I

Narciso filed a complaint against Norte University for the payment of retirement benefits after having
been a part-time professional lecturer in the same school since 1974. Narciso taught for two
semesters and a summer term for the school year 1975, took a leave of absence from 1975 to 1977,
and resumed teaching until 2003. Since then, his contract has been renewed at the start of every
semester and summer, until November 2005 when he was told that he could no longer teach
because he was already 75 years old. Norte University also denied Narciso’s claim for retirement
benefits stating that only full-time permanent faculty, who have served for at least five years
immediately preceding the termination of their employment, can avail themselves of post-
employment benefits. As part-time faculty member, Narciso did not acquire permanent employment
status under the Manual of Regulations for Private Schools, in relation to the Labor Code, regardless
of his length service.

(a) Is Narciso entitled to retirement benefits? (2.5%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes, Narciso is entitled to retirement benefits. A part-time lecturer, with a fixed-term employment,
who did not attain permanent status, is entitled to retirement pay. This was ruled by the Supreme
Court in De La Salle Araneta University v. Bernardo, G. R. No. 190809, February 13, 2017 as
follows: Republic Act No. 7641 states that "any employee may be retired upon reaching the
retirement age x x x;" and "[i]n case of retirement, the employee shall be entitled to receive such
retirement benefits as he may have earned under existing laws and any collective bargaining
agreement and other agreements." The Implementing Rules provide that Republic Act No. 7641
applies to "all employees in the private sector, regardless of their position, designation or status and
irrespective of the method by which their wages are paid, except to those specifically exempted x x
x." And Secretary Quisumbing' s Labor Advisory further clarifies that the employees covered by
Republic Act No. 7641 shall "include part-time employees, employees of service and other job
contractors and domestic helpers or persons in the personal service of another."
NOTE: The foregoing answer can be found in pages 921-924 of the book entitled Principles and
Cases Labor Relations, Second Edition 2018, by Atty. Voltaire T. Duano. This was the first time that
this question was asked in the bar examinations.

(b) If he is entitled to retirement benefits, how should retirement pay be computed in the absence of
any contract between him and Norte University providing for such benefits? (2.5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The retirement will be 22.5 days salary, exclusive of leave conversion benefits. According to Capitol
Wireless, Inc. v. Honorable Secretary Ma. Nieves R. Confessor, G.R. No. 117174, November
13,1996:
For purposes of computing compulsory sand optional retirement benefits and to align the current
retirement plan with the minimum standards of Art. 287 of the Labor Code, as amended by R.A.
7641, and Sec. 5 (5.2) of its implementing rules, “1/2 month salary” means 22.5 days salary,
exclusive of leave conversion benefits.
xxx xxx xxx
Unless the parties provide for broader inclusions, the term ‘one-half (1/2) month salary’ shall mean
fifteen (15) days plus one-twelfth (1/12) of the 13th month pay and the cash equivalent of not more
than five (5) days of service incentive leaves x x x x (italics supplied).
NOTE: The foregoing answer can be found in pages 924-925 of the book entitled Principles and
Cases Labor Relations, Second Edition 2018, by Atty. Voltaire T. Duano. Questions involving the
same subject matter were given during the 2011 and 2001 Bar Examinations.

III
Due to his employer’s dire financial situation, Nicanor was prevailed upon by his employer to
voluntarily resign. In exchange, he demanded payment of salary differentials, 13th month pay, and
financial assistance, as promised by his employer. Management promised to pay him as soon as it is
able to pay off all retrenched rank-and-file employees. Five years later, and before management was
able to pay Nicanor the amount promised to him, Nicanor died of a heart attack. His widow, Norie,
filed a money claim against the company before the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC),
including interest on the amount of the unpaid claim. She also claimed additional damages arguing
that the supposed resignation letter was obtained from her spouse through undue pressure and
influence. The employer filed a motion to dismiss on the ground that (A) the NLRC did not have
jurisdiction over money claims, and (B) the action has prescribed.

