ALBANO BAR REVIEW CENTER
LABOR LAW 2016
(Dean Poquiz lectures)
Principles in Labor Law
I. STATE INSURANCE FUND is a trust fund. It is a tax
except fund, created out of the contributions of the
employers, based on the salaries of the workers.
Primarily liable to pay compensation,
Q: Is there an exception where the State Insurance Fund
is not liable?
A: YES, under the doctrine of limited liability.
Q: What is the doctrine of limited liability?
A: That the State Insurance Fund is not liable of injuries
arising out of the following:
1) Intoxication
An intoxicated / drunk worker is one who is
entirely out of himself. He can commit self
inflicted injury or death.
Q: Is the self inflicted injury or death
compensable?
A: Not compensable as a RULE. For example,
SUICIDE.
Exceptions. SUICIDE is COMPENSABLE under
the following:
a) Insanity: It must be proven by substantial
evidence
b) It arises out of an uncontrollable impulse
c) At the point of death because he is in the
state of delirium
2) Self inflicted injury
3) Notorious negligence
The worker DELIBERATELY disregarded his own
personal safety.
For example:
Rex Publishing Bookstore delivered books going
to Baguio. The driver and delivery man returned
via a long, winding, descending, and zigzag road
at a speed of 200 miles/hour. No trace of the
driver except the skeletal parts of the delivery
man.
Q: Is the death compensable?
A: Non compensable because the driver is
notoriously negligent. He deliberately
disregarded his own personal safety.
II. The COMING and GOING RULE
Q: In taking the usual route in coming from and
going to the place of work. An injury or death of the
employee happened. Is the injury or death compensable?
A: (2008 Bar Q. Dean Poquiz as labor law
examiner, this is his answer) NON COMPENSABLE.
Q: An employee departed from the place of work
and took a public conveyance (jeep, bus, taxi). He is
1 Transcribed by Alexylle Rose Garsula Concepcion | TO GOD BE THE GLORY!
exposed to the same danger being experienced by
ordinary commuters: the employer is not the insurer of
the safety of the worker. Employer not liable.
EXCEPTIONS:
1) PROXIMITY RULE. Accident happened while
worker is in the point of entrance or at the
point of exit in the company premises. He is
still in the proximity of the working area. He
is still in the periphery (point of entrance/
exit of the working area.
2) Using a company supplied transport vehicle
during work, met an accident (shuttle buses
of company, going to and from of work),
3) Employer requested his employee to 18:43
minutes
III. CONSTRUCTIVE DISMISSAL
(Example of short but loaded answer with
legal anchor in the BAR) A woman employee due to
frequent sexual remarks uttered by her superior officer,
she was compelled to resigned, so she resigned.
Q: Can she file a case for constructive dismissal?
A: YES, the woman employee can file a case for
constructive dismissal because continued employment
has become impossible, unreasonable, unlikely or
unbearable based on the circumstances, brought upon
by the constant, frequent sexual remarks being uttered
by the superior officer.
Therefore, she can file a case for constructive
dismissal.
Q: A group of employees assigned to a living
quarter that is very dirty, no comfort room, full of
cobwebs, worse, there are rats, cockroaches living
around the area. They resigned. Can they file a case for
constructive dismissal?
A: YES, because continued employment has
become unbearable based on the circumstances due to
rats, etc.
IV. CONCEPT OF REGULAR EMPLOYMENT
Q: Is Pedro, an auto mechanic in a repair shop, a
regular employee thereof?
A: YES, an auto mechanic, is a regular employee.
He performs job that is usually necessary and desirable
in the usual business of the employer that of an auto
repair shop.
Q: In the same auto repair shop, they hire the
services of a carpenter. Is the carpenter a regular
employee thereof?
A: NO, because he performs job that is NOT
USUALLY NECESSARY AND DESIRABLE IN THE USUAL
BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER that is, an auto repair
shop. He only performs work incident to the principal
activity. Indeed, he is merely a casual employee.