Labor Law Quiz

1. A Collective Bargaining Agreement will terminate every ______.

a. 5 years
b. 3 years
c. 2 years
d. 1 year
2. The determination of confidential employees who are to be excluded as appropriate bargaining units is
___________.
a. A question of law.
b. A question of fact.
c. Both a and b.
d. None of the above.
3. Val is a working student who was just appointed as a Supervisor OIC (officer in charge) in the grocery
where he works. Three months passed but the management was still not able to find a permanent
supervisor to take his place. In this case, the rule applicable is:
a. employees in acting capacities for at least a month should be retained in their previous position.
b. employees in acting capacities for at least 3 months should be retained in their previous position.
c. employees in acting capacities for at least 3 months should have a raise in their salary.
d. employees in acting capacities for at least a month should have a salary raise.
II. PEARANDA vs BAGANGA PLYWOOD CORPORATION
1. A managerial employee is defined under what law?
a. The contract between the employer and the employee insofar as the parties are concerned.
b. The Labor Code of the Philippines.
c. The Implementing Rules and Regulations of the Labor Code of the Philippines.
d. All of the above.
2. Overtime and premium pay are entitlements accorded to:
a. Managerial employees only
b. Managerial and regular employees only.
c. Regular employees.
d. None of the above
3. Val was finally promoted as a supervisor in the call center where hes working. However, he is a buddhist.
By reason of which, the new owner of the call center, who just acquired the call center for a day, terminated
him. Val sued the owner. If you are the Labor Arbiter, how would you decide on the case?
a. Dismiss the case, religious differences being a valid ground for termination. The employer merely
exercising his religious expression.
b. Rule in favor of Val and award him payment for overtime he rendered as a supervisor.
c. Rule in favor of Val. The ground of termination is not a valid one as it is not one of those
mentioned in Article 282 of the Labor Code.
d. Dismiss the case there being no sufficient time to establish an
employer-employee relationship between the new owner and Val.
III. AUTO BUS TRANSPORT SYSTEMS, INC. vs ANTONIO BAUTISTA
1. Where an employee receives a certain percentage from the gross earning on a particular day, his mode of
getting paid is by means of:
a. Commission
b. Chance
c. Percentage
d. Interest
e. None of the above
2. ___________ are those whose performance of their job/service is not supervised by the employer or his
representative, the workplace being away from the principal office and whose hours and days of work cannot
be determined with reasonable certainty.

a. Supervisors
b. Extra or Commissioned workers
c. Field personnel
d. Managers in acting capacity
e. All of the above.
3. Val won an Illegal Dismissal case. He used to work in a call center for 5 years. He was awarded the
payment of his service incentive leave pays among others. Compute the SILP.
a. One month pay less taxes, SSS, Pag-Ibig for every 12 months he spent with the company.
b. One month pay for every 12 months he spent with the company.
c. One month pay for every 6 months he spent with the company.
d. None of the above.
IV. FAR EAST and/or UY vs LEBATIQUE
1. Overtime pay is a right provided for in:
a. The Constitution
b. The Labor Code
c. The Civil Code
d. The Employment Contract
2. Abandonment of ones employment is constituted by absence without justifiable reason and
___________.
a. Nothing else.
b. A clear intention, as manifested by some overt act, to sever the employer-employee relationship.
c. Undue injury to the companys business.
d. For a period not lesser than 7 working days.
3. Val is a head teacher in a tutorial center who coaches and evaluates tutors. As the head, he comes to
work anytime he wants between the hours of 2pm to 2am. Within that time he is required to evaluate at least
5 tutors. He is free to say anything to the tutors so long as they are work related. Based on the foregoing, he
is considered as a:
a. Managerial staff
b. Managerial employee
c. Regular employee.
d. Quality analyst
e. a and b
V. TAPE and/or TUVIERA vs SERVAA
1. What test is being employed to determine the existence of an employer-employee relationship between
two persons?
a. Regularity of Salary/Wage Test
b. The Four Fold Test
c. The Three Fold Rule
d. SSS and GSIS Premise Test
e. None of the above
2. In determining if there exists an employer-employee relationship, the following are determined except:
a. Selection and engagement of the employee.
b. Intent of the employee to return to work on a regular basis.
c. Power to dismiss by the employer.
d. Power of control by the employer.
3. Val was hired by Sitel, a human resources agency which works for a call center. He was assigned as a
customer service representative in a call center. Due to irregular call volumes, a scheduler would have to
give him sliding shifts. On Monday, he starts at 8pm and ends his day at 7am; Tuesday, from 9pm to 3am;
Wednesday, from 10pm to 9am; Thursday, from 8pm to 2am; Friday, from 9pm to 6am. At any rate, if there
are no calls, Val can voluntarily leave the office but the rest of the unexpired shift is not paid. He also
receive, on top of his regular monthly salary, gets commissions if he is able to sell products to

