Practice questions
Practice questions on Philippine law
32 questions built from Supreme Court decisions, each with an answer key.
- 21.Liability of union officers and members for illegal strikeThe United Workers Union is the certified bargaining agent of the rank-and-file employees of a luxury resort in Davao City. After a bargaining deadlock, the union filed a notice of strike on February 1, 2023. On February 25, 2023, the union held a strike vote and submitted the results to the National Conciliation and Mediation Board (NCMB) on February 28, 2023. On March 2, 2023, union members and officers staged a picket at the main entrance, blocking the driveway and preventing guests and employees from entering or leaving. The employer later dismissed 15 union officers and 40 union members for participating in the illegal strike and the obstruction. The union contests the dismissals, arguing that the strike was not illegal and that the members should not be dismissed because there was no proof of their individual participation in illegal acts. Should the dismissal of the union officers and members be upheld? Explain.Labor LawG.R. No. 163942
- 22.Illegality of Strike After Assumption of JurisdictionThe Employees' Union of MetroTel staged a strike on November 15, 2022, after filing two notices of strike—one for alleged unfair labor practices and another for bargaining deadlock. During a conciliation meeting at the National Conciliation and Mediation Board (NCMB), both MetroTel and the Union were advised to maintain the status quo. Despite this, the Union proceeded with the strike, barricading all entrances to the company premises and preventing other tenants from entering or leaving. The Secretary of Labor issued an assumption of jurisdiction order on November 16, 2022, directing all striking employees to return to work within 24 hours. The Union officers and members, however, continued the strike and refused to comply with the return-to-work order. MetroTel now seeks to terminate the employment of the Union officers and members who participated in the strike and defied the return-to-work order. Should MetroTel's petition for termination be granted? Explain.Labor LawG.R. No. 144315
- 23.Just cause for dismissal: Falsification of time records as serious misconduct and fraudABC Manufacturing, a company engaged in the fabrication of industrial equipment, assigned its employee, Mr. Ramon Cruz, a welder, along with three co-workers, to install a smokestack at a client’s plant in San Miguel, Pampanga. For two weeks, Mr. Cruz filled out daily time records (DTRs) indicating he worked eight hours each day, which formed the basis for his salary. However, the client’s owner and engineer later attested that the workers often arrived late, left early, and spent considerable time idle or resting. Affidavits from a co-worker and a neighbor corroborated that Mr. Cruz was frequently seen at home in the afternoons during the assignment period. After an investigation, ABC Manufacturing terminated Mr. Cruz for dishonesty and serious misconduct, specifically for falsifying his time records. Mr. Cruz filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, arguing that the company had no timekeeper at the site and that the evidence against him was insufficient. Should Mr. Cruz’s dismissal be upheld as valid? Explain.Labor LawG.R. No. 142007
- 24.Union officers' liability for illegal strike; participation in general strike without labor disputeOn October 10, 2022, the officers of the United Textile Workers Union, the certified bargaining agent of the employees of TextileCo and FabricCorp, led a work stoppage in support of a nationwide protest against rising fuel prices. There was no pending labor dispute between the unions and their employers. The officers and several members set up tents and tables at the main gate, blocking access to the company premises for several days. Management later terminated the union officers for participating in an illegal strike. The union officers claim they were merely exercising their rights to free speech and assembly, and that their dismissal was unwarranted. Should the termination of the union officers be upheld? Explain.Labor LawG.R. No. 155679
- 25.Strike legality; mandatory strike vote and notice requirementsThe United Health Workers Union is the certified exclusive bargaining agent of rank-and-file employees at City General Hospital. After the hospital management repeatedly refused to negotiate a collective bargaining agreement, the union sent several letters requesting negotiations, which the hospital ignored. On November 1, 2022, the union filed a notice of strike with the National Conciliation and Mediation Board (NCMB), citing management's refusal to bargain. On November 5, 2022, the union leadership claims to have conducted a strike vote by secret ballot at the hospital parking lot, with a majority voting in favor of a strike. However, the union did not notify the NCMB at least 24 hours before holding the strike vote, nor did it submit a report of the results to the NCMB before staging the strike on November 10, 2022. The hospital asserts that no valid strike vote occurred and that the strike is illegal due to non-compliance with legal requirements. The union counters that the hospital's unfair labor practices justified their actions. Is the strike staged by the union legal? Explain.Labor LawG.R. No. 147080
- 26.Proportionality of penalty for minor infractions; just cause for dismissalABC Corporation employed Mr. Jose Santos as a regular Asset Auditor. On August 1, 2022, he and several co-workers were seen watching a movie on company equipment during office hours, despite being told by the Personnel Supervisor that it was no longer break time. The next day, Mr. Santos posted a sign on the office door stating 'No Urinating Here' without authorization, and when asked to remove it, he refused. He later claimed he posted the sign to protect a co-worker and that the video viewing was on the instruction of their supervisor to test the equipment. The company considered these acts violations of its rules on vandalism and misuse of company property, classified as grounds for dismissal, and terminated Mr. Santos after giving him notice and an opportunity to explain. Mr. Santos sued for illegal dismissal, arguing the infractions were minor and did not warrant the extreme penalty of dismissal. Should Mr. Santos' dismissal be upheld as valid? Explain.Labor LawG.R. No. 140982
