Practice questions
Practice questions on Philippine law
32 questions built from Supreme Court decisions, each with an answer key.
- 1.Management Prerogative to Implement Job Evaluation ProgramsABC Bank unilaterally implemented a new job evaluation program (JEP) that lowered the starting salaries for future employees, while granting salary increases to current rank-and-file staff. The Bank did not consult the ABC Bank Employees Union before implementing the JEP, but claimed it was acting in accordance with the collective bargaining agreement (CBA), which required a job evaluation during the CBA's lifetime. The Union objected, arguing that the JEP violated the CBA's non-diminution clause and that setting salaries for future employees should be subject to collective bargaining. The Bank insisted that fixing salaries for future hires is a management prerogative, provided no existing benefits are reduced. The Union filed a complaint for unfair labor practice, claiming the Bank's unilateral implementation of the JEP was unlawful. Is the Bank's unilateral implementation of the JEP, which lowers starting salaries for future employees but does not diminish current employees' benefits, a valid exercise of management prerogative? Explain.Labor LawG.R. No. 125038
- 2.Serious misconduct as ground for dismissalDelta Precision Manufacturing, Inc. employed Mr. Benito Cruz as a Senior Engineer. In July 2022, Mr. Cruz sent an email to all employees expressing sympathy for a suspended manager and criticizing a third-party contractor, but did not insult or accuse the company or its officers. Delta terminated Mr. Cruz for serious misconduct, alleging that the email violated company confidentiality and undermined management authority. Mr. Cruz contests his dismissal. Was Mr. Cruz validly dismissed for serious misconduct? Explain.Labor LawG.R. No. 158232
- 3.Mandatory nature of cooling-off and strike-vote waiting periodsThe Progressive Workers Union (PWU) is the exclusive bargaining representative of the rank-and-file employees of Harvest Mills, Inc. (HMI) in Bulacan. On December 1, 2023, PWU filed a notice of strike with the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) alleging HMI’s failure to pay the 13th month pay. Six days later, on December 7, 2023, PWU staged a strike. The following day, December 8, 2023, PWU submitted to DOLE its report on the results of the strike-vote, which was conducted on December 6, 2023. HMI filed a petition to declare the strike illegal for failure to observe the required cooling-off period and the seven-day waiting period after the strike-vote report. PWU argues that the requirements are merely directory and that the strike was justified by the urgency of the workers’ grievances. Should the strike be declared illegal? Explain.Labor LawG.R. No. L-59743
- 4.Just cause for dismissal – gross negligence and loss of trustAngela Reyes was employed as a teller at Citywide Savings Bank's main branch. One busy payday morning, she received a cash deposit of ₱300,000. She counted the money with a co-teller, finishing after her shift had officially ended. Before she could balance her transactions, the Head Teller gave her several payroll checks to validate. Finding the checks incomplete, Angela left her teller's cage—without securing the ₱300,000 on her counter in her drawer—to get the missing checks. She was away for several minutes. Upon returning, she noticed the cash pile had been disturbed, and after counting, discovered ₱75,000 was missing. She reported the loss immediately. After investigation, Citywide Savings Bank dismissed Angela for gross negligence, citing the bank's Teller Operations Manual requiring all cash to be kept in drawers at all times. Angela filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, arguing that the bank's failure to investigate immediately after the loss and the Head Teller's instructions to validate the checks should absolve her. Was Angela's dismissal for gross negligence justified? Explain.Labor LawG.R. No. L-75955
- 5.Just cause for dismissal – gross negligenceSkyJet Corp. employed Roberto as a ground equipment and tug operator, responsible for towing aircraft at Clark International Airport. One afternoon, while towing a Boeing 777 from the company’s technical center to a designated bay, the aircraft collided with a bridge, damaging its left wing and engine. Roberto was dismissed for gross negligence after an internal investigation found that he relied solely on the signal of one crew member, even though company procedures required positive visual contact with all guidemen, especially the wing tipguide, and for the operator to stop if vision was obstructed. Roberto claims he could not see the wing tipguide and thus relied on another crew member who continued signaling. He filed a complaint for illegal dismissal. Should Roberto's dismissal be upheld? Explain.Labor LawG.R. No. 82471