customers after assisting them in their queries. At the end of the month, his commission triples the amount of
his regular pay.
After 2 months, due to a rumor that Val contracted AIDS, his boss terminated him without hearing Val side of
the story. The boss stated however that it is in his prerogative to protect the health and welfare of the other
workers in the call center. An illegal dismissal suit was filed by Val against the call center. The boss argued
that there was no employer-employee relationship.
Rule on the case.
a. There is no employer-employee relationship because the call
center has no control over Jhowiey for he can leave his work
anytime only on the condition of nonpayment.
b. There is no employer-employee relationship because Jhowiey is actually a commissioned employee
based on the fact that his
commission is higher than his basic pay.
c. There is an employer-employee relationship but the dismissal is part of management prerogative hence
valid.
d. There is no employer-employee relationship because Jhowiey
was not a direct hire by the call center. He was merely hired by
the HR agency that works for the call center.
e. There is an employer employee-relationship. The 4 Fold Test was complied in the case at bar.
VI. THELMA DUMPIT-MURILLO vs CA, ABC, Javier & Tan
1. What are the types of employment provided for in the Labor Code of the Philippines?
a. Regular, Casual, Project, Seasonal
b. Fixed-term, Probationary, Regular, Seasonal
c. Salary earner, Wage earner, Commission earner
d. Blue collar, White collar
e. Regular, Casual, Project, Seasonal, Probationary, Fixed-Term
2. A talent contract whereby a person is considered as a talent and not as an employee _____________
a. bars a talent from acquiring a regular employee status.
b. bars the existent of an employer-employee relationship.
c. does not necessarily prevent a regular employee status.
d. none of the above.
3. Val signed a contract with a call center as a communications trainer. As a trainer, he is only needed if
there are new applicants to be trained. The contract is just for 6 months but it keeps being renewed every
time. There has been a large influx of applicants and hire rate is always high because attrition rate is also
high. This means that there are a lot of new employees to be trained. He finally appealed to be permanently
employed. Rule on the matter.
a. Val should not be regularized because his work is still project based.
b. Val should not be regularized because the nature of his work,
regardless of the fact that he is needed all year round, is still seasonal.
c. Val should be regularized because his repeated engagement under contract of hire is indicative of
the necessity and desirability of his work in the call centers business.
d. None of the above.
VII. Gabriel vs Bilon
1. If an employer loses a case in the lower court and he appeals, within how many days must he appeal?
a. 10 days after promulgation.

b. 15 days after promulgation.