(a) Does the NLRC have jurisdiction to award money claims including interest on the amount
unpaid? (2.5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Jurisdiction will depend on the amount being claimed by Nicanor’s surviving spouse. If the amount
exceeds Five Thousand Pesos (PhP5,000.00) as provided in Article 224 (a [6]) of the Labor Code
then jurisdiction belongs to the Arbitration Branch of the NLRC. However, if the amount did not
exceed Five Thousand Pesos (PhP5,000.00) and then jurisdiction belongs to the Regional Director
under Article 129 of the Labor Code involving recovery of wages, simple money claims and other
benefits. Either of the said quasi-judicial body can award interest in the concept of actual and
compensatory damages in accordance. The award of interest in money claim was explained in
Limlingan v. Asian Institute Management, Inc., G.R. No. 220481, February 17, 2016, that the rate of
interest in the concept of actual and compensatory damages as well as its accrual are as follows:
1. When the obligation is breached, and it consists in the payment of a sum of money, i.e., a loan or
forbearance of money, the interest due should be that which may have been stipulated in writing.
Furthermore, the interest due shall itself earn legal interest from the time it is judicially demanded. In
the absence of stipulation, the rate of interest shall be 6% per annum to be computed from default,
i.e., from judicial or extrajudicial demand under and subject to the provisions of Article 1169 of the
Civil Code.
2. When an obligation, not constituting a loan or forbearance of money, is breached, an interest on
the amount of damages awarded may be imposed at the discretion of the court at the rate of 6% per
annum. No interest, however, shall be adjudged on unliquidated claims or damages, except when or
until the demand can be established with reasonable certainty. Accordingly, where the demand is
established with reasonable certainty, the interest shall begin to run from the time the claim is made
judicially or extrajudicially (Art. 1169, Civil Code), but when such certainty cannot be so reasonably
established at the time the demand is made, the interest shall begin to run only from the date the
judgment of the court is made (at which time the quantification of damages may be deemed to have
been reasonably ascertained). The actual base for the computation of legal interest shall, in any
case, be on the amount finally adjudged.
3. When the judgment of the court awarding a sum of money becomes final and executory, the rate
of legal interest, whether the case falls under paragraph 1 or paragraph 2, above, shall be 6% per
annum from such finality until its satisfaction, this interim period being deemed to be by then an
equivalent to a forbearance of credit.
NOTE: The foregoing answer can be found in page 26 of the book entitled Principles and Cases
Labor Relations, Second Edition 2018, by Atty. Voltaire T. Duano and in pages 589-590 of the book
entitled Principles and Cases Labor Standards and Social Legislation, Second Edition 2018, by Atty.
Voltaire T. Duano. Questions involving the same subject matter were given during the 2011 and
2016 (on award of interest in money claim) Bar Examinations.

