I

The gross pay of Mimi if she was asked by her employer to work on April 9 and at the
same time a Maundy Thursday would be P 1,500.

The Supreme Court has held in the case of Asian Transmission v. Court of Appeals, if an
employee renders a work on two holidays falling on the same day, the employer should pay him
300% of his daily rate.

Here, Araw ng Kagitingan April 9 and Maundy Thursday which are both regular holidays
fall on the same day.

Hence, the employer must pay 300% of the of the daily rate of Mimi which is P500 or
equivalent to P 1,500.

II

The defense of Soledad that she was not requiring Myko to work as chores were not
hazardous and she did not give him chores regularly but only intermittently as the need may arise
is not meritorious.

Under the law governing the child labor, as the general rule, minors are not allowed to
render work even the said work is not hazardous if there is no consent from the parent concern.

III

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

The Supreme Court has held that an employee is entitled to an independent opinion of a
physician of his choice regardless of the opinion of the preferred physician or medical clinic of
the employer based on independent physician or doctor rule. The Court has also held that
floating status exceeding six months is equivalent to constructive dismissal hence an illegal
dismissal.

Here, the illegal dismissal filed by Cardo should prosper since he was constructively
dismissed having been placed on floating status for seven months already despite validly
complying with the required evaluation test by GMA Medical Clinic as his choice based on
independent physician or doctor rule.

Hence, Cardo’s complaint for illegal dismissal should not be dismissed for lack of merit.

IV

The suspension imposed by Saogat Kita, Inc. against Jondiz is not valid.

The Supreme Court has held that conditions on employment imposed on employees with
respect to marriage is violation of Constitutional provision on freedom to believe, which is an
absolute right guaranteed by the fundamental law, therefore null and void.
 V

I would advise Anna that she is no longer entitled to any maternity benefits.

Under the Social Security Service Law (SSS Law), maternity benefits is limited to four
deliveries or miscarriages regardless of the status of the female employee.

Here, Anna is pregnant to her fifth child therefore she is no longer entitled to any
maternity benefits since under the SSS Law, such benefits are limited to four deliveries or
miscarriages regardless of her status.

VIII

The Labor Arbiter have no jurisdiction over the complaint of Ressa for illegal dismissal
against PNB Branch in Singapore.

Under the Labor Code, the Labor Arbiter has no jurisdiction to hear and try labor
complaints arising from direct hiring abroad.

Here, it is noteworthy that Ressa was directly hired while on tourist status by the PNB
Branch in Singapore.

Hence, the Labor Arbiter have no jurisdiction over the complaint of Ressa for illegal
dismissal against PNB Branch in Singapore.

Yes, Alona may validly refuse the plant manager’s directive to fill in for Carmela.

Under the Labor Code, in rendering overtime work there must be mutual agreement
between the employer and the employee. It presupposes that there must be notice given by the
employer or by the employee and the employer or the employee must give his consent to the said
notice.

XI

No, the completion of the house is not a valid cause for the termination of Cesar’s
employment.

Under the Labor Code, a project employee may be terminated from work upon
completion of the project for which he was hired and by complying of the employer with the
requirements that must be submitted to the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE)
Regional Office having jurisdiction of the workplace of the project employee.

The due process requirements that APB must satisfy under the Labor Code are the
following: 1. The employer must provide in the contract the particular date of completion of the
project for which the project employee was hired; 2. That upon completion of the project, the
employer must give notice and the list of the names of all the project employees to the Regional
Office of the DOLE having jurisdiction over the workplace of the project employees; 3. Notice
must be given to the project employees to be terminated.
 XIII
The dismissal of Mercurio based on gross neglect of duty is valid.

The Supreme Court has held that dismissal based on gross neglect if the duty may be
imposed against the employee who lost an employee’s property, even not habitually, which has a
value which is not negligible.

XVI

The arrangement that Carl will pay the models with 3 sets of free clothes per week is not
allowed.

Under the Labor Code, as a general rule the compensation for rendition of work must be
for amount of money, therefore payment of token may not be given as compensation.

XVII

Yes, Arkady’s dismissal on the ground of conflict of interest was proper.

The Supreme Court has held that the employer may validity impose dismissal on an
employee on the ground of conflict of interest for violation of his employment contract with
respect to trade and industrial secrets which is detrimental to the business of the employer.

Here, Arkady violated the employment contract he signed with respect to conflict of
interest by having a relationship and eventual marriage to an employee of a competing drug
company, as it pose a possible conflict of interest since trade and industrial secrets, which is
detrimental to the business of Wellfit.

Hence, Arkady’s dismissal on such ground was proper.

XIX

a)

Yellow dog contract is a concept wherein the company is encouraging the applicant to
sign an employment contract containing a provision that the applicant will not join any union in
case he will be hired, which is a clear violation of his constitutional right to association.

b)

Run-away shop is a concept wherein the employer and the bargaining union agreed in
their Collective Bargaining Agreement where to stage a strike, and the employer without notice
transferred its principal place of business which is a clear violation of the Collective Bargaining
Agreement.