c. 30 days after promulgation.
d. No need. It is subject to automatic review.
2. Under the Strained Relations Principle, reinstatement of illegally dismissed employees may not be
granted if:
a. The employer strained its economic status and that he is now
bankrupt.
b. The employer strained his relations with his co-employers so much so that he is no longer capable of
supporting his employees and his business as a whole.
c. Reinstatement will only cause animosity and antagonism between the employer and the
employees.
d. Reinstatement will cause a strain or injury to the general public.
e. All of the above.
3. Jhowiey is a rank and file call center agent in a call center operated by Gary Land, an American. Mr. Land
decides who gets to be hired and who gets to be fired. Jhowiey is an excellent agent and has always been
the centers top performer every month. But at the same time, he is also an activist who is against American
neo-colonialism. After his work, Jhowiey would join his colleagues from Anakbayan and would shout antiAmerican
sentiments.
One day Mr. Land saw Jhowiey shouting anti-American sentiments in front of the American embassy. Mr.
Land confronted Jhowiey when he came to work that night. The confrontation escalated to a heated
argument where the two almost had a fist fight. This uneasy atmosphere between the two continued for
about a week but nevertheless, Jhowiey
continued to excel at work even doubling his sales rate from the previous month. Mr. Land eventually
terminated Jhowiey due to their political differences.
The Labor Arbiter later ruled that Jhowiey was illegally dismissed. If you are the Labor Arbiter, how would
you provide further rulings on the case at bar?
a. Jhowiey should be reinstated because he was illegally
dismissed.
b. Jhowiey should be paid his backwages and be reinstated back
to his original position.
c. Jhowiey should not be reinstated but his separation pay should not be paid because he is equally at fault.
d. Jhowiey should be separated from the company and should receive separation pay.
VIII. Orozco vs CA, PDI and Magsanoc
1. What is the proper remedy if an employee has been fired without just cause?
a. File a notice of strike to the Secretary of Labor.
b. File an Illegal Dismissal suit against the employer.
c. Have the issue be mediated upon in the proper mediation board.
d. None of the above.
2. A surety bond requirement is required for a losing employer if he appeals the judgment of the lower court
because:
a. The surety bond ensures his cooperation and participation in the appeal.
b. It is costly to appeal these days. It would take care of the necessary docket fees as well.
c. It is intended to assure the workers that if they prevail in the case, they will receive the money
judgment in their favor upon the dismissal of the employers appeal.
d. It is to make sure that the employer is not insolvent and that he has the
capacity to make good the payment, the surety bond is to be returned after 30 days anyway.
3. Val was illegally dismissed from work and apart from that he was not paid his service incentive leave
amounting to P20,000.00. He filed a case against his employer UC and he won in the Labor Arbiter as well
as in the National Labor Relations Commission. Both lower courts ruled that he Val is entitled to the P20k
service incentive leave payment as well as damages. UC appealed and was required to pay a P100,000.00
surety bond. UC only paid P80k surety bond. Val moved to have the appeal dismissed. UC argued that Val

was actually paid all his SILP, it was just that there was a typographical error which indicated the SILP as a
bonus, but in fact it is the SILP. Rule on the matter.
a. The appeal should be dismissed because APS was non-compliant to the surety bond requirement. The
law is clear that appeal by an employer is perfected only upon posting of the full surety bond.
b. The appeal should be dismissed because the typographical error is raised only on appeal.
c. The appeal should be granted because there is substantial compliance by APS. Technicality must not
frustrate the ends of justice.
d. The appeal should be granted because the typographical error is a condonable one.
IX. CALAMBA MEDICAL CENTER vs NLRC and LAZANAS
1. Who is banned from joining strikes?
a. Managerial employee.
b. Regular employee.
c. Both a and b
d. None of the above.
2. For due process to be observed in terminating employees, a notice must be duly served to the concerned
employee for ________.
a. The employees appraisal that his last day of work is imminent.
b. The employees appraisal so that he may start looking for another job.
c. The employee to be heard.
d. The employee to negotiate with the officers of the CBA.
3. Val is a musician. One day, his friend Marvin, a trainer in a music school, invited Jhowiey to demonstrate
before Marvins class of recital musicians. Val agreed. Vale participation in the sessions proved to be
effective. Marvin then regularly invited Jhowiey to attend at anytime of his class which is every Saturday
from 4pm to 12am. In
return, Marvin pays him a talent fee of P1,000.00 per session. What is Vals status?
a. There exists an employer-employee relationship
b. There exists an employer-employee relationship because Val is required to attend Marvins classes on a
fixed basis.
c. There is no employer-employee relationship because Val was only invited by Marvin for guesting
purposes.
d. None of the above
X. Manila Electric vs Benamira
1. A company contracting the services of a security agency is considered as ____________ to the security
guards.
a. Client
b. Direct employer
c. Indirect employer
d. Customer
e. All of the above
2. An employer who off details his employees without notifying them can be sued for illegal dismissal
because _____________.
a. The same is considered as constructive dismissal.
b. The same is against the contract.
c. The same is considered as a violation of constitutional rights.
d. The same is voidable.
3. Val works in a production center and he was dismissed because his manager does not like his haircut. Val
sued the company for illegal dismissal. The factory argued that there is no illegal dismissal because there is
no employer-employee relationship. There is no employer-employee relationship because Val was hired by
the Human Resources Agency which works with the Manufacturing company. The Human Resources
Agency makes sure that there are enough people on duty on the factory. Is there an employer-employee
relationship?
a. No. The Manufacturing company is right.
b. Yes, insofar as the Human Resources Agency and Val is
concerned.

