1

No, the denial of the claim is incorrect.

Under the Supreme Court decision to be compensable the injury or death must have
resulted from an accident arising out of and in the course of employment. It must be
shown that it was sustained in the performance or scope of employment. And such as
police officer is considered on duty 24/7

Here Odu a policeman who was on vacation when he heard his neighbors fighting in
which he rushed to the scene to pacify them. But was shot by one of the persons in the
fight. Odu is a policeman although he is on vacation he was in performance of his duty
as a policeman to serve and protect.

Hence, the denial of the death benefits claim is incorrect.

No, Jeffrey’s contention of illegal dismissal is incorrect.

Under the Labor Code an employment shall be deemed to be regular where the
employee has engaged to perform activities which are usually necessary and desirable,
except where the employment has been fixed for a specific project or undertaking the
completion or termination has been determined at the time of employment.

Here Jeffrey was contracted for 5 years as stipulated in the employment contract, he
was given a report of the termination of his service effective at the expiration of the
employment contract which is June 13, 2022 from the Department of Labor and
Employment. And his contention of that his service were necessary and desirable is
untenable due to the reason of the expiration stated in his employment contract

Hence Jeffrey contention of illegal dismissal claiming that his service was necessary
and desirable in the usual business is incorrect.
 3

No, the Executive Director is incorrect

Under the Supreme Court decision an independent contractor undertakes to perform

work on its own account, under its own responsibility and according to its own manner
and method, free from the control and direction of the principal and there is no
employer-employee relationship present.

Here in the case at bar Dr. Lado required Packro, Bardag, and Buog to matain a
specific work schedule and how to manage the rehabilitation of the patients which is
determined by him as the Executive Director showing an employer-employee
relationship.

Therefore Dr. Lado is liable for the employment benefits of Packro, Bardag and Buog for
they are not an independent contractor.

Yes, Amex corporation is liable for the unpaid wages.

Under the Labor Code indirect employers is solidarily liable for the unpaid wages of its
contractor or sub-contractor.

Here Amex Corporation remitted Janitorial and Allied Services the wages of the
employees but Kardo the proprietor absconded the money and has not paid the wages
of the workers.

Hence Amex Corporation is liable for the unpaid wages for they are solidarily liable in
term of the unpaid wages as provided by the law.

5
Yes, the Dismissal by the Court of Appels is correct
Under the Labor Law petition for review of decision made by the voluntary arbitration is
under Rule 43 and not Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.

Here the voluntary arbritrator as a quasi-judicial agency can only be reviewed through a
petition to review under Rule 43 of the rules of court and not through certiorari.

Hence the dismissal of the CA is valid

The mortgagee and the workers have right over the ₱40,000,000 foreclosure sale of the
building.

Under the Labor Code in the event of bankruptcy or liquidation of the employer’s
business the workers shall enjoy first preference as regard to their wages and other
monetary claim.
Also, under the same code an indirect employer is liable for the unpaid wages of the
independent contractor’s worker.

Acme Corporation have contracted Delta Builders, Inc. for the construction of a building
making Acme Corporation an indirect employer of the construction workers and since
Acme Corporation failed to pay its loan it forecloses the building leaving unpaid
mortgage and wages.

In conclusion Acme corporation being an indirect employer is liable for the wages of the
worker and under the labor code the workers are given first preference as regard to
their wages and other monetary claims.

7
No, Cardo’s complaint for illegal dismissal should not be dismissed for lack of merit.

Under the Labor Law off-detailing or putting an employee on floating status is not
equivalent to dismissal, for as long as it does not exceed 6 months, and after six months
the employee should be recalled for work otherwise, he is deemed terminated,
Here Probinsyano Security Agency have placed Cardo on off-detail and floating status
for 7 months which under the law considered as already been terminated or dismissed
from the work.

In conclusion Cardo’s complaint for illegal dismissal has merit and should not be
dismissed.

No, the Labor Arbiter has no jurisdiction over the case

The Supreme Court held that while a company is an indirect employer of the
independent contractor, the company should be considered an indirect employer only
for the liabilities on wages but not for conferring jurisdiction upon the Labor Arbiter.

Here the USSI is an independent contractor, hence there is no employer-employee

relationship between PAL and the security guards since PAL is an indirect employer.

Therefore the Labor Arbiter has no jurisdiction.

Yes, the Secretary of the Department of Labor and Employment actions is correct.