- 6.Illegality of strike after assumption of jurisdiction by Secretary of LaborThe Union of Workers at South City Foods, Inc. ("Union") filed a notice of strike on December 1, 2022, alleging unfair labor practices by the company. On December 10, 2022, the Secretary of Labor issued an order assuming jurisdiction over the dispute pursuant to Article 263(g) of the Labor Code, expressly enjoining any strike or concerted action. Despite this, the Union, led by its officers, staged a strike on December 15, 2022, and continued picketing at the company’s main plant. The company later filed a petition to declare the strike illegal and to dismiss the union officers. Should the strike be declared illegal, and should the union officers be deemed to have lost their employment status? Explain.Labor LawG.R. No. 88710
- 7.Just cause for dismissal; omission in employment applicationMaria Cruz was hired by Eastview Bank as an Account Officer. In her job application, Maria did not disclose her prior employment at Northpoint Rural Bank, where she had resigned without any derogatory record. Years later, Eastview Bank received a report that Maria had been involved in a financial controversy at Northpoint, which Maria denied. Maria admitted she omitted her previous employment from her application, claiming it was an honest mistake. Eastview Bank terminated Maria for violating its Code of Conduct provision against "knowingly giving false or misleading information in applications for employment as a result of which employment is secured." Maria filed a complaint for illegal dismissal. Should Maria's omission justify her dismissal? Explain.Labor LawG.R. No. 250776
- 8.Backwages under a return-to-work order after assumption of jurisdictionThe City Electric Cooperative (CEC) is an electric utility in Metro Sur. Its employees, represented by the CEC Employees Union (CEU), went on strike after a dispute over the company’s rehabilitation plan. The Secretary of Labor assumed jurisdiction over the dispute on February 1, 2020, and issued a return-to-work order on the same day, directing all striking employees to immediately return to work and CEC to readmit them under the same terms and conditions as before the strike. The employees reported to the CEC premises but were not given any work, and CEC did not pay their salaries or benefits for the period covered by the order. On April 15, 2022, the Secretary of Labor issued a resolution upholding the validity of CEC’s retrenchment program but ordered CEC to pay backwages to the affected employees for the period from February 1, 2020, until the date of the resolution. CEC argues that since there was no illegal dismissal and it allowed the employees to enter the premises, no backwages should be awarded. Should the award of backwages be sustained? Explain.Labor LawG.R. No. 241437
- 9.SOLE assumption and jurisdiction over damages from labor disputesThe Flight Officers' Union (FOU), the exclusive bargaining agent of all pilots of AeroPacific, staged a strike despite a written order from the Secretary of Labor and Employment (SOLE) assuming jurisdiction over their labor dispute and prohibiting any strike. During the strike, several pilots abandoned aircraft mid-flight, resulting in substantial losses for AeroPacific due to stranded passengers and cancelled flights. The SOLE later issued a resolution declaring the strike illegal and ordering the dismissal of the striking pilots, but did not expressly rule on AeroPacific's claim for damages. The SOLE's resolution became final and executory. Eight months after finality, AeroPacific filed a complaint for damages against FOU and its officers before the Labor Arbiter. Should the Labor Arbiter take cognizance of AeroPacific's complaint for damages? Explain.Labor LawG.R. No. 200088
- 10.Just cause for dismissal—serious misconduct; work-relatedness of off-premises actsABC Manufacturing Corporation employed Leo Reyes as a machine operator. On July 15, 2020, after working hours, Reyes and his co-worker, Mario Cruz, sought out their team leader, who had earlier reported them for alleged workplace misconduct, at a nearby commercial area outside company premises. A heated argument ensued, leading to a fistfight in which the team leader suffered injuries. Upon learning of the incident, the company served Reyes a notice to explain and placed him under preventive suspension. After an administrative hearing, he was dismissed for serious misconduct. Reyes filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, arguing that the incident occurred outside company premises and after office hours, and did not disrupt company operations. Should Reyes’s dismissal be upheld as for just cause? Explain.Labor LawG.R. No. 187605