c. No. Factory does not do direct engagement and hiring because it is the HR department which performs
such function.
d. Yes. The HR Agency is a mere Labor Only contractor. The manufacturing company is still the
employer.
What is the test in considering whether one is a managerial employee or not?
Before one may be properly considered a managerial employee, all the following conditions must be met:
1. Primary duty consists of the management of the establishment in which they are employed or of a
department or subdivision thereof;
2. They customarily and regularly direct the work of two or more employees therein;
3. They have the authority to hire or fire other employees of lower rank; or their suggestions and
recommendations as to the hiring and firing and as to the promotion or any other change of status of
other employees are given particular weight.
It is the nature of the employees function and not the nomenclature or title given to his job, which
determines whether he has rank-and-file, supervisory or managerial status.
LABOR UNION AND GOVERNMENT REGULATION
UNION REGISTRATION AND PROCEDURE REQUIREMENTS
What are the requirements for registration of a labor organization? Art. 234 :
Any applicant labor organization shall acquire legal personality and shall be entitled to rights and privileges
of legitimate labor organizations upon issuance of a certificate of registration upon submission of the
following requirements:
A. Registration Fee (Php 50.00)
B. Names of its officers, addresses, principal address of the organization, minutes of meetings and list
of workers who participated in meetings.
C. Names of all its members comprising at least 20% of all its EEs in the bargaining unit.(Not
applicable if by chartering)
D. Copies of annual financial reports if union has been in existence for more than 1 year. (If less than 1
year No more need to file financial statement)
E. Copies of constitution and by-laws.
Sec. 3, Rule II, Book V, IRRs : Sworn statement by applicant union that there is no certified bargaining
agent in bargaining unit concerned. When there is an existing CBA duly submitted to the DOLE, a sworn
statement that the application for registration was filed during the last 60 days of the agreement.
The application and all accompanying documents shall be verified under oath by the secretary or the
treasurer as the case may be, and attested to by the president. (Id.)
II. What are the additional requirements for federations or national unions? (Art. 237)
A. Proof of affiliation of at least 10 local chapters.
Each of which must be a duly recognized collective bargaining agent in the establishment or industry in which
it operates.
B. Names and addresses of the companies where the locals or the chapters operate and list of all the
members in each company involved.
J
J

A union does not become legitimate by the mere fact of affiliation BUT by registration. It is registration with
the BLR which made it a LLO with rights and privileges granted under the Labor Code.
Union registration is a ministerial duty if all the requirements are present
> Mandamus will lie

III. What is the period for action on application? 30 days from filing (Art. 235)
Book V Rule V
Sec. 3 Action on Application
The Regional Office or Bureau, as the case may be, shall act on the application for registration within thirty
(30) days thereof, either by approving the application and issuing the certificate of registration, or denying
the application for failure of the applicant to comply with the requirements for registration.
Where the documents supporting the application are not complete or do not contain the requisite attestation
requirements, the Regional Office or Bureau shall, within five days from receipt of application, notify the
applicant in writing of the requirements needed to complete the application.
Where the applicant fails to complete the requirements within thirty (30) days from receipt of notice, the
application shall be denied without prejudice.
TAKE NOTE: You cannot deny outright an application for registration when the only ground to deny is the
incompleteness of the requirements. The applicant must be notified first and be given a chance to complete
the requirements. It is only after thirty days after notice that such may be denied.
Book V Rule III (as amended by DO. No. 9) :
Sec. 1: Where to file application; The application for registration of any:
1) federation, national or industry union or trade union center:
-shall be filed with the Bureau.
--

