1. No.

The following requisites were not complied with:

. (a) Proof that such facilities are customarily 
furnished by the trade; 


. (b) The provision of deductible facilities is 
voluntarily accepted by the

employee; 


. (c) The facilities are charged at the fair and reasonable value. Mere availment
is not sufficient to allow deduction from employees‘ wages. (Mayon Hotel
& 
Restaurant v. Adarna [2005]). 


2. I will rule in favour of A.

Even if food and lodging were provided and considered as facilities by the
employer, the employer could not deduct such facilities from its workers‘ wage
without compliance with law (Mayon Hotel & Restaurant v. Adana [2005]).

In Mabeza v. NLRC [1997], the Supreme Court held that the employer simply
cannot deduct the value from the employee‘s wages without satisfying the ff: (a)
proof that such facilities are customarily furnished by the trade; (b) the provision
of deductible facilities is voluntarily accepted in writing by the employee; and (c)
the facilities are charged at fair and reasonable value.

3. No, following the ―No work No Pay‖ principle, the supervisors are not entitled
to their money claim for unpaid salaries. They should not be compensated for
services skipped during the strike. The age-old rule governing the relation
between labor and capital, or management and employee of a ―fair day s̳ wage
for a fair day ̳s labor‖ remains as the basic factor in determining employees ̳
wage (Aklan Electric Cooperative, Inc. v. NLRC, G.R. No. 121439, January 25,
2000).

4. (A) No, because employees have a right to receive their regular daily wage during
regular holidays [Art. 94, Labor Code, and a carenderia is not in the category of an
excluded or service establishment]

ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
(D) Yes, because he employs less than ten (10) employees [i.e., is we are to consider
a carenderia as a retail or service establishment].

5. Yes, but only to the extent of work performed under the contract. The second
paragraph of Article 106 of the Labor Code provides:

Art. 106. Contractor or subcontractor.—xxx
In the event that the contractor or

subcontractor fails to pay the wages of his employees in accordance with this
Code, the employer shall be jointly and severally liable with his contractor or
subcontractor to such employees to the extent of the work performed under the
contract, in the same manner and extent that he is liable to employees directly
employed by him. xxx

The fact that POEA is a government agency
 moment. In USA v. Ruiz (GR No.
L-35645, May 22, 1985), the Supreme Court ruled that the State may be sued if
the contract it entered into is pursuant to its proprietary functions.

6. 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 two (2)
shifts, he now can only expect a maximum of four (4) hours overtime work.
Besides, Art. 97 of the Labor Code does not guarantee Carding a certain number
of hours of overtime work. In Manila Jockey Employees’ Union v. Manila Jockey
Club (517 SCRA 707), the Supreme Court held that the basis of overtime claim is
an employee’s having been “permitted to work”. Otherwise, as in this case, such
is not demandable.

7. Percival is correct. Under Article 85 of the Labor Code and Book

III, Rule I, Section 7 of the Rules, it shall be the duty of every
employer to give his employees not less than sixty (60) minutes
time-off for their regular meals. But where during the meal break,
the workers are required to stand by for emergency work, such
period is considered overtime (Pan American World Airways
System (Phil.) v. Pan American Employees Association, G.R. No. L-
16275, February 23, 1961, 1 SCRA 527).

ALTERNATIVE ANSWER
Percival is correct. All the time during which an employee is
required to be on duty or to be at the employer’s premises or to be
at a prescribed work place, and all time during which an employee
is suffered or permitted to work is considered compensable hours.
Given that Percival’s meal break was not one of complete rest, as he
did not have the freedom to devote such period for his personal
needs, the same should be considered as compensable hours of
work.

8. No, Tarcisio is not correct. Case law exempts wages of rank and-
file employees from garnishment. Tarcisio, however as operations
manager, is a managerial employee. Since the rule covers only
rank-and file employees, therefore, Tarcisio’s salary is not exempt
from garnishment (Gaa v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-44169,
December 3, 1985, 140 SCRA 304).
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER
Yes, Tarcisio is correct. Under Article 1708 of the Civil Code, “(t).
he laborer’s wages shall not be subject to execution or attachment,
except for debts incurred for food, shelter, clothing and medical
attendance.” The indebtedness of Tarcisio was due to a purchase of
a car which is nou one of the exceptions under the said law.
9. (a) Was DOLE’s action to conduct mandatory conciliation in light of Nelson’s
complaint valid? (2.5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes, the DOLE’s action to conduct mandatory conciliation is valid. This is mandated by
Article 234 of the Labor Code, except as provided in Title VII-A, Book V of this Code, as
amended, or as may be excepted by the Secretary of Labor and Employment, all issues
arising from labor and employment shall be subject to mandatory conciliation-
mediation.
NOTE: The foregoing answer can be found in pages 193-195 of the book entitled
Principles and Cases Labor Relations, Second Edition 2018. This was the first time that a
question of this nature was asked in the Bar Examinations.
(b) Should the Regional Director sustain Needy Corporation’s argument? (2.5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The Regional Director should not sustain Needy Corporation’s argument. This is because
under Article 239 of the Labor Cod, information and statements made at conciliation
proceedings shall be treated as privileged communication and shall not be used as
evidence in the Commission. Conciliators and similar officials shall not testify in any court
or body regarding any matters taken up at conciliation proceedings conducted by
them. Thus, Needy Corporation cannot raise the argument that Nelson was willing to
settle for 75% of his money claim during conciliation proceedings.

10. No. Since he is not entitled 13th month pay and SIL, his retirement pay should
be computed solely on the basis of his salary. (R&E Transport v. Latag [2004]).

11. 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 (Linton Commercial Co.
v. Hellera, G.R. No. 163147, October 10, 2007,535 SCRA 434). As to the withheld
productivity-based bonuses, Katrina is deemed to have earned them because of her
excellent performance ratings for three quarters. On this basis, they cannot be withheld
without violating the Principle of Non-Diminution 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 No. 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.