1.

Retirement due for underground miners

For: Deficiency on the retirement benefit (Prescription period)

Answer: Yes. He is correct. The law provides that claims for life and retirement benefits are
imprescriptible. Here, there is apparently erroneous computation of Mr. X’s retirement benefit.
The law provides that retirement benefits are intended to help the employee enjoy the remaining
years of his life, lessening the burden of worrying for his financial support, and are a form of
reward for his loyalty and service to the employer. Thus, not permitting his claim to be enforced
would cause injustice and unfairness.

2. The case on SEBA during certification election

Answer: There is no SEBA in this case. The law provides that the labor union receiving the majority
valid vote cast shall be certified as the exclusive bargaining agent of all the workers in the unit.
Here, the number of valid vote cast is 490; thus the winning union should receive at least 246
votes. Union A only receive 200 votes.

To have a valid election, at least a majority of all eligible votes in the unit must have cast their
votes. In the instant case, 500 out of 600 rand and file employees voted.

If no union won the election. The best remedy is to conduct a run-off election between the labor
union receiving the two highest votes. To have a run-off election, all the contending union must
have garnered 50% of the number of votes cast.

3. Voluntary Arbitrator Jurisdiction

Answer: Yes. Termination cases arising in or resulting from the interpretation and implementation
of CBA agreement and interpretation and enforcement of company personnel policies which were
initially processed at the various steps of the plan-level grievance procedures under the parties
CAN fall within the original and exclusive jurisdiction of voluntary arbitrator pursuant to the labor
code. (Art. 217 and 261)

4. Case on Service Incentive Leave

Answer: I will grant the prayer of A. Payment on commission basis alone does not prove that A is
a field personnel. There must be proof that A is left to perform his work unsupervised by his
employer. Otherwise, he is not a field personnel, this entitled to commutable service incentive
leave credits.

His action has not yet prescribed. In a case ruled by the SC, it says that SIL is a unique labor
standard benefits, because it is commutable. An employee may clam his SIL throughout the years
of his service with the company upon his resignation, retirement or termination. Therefore, when
A resigned after five years, his right of action to claim all of his SIL benefits accrued at the time
when the employer refused to pay him his rightful SIL benefits.
5. Order of Suspension of operation by the DOLE

Answer: No. The order is invalid. The law provides that stoppage of work or suspension of
operation of any establishment may be issued when there is imminent danger to the health and
safety of the workers in the workplace.

6. PNB case on direct Hire abroad

Answer: The labor arbiter has original and exclusive jurisdiction over claims arising from ER-EE
relations including termination disputes involving workers, including OFW. Here, the PNB is a bank
registered in the Philippines, thus she became an employee or OFW covered by the Philippines
labor laws and policies even though she did not go through the process recommended by the
POEA for an OFW pursuant to the extra territorial application of the Labor Code. This rule is
keeping with the policy of the state to afford protection to labor. Thus, she can file her case for
illegal dismissal either at the LA where she resides or where the employer is situated as the case
may be.

7. The case of Kasambahay branded as ASWANG

Answer: Here there is no showing of the amount to be claim by the Kasambahay. As a rule, LA has
jurisdiction of the amount if the claim exceeds 5,000, otherwise, the jurisdiction is vested with
the DOLE Regional Director having jurisdiction over the workplace without prejudice to the filing
of a civil or criminal action.

8. The case on intra-union dispute.

Answer: The jurisdiction will only transfer when the acts of the union heightens to or would
escalate into ULP, in which a case, such will no longer be cognizable under VA, but transfer to the
LA’s jurisdiction.

9. Wage distortion case

Answer: There is wage distortion if the following elements concur:
a. An existing hierarchy of positions with corresponding salary rates;
b. A significant change or increase in salary rate of a lower pay class without a corresponding
increase in the salary rate of a higher one;
c. The elimination of the distinction bet the 2 groups or classes;
d. The WD exists in the same region of the country

Here, there is no wage distortion when wage order gives employees in one branch of a bank
higher compensation than that given to their counterparts in other regions occupying the
same pay scale who are not covered by said wage order. Ergo, the implementation of wage
order does not itself necessarily result in wage distortion.

10. Trilateral relations – contract out of services.

Answer: The respondent in this case would be the agency Phildeps. In this case, the agency is
considered as legitimate job contracting for it has substantial capital or investment. The law does
not require both substantial capital and investment, it is sufficient that either of the two is
complied with. Thus, the principal in this case is jointly and severally liable with the contractor for
the payment of unpaid wages.