Code provides that all doubts in the implementation and
interpretation of the provisions of the Labor Code, including its implementing rules and
regulations, shall be resolved in favor of labor. Thus, the Code explicitly state that the state
guarantee that if there exist doubt in the interpretation of any law, rules and regulations, it
must be afforded or construed in favor of the labor as part of the state’s policy of protecting
the labor.
On the other hand, employer was also given protection by means of doctrine of
management prerogative. On the case of Rural Bank of Cantilan, Inc. v. Julve (G.R. No.
169750, February 27, 2007), the court stated that under the doctrine of management
prerogative, every employer has the inherent right to regulate, according to his own
discretion and judgment, all aspects of employment, including hiring, work assignments,
working methods, the time, place and manner of work, work supervision, transfer of
employees, lay-off of workers, and discipline, dismissal, and recall of employees. The only
limitations to the exercise of this prerogative are those imposed by labor laws and the
principles of equity and substantial justice.
While it is true that the law imposes many obligations upon the employer,
nonetheless, it also protects the employer’s right to expect from its employees not only
good performance, adequate work, and diligence, but also good conduct and loyalty. In
fact, the Labor Code does not excuse employees from complying with valid company
policies and reasonable regulations for their governance and guidance (Peckson v.
Robinson Supermarket Corp, G.R. No. 198534, July 3, 2013).
Both principles tend to uphold the rights of the labor and the rights of the employer.
To reconcile the conflict between the two, the laborer must perform what was expected of
him from his job and on the other hand, the employer must act in accordance with the
established rules and regulations of the company which was within the limitations set forth
by the Labor Code.
2. Read the case of People vs. Hernandez, G.R. No. 141221-36, March 7, 2002.
Provide your concept of Illegal Recruitment in the case following the applicable
provisions of the Labor Code.
Article 38 of the Labor Code provides that Illegal Recruitment is any recruitment
activities, including the prohibited practices enumerated under Article 34 of this Code, to be
undertaken by non-licensees or non-holders of authority shall be deemed illegal and
punishable under Article 39 of this Code. The Department of Labor and Employment or any
law enforcement officer may initiate complaints under this Article. At the case at bar, the
court simply define Illegal Recruitment as "committed by persons who, without authority
from the government, give the impression that they have the power to send workers
abroad for employment purposes."
In the case at bar, the prosecution was able to prove beyond reasonable doubt that
Hernandez et.al. were engaged in activities that fall within the definition of recruitment and
placement under the Labor Code. It was also shown that they promised overseas
employment to private complainants and required them to prepare the necessary
documents and to pay the placement fee, although they did not have any license to do so.
There is illegal recruitment when one who does not possess the necessary authority or
license gives the impression of having the ability to send a worker abroad. The activities of
Hernandez et.al were a clear violation of the provisions of the Labor Code
It was also proved on the case that Hernandez et.al has committed syndicated
illegal recruitment. Illegal recruitment is deemed committed by a syndicate if carried out
by a group of three (3) or more persons conspiring and/or confederating with one another
in carrying out any unlawful or illegal transaction, enterprise or scheme defined under the
first paragraph of Article 38 of the Labor Code. It has been shown that Karl Reichl, Yolanda
Reichl and Francisco Hernandez conspired with each other in convincing private
complainants to apply for an overseas job and giving them the guaranty that they would be
hired as domestic helpers in Italy although they were not licensed to do so.
3. How is the issue of POGO made to apply in Alien Employment Program? Discuss.
POGO or Philippine Offshore Gaming Operators have been recently on the roll
since the approval of partial operation even during this pandemic. Since such sector’s
operations fall under the Business Process Outsourcing (BPO) category and the majority of
its clients are foreign nationals, the employment of alien nationals Thru AEP has been
prevalent. POGO operations most likely require its operator to be able to speak in foreign
language to be able to operate the gaming environment. Because of this, AEP applications
have increase based on the existing requirement that a foreign national may be allowed to
engage in gainful employment, thru Alien Employment Program.