Under the Labor Code, visitorial and enforcement power under article 128 the Secretary
of Labor and employment may order stoppage of work or suspension of operations of
any establishment when there is non-compliance with the law.
The Secretary of DOLE found out the the Company Bisit is not paying wages to its
employees for the past three months which is a violation of the law and can be
considered as unauthorized deduction of wages.

Therefore the Secretary’s action of stoppage and suspension of operation is correct.

10

Yes, the completion of the house is a valid cause for the termination of Cesar’s
employment

The Supreme Court held that although the employment contract did not state a
particular date but it did specify that the termination of the employment relationship on
the day when the project or phase of work would be completed for the employee is not
considered a regular employee

In the case at bar Cesar was only hired by APB to build a house in the Capitol Hills and
the employment contract specifically referred to him as a project employee although
there is no date of completion it clearly stated that he is only a project employee and
was only hired to build a house.

In conclusion the completion of the house is a valid cause for the termination of Cesar’s
employment for he is only a project employee.

11

The jurisdiction is with the Labor Arbiter

Under the Labor law employees’ misconduct is under the Labor Arbiter jurisdiction.
Here the employee Pullgoso maliciously buy the product at factory price and doing
business by selling such product.

Hence the Labor Arbitor is the one with jurisdiction over the case.
 12

a) Yes, the closure is allowed by law

Under Supreme Court decision, prior to closure as long as they could show good faith
by first considering other less drastic means to avoid or minimize losses to prevent
closure. As closure should only be a measure of last resort when there is other means
and if it failed then closure is only viable course to take.

In conclusion closure is allowed by law.

*As a counsel for the corporation I will recommend to my client that the due requirement
be complied with by serving separate notices to the employees and to the Department
of Labor and Employment at least one month before the closure.

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

Under the Labor Code in case of closure not due to serious business losses or financial
reverses the separation pay shall be equivalent to 1 month or at least one-half month
pay for every year of service, whichever is higher.

13

Under Kasambahay Law, kasambahay refers to persons who is task a household works
for which he/she is being payed for service rendered, and unless agreed upon by the
employer and the kasambahay no deduction from pay shall be made, other than those
allowed by law.

In the case at bar the Nena asked for a leave to take care of his mother to the employer
which her employer agreed on the ground that her salary will be deducted for the day
she is absent.
Therefore the employer is correct in making a condition for the deduction of salary on
the day Nena is absent.

b) Househelper – refers to any person employed in the employer’s residence performing

task as household works for which he or she is being payed for service rendered.

Homeworker – refers to any person who is an industrial worker who works from home
processing raw material into finished product for the employer.

14

Yes, Manny commited acts of sexual harassment in a work-related or employment

environment

Under Labor Law sexual harassment is committed by an employer, manager, coach, or

any other person who having authority over another in a work or training demands or
request any sexual favors. It must be emphasized that the demand of sexual favor need
not be explicit or stated.

Manny Yiak has authority over Miss Rosa Mariposa and ask her to stay purportedly to
discuss some work assignment but was in fact was ask for her contact details and ask
to go out to dinner and dancing and to accompany him to Tagaytay while telling her
about a promotion by his endorsement.
In conclusion Manny Yiak committed sexual harassment indirectly while showing his
authority, influence or moral ascendency over Miss Rosa for a position due to his
endorsement.

15

Yes Arkady’s dismissal on the ground of conflict of interest is proper

Under the Supreme Court decision, that the law recognizes that management has rights
which is entitled to respect enforcement in the interest of fair play and not all labor
dispute is decided in favor of the workers.

In the case at bar Arkady upon employment was ask to sign a contract stipulating to
inform the company of his future relationship to the company and should it pose a
conflict of interest he or his future partner must resign. In which he refused to comply.
In conclusion Arkady’s dismissal is proper for he was asked to resign or his wife to
resign due to the conflict of interest as the employment contract stated.

16

My advice to Bruno’s widow is that as a beneficiary she is entitled to receive the death
benefits from the Social Security System.

Under the SSS law, Employers are required to register their business to the SSS and to
report all their employees for SSS coverage within 30 days from actual employment
date.

The fact that the SSS has not previously received a report about an employee from his
employer or contribution paid to in his name by the employer does not diminish his right
to benefits. The employer is the one who will be held liable to the SSS for the benefits of
the said employee.

In conclusion the widow may received the death benefits of Bruno from 2014 and not
2015.