Law Dictionary

Question A.9, Labor Law, 2019 Bar Exam

Notice: The following suggested answers simulate those that a bar examinee may provide as an answer to a bar exam question. Thus, specific citations (i.e., republic acts, articles/sections, jurisprudence, etc.) are not provided because it is not required in the bar exam. For purposes other than answering the bar exam, please be reminded that proper referencing or legal citation is required.

Question A.9, Labor Law, 2019 Bar Exam

After due proceedings, the Labor Arbiter (LA) declared Mr. K to have been illegally dismissed by his former employer, AB, Inc. As a consequence, the LA directed ABC, Inc. to pay Mr. K separation pay in lieu of reinstatement as well as his full backwages.

While ABC, Inc. accepted the finding of illegal dismissal, it nevertheless filed a motion for reconsideration, claiming that the LA erred in awarding both separation pay and full backwages, and instead, should have ordered Mr. K’s reinstatement to his former position without loss of seniority rights and other privileges, but without payment of backwages. In this regard, ABC, Inc. pointed out that the LA’s ruling did not contain any finding of strained relations or that reinstatement was no longer feasible. In any case, it appears that no evidence was presented on this score.

(a) Is ABC, Inc.’s contention to delete the separation pay, and instead, order reinstatement without backwages correct? Explain. (3%)

(b) Assuming than on appeal, the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) upholds the decision of the LA, where, how, and within what timeframe should ABC, Inc. assail the NLRC ruling? (2%)

Suggested Answer:

(a) Yes. Answer

Under the Labor Code, an employee who is unjustly dismissed from work shall be entitled to reinstatement without loss of seniority rights and other privileges and to his full backwages, inclusive of allowances, and to his other benefits or their monetary equivalent computed from the time his compensation was withheld from him up to the time of his actual reinstatement. By way of exception to the reinstatement, labor law jurisprudence allows separation pay in lieu of reinstatement where reinstatement is no longer viable as an option or there is strained relations between the employer and the employee. Rule

In the case at bar, the Labor Arbiter should have ordered for reinstatement in compliance with the Labor Code. There is no finding that reinstatement is no longer viable as an option or there is strained relations between the employer and the employee. There is no basis for separation pay in lieu of reinstatement. Apply

Thus, ABC Inc.’s contention to delete the separation pay, and instead, order reinstatement without backwages, is correct. Conclusion

Disclaimer: All information is for educational and general information only. These should not be taken as professional legal advice or opinion. Please consult a competent lawyer to address your specific concerns. Any statements or opinions of the author are solely his own and do not reflect that of any organization he may be connected.

Suggested Answers

Question IV, Civil Law, 2018 Bar Exam

Severino died intestate, survived by his wife Saturnina, and legitimate children Soler, Sulpicio, Segundo and the twins Sandro and Sandra. At the time of his

Question X, Civil Law, 2018 Bar Exam

Sinclair and Steffi had an illicit relationship while Sinclair was married to another. The relationship produced a daughter Sabina, who grew up with her mother.

Question IX, Civil Law, 2018 Bar Exam

Newlyweds Sam and Sienna had contracted with Sangria Hotel for their wedding reception. The couple was so unhappy with the service, claiming, among other things,

Top Read

Mutiny, Revised Penal Code

1. Concept Article 122. Piracy in general and mutiny on the high seas. – The penalty of reclusion temporal shall be inflicted upon any person

Video Lessons

Legal Maxims

index animi sermo

Latin maxim. • “speech is the index of intention” (Bolos v. Bolos, G.R. No. 186400, October 20, 2010)

renuntiatio non praesumitur

Latin maxim. • “A waiver of rights is not presumed.” (ACD Investigation Security Agency, Inc. v. Daquera, G.R. No. 147473, March 30, 2004, cited in

Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus

• “false in one thing, false in everything” (Frondarina v. Malazarte, G.R. No. 148423, December 6, 2006) NB: 1) Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus

Read more

Annotations

You cannot copy content of this page