2) Independent Union
shall be filed with and be acted upon by the Regional Office where the applicants principal office is located.
3) Local Union: The charter certificate issued by the federation or national union in creating a local/chapter,
together with the supporting documents:
-shall be filed with the Regional Office or the Bureau within (30) days from the issuance of such
charter certificate.
6.01 Work Relationship
Definitions
Art. 97 Definition
(a)
"Person" means an individual, partnership, association, corporation, business trust, legal
representative or any organized group of person.
(b)
"Employer" includes any person acting directly or indirectly in the interest of an employer in relation
to an employee and shall include the Government and all its branches, subdivisions and instrumentalities, all
government-owned or controlled corporations and institutions, as well as non-profit private institutions or
organizations.
"Employee" includes any individual employed by an employer.
Art. 167 Definition of Terms
(f)
"Employer" means any person, natural or juridical, employing the services of the employee.

(g)

"Employee" means any person compulsorily covered by the GSIS under Commonwealth Act numbered one
hundred eighty-six, as amended, including members of the Armed Forces of the Philippines, and any person
employed as casual, emergency, temporary, substitute or contractual; or any person compulsorily covered
by the SSS under Republic Act numbered eleven hundred sixty-one, as amended.
Art. 212 Definitions
(e)
"Employer" includes any person acting in the interest of an employer, directly or indirectly. The term
shall not include any labor organization or any of its officers or agents except when acting as employer.

(f)
"Employee" includes any person in the employ of an employer. The term shall not be limited to the
employees of a particular employer, unless this Code so explicitly states. It shall include any individual
whose work has ceased as a result of or in connection with any current labor dispute or because of any
unfair labor practice if he has not obtained any other substantially equivalent and regular employment.
Employee
United Pepsi-Cola Supervisory Union (UPSU) v. Laguesma (98)
As can be seen from this description, a distinction exists between those who have the authority to devise,
implement and control strategic and operational policies (top and middle managers) and those whose task is
simply to ensure that such policies are carried out by the rank-and-file employees of an organization (firstlevel managers/supervisors). What distinguishes them from the rank-and-file employees is that they act in
the interest of the employer in supervising such rank-and-file employees.
"Managerial employees" may therefore be said to fall into two distinct categories: the "managers" per se,
who compose the former group described above, and the "supervisors" who form the latter group. Whether
they belong to the first or the second category, managers, vis-a-vis employers, are, likewise, employees.
Employer-Employee Relationship
Factors
Chavez vs. NLRC (2005); Caurdanetaan Piece Workers Union v. Laguesma (98)
To determine the existence of an employer-employee relation, this Court has consistently applied the fourfold test which has the following elements: (1) the power to hire, (2) the payment of wages, (3) the power to
dismiss, and (4) the power to control the last being the most important element.
Lim v. NLRC (99)
The existence of an employer-employee relationship is principally determined by the following indicia: (1)
selection and engagement of the employee; (2) payment of wages; (3) power of dismissal; and (4)
employers power to control the employee with respect to the result to be done and to the means and
methods by which the work is to be accomplished.
Control Test
Religious of the Virgin Mary v. NLRC (99)
The argument has no merit. AS this Court has consistently ruled, the power of control is the most decisive
factor in determining the existence of an employer employee relationship. In Encyclopedia Britannica
(Phils.), Inc. v. NLRC, we held:
In determining the existence of an employer-employee relationship the following elements must be present:
(1) selection and engagement of the employee; (2) payment of wages; (3) power of dismissal; and (4) the
power to control the employees conduct. Of the above, control of employees conduct is commonly
regarded as the most crucial and determinative indicator of the presence or absence of an employeremployee relationship. Under the control test, an employer-employee relationship exists where the person
for whom the services are performed reserves the right to control not only the end to be achieved, but also
the manner and means to be used in reaching that end.
In this case, CDSPB reserved the right to control and supervise the operations of the Girls Department.
Although CDSPB actually exercised minimal supervision over petitioner, [it]could exercise substantial
supervision and control as it did when [it] preterminated the Agreement. There was, therefore, no basis in
finding that petitioner had a greater degree of autonomy ad independence in running the affairs of the
school. The presence of the school director, whose vast powers have already been noted, negates any
suggestions or semblance of autonomy.
Nor is there any merit in the claim that actual and effective control was exercised by petitioner since the
designation of the parish priest as director was a mere formality, as he did perform functions which are
purely ministerial and figurative in nature. Time and again we have held that the control test only requires
the existence of the right to control the manner of doing the work not necessarily the actual exercise of the
power by him, which he can delegate. Indeed, although the letters of appointment were signed by the
principal/representative of petitioner, they bore the name/letterhead of CDSPB and clearly indicated therein