- 27.Managerial employee dismissal for loss of trust and confidenceMaria Santos was employed as the manager of the Medical Services Division of HealthPro, Inc. In April 2022, the company's area director discovered that fictitious invoices had been sent to clients whose contracts had already ended, inflating the division's revenues for the previous year. An internal audit revealed that Maria was aware of, tolerated, and participated in the preparation of these invoices. When asked to submit a written explanation and attend a hearing, Maria failed to do so, instead sending a letter stating she had no explanation and leaving the matter to management. HealthPro terminated her employment for loss of trust and confidence. Maria filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, arguing that there was no direct evidence of her participation and that she was denied due process. Should Maria's dismissal be upheld as valid? Explain.Labor LawG.R. No. 140043
- 28.Dismissal for Willful Disobedience (Insubordination); Management Prerogative to Transfer EmployeesABC Grand Hotel employed Mr. Jose Santos as a doorman for over a decade. After receiving negative feedback about his guest interactions, the Hotel Manager issued a written order reassigning Mr. Santos to the position of linen room attendant, which had the same rank and pay but involved no guest contact. Mr. Santos, instead of reporting to the linen room, took an extended leave and, upon return, refused to assume his new post despite repeated reminders from management and his union. He stayed daily in the union office, questioning the validity of his transfer but never reporting to the linen room. After being asked to explain his refusal and failing to do so, Mr. Santos was dismissed for insubordination. Mr. Santos claims his dismissal was illegal, arguing that the transfer was punitive and that his refusal was justified. Should Mr. Santos's dismissal for insubordination be upheld? Explain.Labor LawG.R. No. 121621
- 29.Dismissal of union members for participation in illegal strikeThe City Beverage Employees Union is the certified bargaining agent for all regular office and sales employees of City Beverage Company’s Distribution Division. After their CBA expired and negotiations deadlocked, the union filed a notice of strike. A strike vote was held and, six days after submitting the strike vote results to the NLRC, the union staged a strike. The company filed a petition to declare the strike illegal for violating the seven-day strike ban. The strike lasted five months and ended with a new CBA. Later, the company terminated five employees, claiming they were union officers who participated in the illegal strike. The employees denied being union officers at the time of the strike, presenting a certification from the Bureau of Labor Relations listing the union officers for the relevant period, which did not include them. The company argued that by signing the CBA and related agreements, the employees acted as union officers and should be deemed as such. There was no evidence that the employees committed illegal acts during the strike. The employees filed a complaint for illegal dismissal. Should the complaint for illegal dismissal be granted? Explain.Labor LawG.R. No. 114521
- 30.Secretary of Labor's Assumption of Jurisdiction under Article 263(g)The United Matchworkers Union, the certified bargaining agent of daily-paid workers at Luzon Match Corporation, staged a strike after a deadlock in collective bargaining negotiations. After several failed conciliation conferences, the Union filed a petition for the Secretary of Labor to intervene. The Secretary of Labor then issued an order assuming jurisdiction over the dispute, citing the adverse effects of the strike on the workers, the company, and the surrounding community, but without stating that the match manufacturing industry is indispensable to the national interest. Luzon Match Corporation challenges the Secretary's order, arguing that the industry is not indispensable to the national interest as required by law. Should the Secretary of Labor's assumption of jurisdiction be upheld? Explain.Labor LawG.R. No. 120751
- 31.Proportionality of penalty in employee dismissalPedro Cruz, a mechanic at a private refinery in Cavite, was caught by the company’s security guard attempting to bring home a small bottle of solvent, valued at ₱10, without a gate pass, in violation of a company rule prohibiting removal of company property. Pedro had worked for the company for eight years with no prior record of misconduct. The company dismissed Pedro for serious misconduct and loss of trust and confidence. Pedro argues that dismissal is too harsh a penalty given the minor value of the property and his unblemished record. Should Pedro’s dismissal be upheld? Explain.Labor LawG.R. No. 102993
- 32.Academic freedom; student's right to re-admission vs. school's academic standardsFive third-year nursing students at St. Dominic's University failed to obtain a grade of at least 80% in a major nursing subject, as required by the university's retention policy. Despite passing the subject with grades of 77% and 78%, they were denied re-admission for the next academic year. The students, who had signed agreements upon admission to abide by the school's policies—including the 80% retention rule—filed a petition for mandamus to compel the university to re-admit them, arguing that their right to continue their course up to graduation is protected by law and the Constitution. The university, citing its academic freedom and the students' prior agreement, insists on enforcing its retention policy. Should the petition for mandamus be granted? Explain.Political LawG.R. No. 100588