- 11.Entitlement to backwages after illegal strikeThe employees of Tastee Diner, Inc. formed a labor union, which later staged two strikes against the company. The first strike was conducted without filing a notice of strike or observing the cooling-off period, while the second, though procedurally compliant, involved some union members blocking delivery vans and discouraging customers from entering the restaurant. After the strikes, Tastee Diner dismissed several union officers and members. The Labor Arbiter found the strikes illegal but ordered reinstatement of union members who did not commit illegal acts during the strikes. On appeal, the Court ordered separation pay in lieu of reinstatement due to the passage of over 20 years since dismissal, but deleted the award of backwages. The union members argue they should still receive backwages since they did not personally commit illegal acts during the strikes. Are the reinstated union members entitled to backwages? Explain.Labor LawG.R. No. 200487
- 12.Serious misconduct as just cause for dismissalABC Auto Parts, Inc. employed Xander and Felicia as assembly line workers. One night, during their shift, the company’s security guard discovered them engaging in sexual intercourse on the factory floor, in an area accessible to other employees and during work hours. After investigation and a hearing, ABC Auto Parts dismissed them for serious misconduct. Xander and Felicia sued for illegal dismissal, arguing that their act, while improper, did not amount to serious misconduct justifying termination. Should the dismissal be upheld? Explain.Labor LawG.R. No. 194884
- 13.Due process in employee dismissal; necessity of formal hearing and cross-examinationMaria, a warehouse storekeeper at a large telecommunications company in Cebu, was investigated for alleged anomalies in inventory withdrawals. The company issued her three written invitations to appear at separate formal inquiries, all of which she refused to acknowledge or attend. The company proceeded to terminate her employment for loss of trust and confidence, relying on affidavits and documentary evidence, without conducting a formal hearing or allowing Maria to cross-examine the witnesses against her. Maria claims her dismissal was illegal because she was not given a formal hearing and was denied the right to cross-examine the company’s witnesses. Was Maria's right to due process violated? Explain.Labor LawG.R. No. 197402
- 14.Due process in dismissal for strike-related illegal actsDelta Tools, Inc., a company in Davao City, has its workers represented by the Progressive Workers Guild (PWG), whose officers include the union president, vice-president, and secretary. In March 2022, a bargaining deadlock led to a strike. Delta claimed that during the strike, certain union officers and members blocked the entrances to the company premises, preventing non-striking employees from entering. Relying on affidavits and photographs, Delta identified 30 union members and all 3 union officers as participants in the alleged illegal acts. On April 5, Delta sent a letter to the identified employees, directing them to explain within 24 hours why they should not be dismissed for their actions during the strike. Three days later, on April 8, Delta sent a notice of dismissal to all 33 employees. The dismissed employees filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, arguing that they were not given ample opportunity to defend themselves. Delta countered that it complied with due process by sending the notices. Should the dismissal of the union officers and members be upheld? Explain.Labor LawG.R. No. 170830
- 15.Gross and habitual neglect of duty as just cause for dismissalJavier Cruz was employed as an inventory clerk at Delta Steel Corp. from January 2020 until his dismissal in December 2021. During his employment, he received several written warnings: one for failing to check the correct quantity of materials in his inventory, another for unauthorized undertime, and another for absence without prior leave. He was also warned for failing to implement proper warehousing procedures and for not ensuring sufficient supplies of industrial gases. In the months before his dismissal, the accounting department discovered that he made double and erroneous entries in his inventory reports. Delta Steel Corp. terminated Cruz for gross and habitual neglect of duty. Cruz filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, arguing that his errors were minor and that his denials should be believed. Should Cruz's dismissal be upheld as valid? Explain.Labor LawG.R. No. 184116