that the employees were hired as teachers/personnel by CDSPB, and not by RVM. Moreover, CDSPB itself
admits that its name not petitioners appears in the employees payroll ledger cards.
Proof

Domasig v NLRC (96)

It has long been established that in administrative and quasi-judicial proceedings, substantial evidence is
sufficient as a basis for judgment on the existence of employer-employee relationship. No particular form of
evidence is required to prove the existence of such.
Economic Test
Sevilla v. CA(88)
We have considered, in addition to the standard of right-of-control, the existing economic conditions
prevailing between the parties, like the inclusion of the employee in the payrolls, in determining the existence
of an employer-employee relationship.
Agreement
Tabas v. California Manufacturing Co. (90)
The existence of an employer-employees relation is a question of law and being such, it cannot be made the
subject of agreement.
Insular Life Assurance Co. Ltd. v. NLRC (98)
It is axiomatic that the existence of an employer-employee relationship cannot be negated by expressly
repudiating it in the management contract and providing therein that the "employee" is an independent
contractor when the terms of the agreement clearly show otherwise. For, the employment status of a person
is defined and prescribed by law and not by what the parties say it should be. In determining the status of
the management contract, the "four-fold test" on employment earlier mentioned has to be applied.
Effect of Relationship
Philippine Fuji Xerox Corp. v NLRC (96)
It is wrong to say that if a task is not directly related to the employer's business, or it falls under what may be
considered "housekeeping activities," the one performing the task is a job contractor. The determination of
the existence of an employer-employee relationship is defined by law according to the facts of each case,
regardless of the nature of the activities involved.
Nature/Character
Dunlop Slazenger (Phils.), Inc. v. Secretary, DOLE (98)
Determining the status of supervisory and rank-and-file employees is not a hard row to hoe in labor law. The
test of supervisory status as we have repeatedly ruled is whether an employee possesses authority to act in
the interest of his employer, which authority should not be merely routinary or clerical in nature but requires
the use of independent judgment. Corollarily, what determines the nature of employment is not the
employees title, but his job description.
Piercing the Corporate Veil
Pamplona Plantation Co., Inc v. Tinghil (2005)
The legal fiction of separate corporate entities cannot be invoked to further an end subversive of justice.
The principle requiring the piercing of the corporate veil mandates the courts to see through the protective
shroud that distinguishes one corporation from seemingly separate one. xxx

In the present case, the corporations have basically the same incorporators and directors and are headed by
the same official. Both use only on office and one payroll and are under one management. In their
individual affidavits, respondents allege that they worked under the supervision and control of petitioner
Bondocthe common managing director of both the petitioner-company and the leisure corporation. Some
of the laborers of the plantation also work in the golf course. Thus, the attempt to make the two corporations
appear as two separate entities, insofar as the workers are concerned, should be viewed as a devious but
obvious mens o defeat the ends of the law. Such a ploy should not be permitted to cloud the truth and
perpetrate injustice.