- 16.Gross and habitual neglect of duty; proportionality of penalty for absenteeismABC Garments Corporation employed Linda as a regular worker in its Finishing Section for six years. Over a six-month period, Linda was absent without official leave on four occasions: for the first three, she was successively given a written warning, a three-day suspension, and a six-day suspension. On the fourth absence, she claimed illness and said she submitted a medical certificate, but the company denied receiving it. Upon her return, ABC Garments dismissed her for habitual absenteeism, citing company rules. Linda filed a complaint for illegal dismissal. Should Linda's dismissal be upheld as valid? Explain.Labor LawG.R. No. 172044
- 17.Just cause for dismissal; willful disobedience and serious misconductProfessor Linda Cruz was a full-time faculty member at a private university in Cebu. Her contract and the university's faculty manual both required her to obtain written permission before accepting teaching assignments at other schools, and stated that violation could result in suspension or dismissal. Despite this, Professor Cruz accepted part-time teaching jobs at two other schools for several semesters without notifying or seeking permission from the university. When confronted, she admitted her actions, explaining that she needed extra income to support her family and that her previous requests for permission had been denied. The university terminated her employment for willful disobedience of company policy. Professor Cruz challenged her dismissal, arguing that the penalty was too harsh given her good performance, lack of prior offenses, and her reasons for moonlighting. Should Professor Cruz's dismissal be upheld? Explain.Labor LawG.R. No. 175283
- 18.Just cause dismissal – gross negligence; procedural due process in terminationDino, a regular employee of FastGo Delivery, was assigned a company motorcycle to deliver packages. Company policy required locking the motorcycle's steering wheel when parked. One evening, Dino parked the motorcycle in front of the company office, switched off the engine, took the key, but did not lock the steering wheel, prioritizing the immediate safekeeping of a large sum of money he was delivering. He returned after three minutes to find the motorcycle stolen. FastGo called Dino to an investigation, specifying the loss of the motorcycle as the subject, and later served him a notice of termination. Dino claims his dismissal was illegal, arguing his act was not habitual and that he was not properly apprised of the grounds for dismissal. Should Dino's dismissal be upheld as valid? Explain.Labor LawG.R. No. 168215
- 19.Just cause for dismissal; serious misconductIn 2017, Ms. Felicia Ramos was employed as a Mathematics teacher at St. Michael's Academy, a private high school in Davao City. In February 2023, she went on maternity leave for one month. During her absence, substitute teachers handled her classes and checked the students' periodical exams, with several students receiving failing grades. While still on leave, Ms. Ramos requested the grading sheets to be brought to her house. She then encircled the failing grades and wrote passing marks beside them, explaining that she had given make-up projects and tests before her leave, and wanted to give her students a chance to pass. Upon her return, the school discovered the changes and, after investigation and hearing, dismissed her for serious misconduct and tampering with school records. Ms. Ramos filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, arguing that her actions were motivated by compassion and not malice. Should Ms. Ramos's dismissal be upheld as valid for serious misconduct? Explain.Labor LawG.R. No. 164376
- 20.Gross and habitual neglect of duty as ground for dismissalMs. Liza Ramos was a Grade 4 adviser at St. Anne's Academy. During a school-sanctioned year-end pool party, she allowed a student, whose parental consent form was unsigned, to join because the child's mother brought her to the school with lunch and a swimsuit. Ms. Ramos was the only adult present. While she briefly left the pool area to look for two students who had wandered off, another student drowned. The school dismissed Ms. Ramos for gross negligence resulting in loss of trust and confidence. Ms. Ramos filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, arguing that her negligence, if any, was not habitual and thus not a valid ground for dismissal. Should Ms. Ramos's dismissal be upheld? Explain.Labor LawG.R. No. 165565