(b) Assuming that the NLRC has jurisdiction, has the action prescribed? (2.5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The action has not prescribed. This is because Nicanor’s surviving spouse’s cause of action will
accrue upon the categorical denial of the claim. In this case, there was demand for its payment,
however, the management had promsied to pay as soon as it is able to pay off all retrenched rank-
and-file employees. However, it is was only after five (5) years that the management was able to
pay. Moreover, there was no denial of the claim. Therefore, prescription did not set in. In the
Degamo v. Avantgarde Shipping Corp., G.R. No. 154460, November 22, 2005 and Serrano v. Court
of Appeals, G.R. No. 139420, August 15, 2001, following cases, the Supreme Court explained the
accrual of a cause of action under Article 306 [291].
NOTE: The foregoing answer can be found in pages 943-946 of the book entitled Principles and
Cases Labor Relations, Second Edition 2018, by Atty. Voltaire T. Duano. Questions involving the
same subject matter was given during the 2010 Bar Examination.
(c) May Nicanor’s spouse successfully claim additional damages as a result of the alleged undue
pressure and influence? (2.5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes, Nicanor’s spouse can successfully claim additional damages as a result of the alleged undue
pressure and influence. This is provided under Article 224 (a [4] of the Labor Code which provides
for claims for actual, moral, exemplary and other forms of damages arising from employer-employee
relationship within the jurisdictional authority of the Arbitration Branch of the NLRC.
In the alternative, it can be argued that Nicanor’s spouse cannot successfully claim additional
damages because it is the jurisdictional authority of the Arbitration Branch of the NLRC. The
employer-employee relationship is only incidental and the cause of action arises from other sources
like torts and damages. Therefore, jurisdiction belongs to the regular courts.
NOTE: The foregoing answer can be found in pages 26, 32-38 of the book entitled Principles and
Cases Labor Relations, Second Edition 2018, by Atty. Voltaire T. Duano. Questions involving the
same subject matter were given during the 2016, 199 and 1995 Bar Examinations.
 V
Nelda worked as a chambermaid in Hotel Neverland with a basic wage of PhP560.00 for an eight-
hour workday. On Good Friday, she worked for one (1) hour from 10:00 PM to 11:00 PM. Her
employer paid her only PhP480 for each 8-hour workday, and PhP70.00 for work done on Good
Friday. She sued for underpayment of wages and non-payment of holiday pay and night shit
differential for working on a Good Friday. Hotel Neverland denied the alleged underpayment, arguing
that based on long-standing unwritten tradition, food and lodging costs were partially shouldered by
the employer and partially paid for by the employee through salary deduction. According to the
employer, such valid deduction caused the payment of Nelda’s wage to be below the prescribed
minim m. The hotel also claimed that she was not entitled to holiday pay and night shift differential
pay hotel workers have to work on holidays and may be be assigned to work at night.
(a) Does the hotel have valid legal grounds to deduct food and lodging costs from Nelda's basis
salary? (2.5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
As held in Mabeza v. National Labor Relations Commission, G.R. No. 118506, April 18, 1997:
Granting that meals and lodging were provided and indeed constituted facilities, such facilities could
not be deducted without the employer complying first with certain legal requirements. Without
satisfying these requirements, the employer simply cannot deduct the value from the employee’s
wages. First, proof must be shown that such facilities are customarily furnished by the trade.
Second, the provision of deductible facilities must be voluntarily accepted in writing by the employee.
Finally, facilities must be charged at fair and reasonable value. (Labor Code, Art. 97 [f])
Applying the above, unless the hotel can comply with the legal requirements it has no valid legal
grounds to deduct food and lodging costs from Nelda's basis salary.
NOTE: The foregoing answer can be found in page 502 of the book entitled Principles and Cases
Labor Standards and Social Legislation, Second Edition 2018, by Atty. Voltaire T. Duano. Questions
involving the same subject matter were given during the 2013 and 2010 Bar Examinations.

(b) Applying labor standards law, how much should Nelda be paid for work done Good Friday? Show
the computation in your test booklet and encircle your final answer. (2.5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
It can be argued:
The rule in order to be paid regular holiday like two successive holidays provides as follows, Where
there are two (2) successive regular holidays, like Holy Thursday and Good Friday, an employee
may not be paid for both holidays if he absents himself from work on the day immediately preceding
the first holiday, unless he works on the first holiday, in which case he is entitled to his holiday pay
on the second holiday.(Section 10, Rule IV, Book III, Rules to Implement the Labor Code)
Applying the above rule, unless Nelda had complied with the rules on absences she is not entitled
for her holiday pay for work done on Good Friday.
However, on the assumption that she complied with the rules Nelda should be paid as follows: P560
x 200%=P1,120.00 or since he only worked for one hour the pay should be as follows: 70 x 200% =
P140.00
NOTE: The foregoing answer can be found in page 453 of the book entitled Principles and Cases
Labor Standards and Social Legislation, Second Edition 2018, by Atty. Voltaire T. Duano. Questions
involving the same subject matter was given during the 2013 and 2010 Bar Examinations.
 VII
Nico is a medical representative engaged in the promotion of Pharmaceutical products and medical
devices for North Pharmaceuticals, Inc. He regularly visits. physicians' clinics to inform them of the
chemical composition and benefits of his employer's products. A the end of everyday, he receives a
basis wage of PhP700.00 plus a PhP150.00 "productivity allowance." For purposes of computing
Nico's 13th month pay, should the daily "productivity allowance" be included? (2.5%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
For purposes of computing Nico's 13th month pay his daily "productivity allowance" cannot be
included.
In Philippine Spring Water Resources, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 205278, June 11, 2014,
clarified as to when a commission forms part of basic salary to be considered in the computation of
13th month pay. The High Court said: It is well-established in jurisprudence that the determination of
whether or not a commission forms part of the basic salary depends upon the circumstances or
conditions for its payment. In Phil Duplicators, Inc. v. NLRC, G.R. No. 110068, November 11, 1993,
227 SCRA 747, the Court held that commissions earned by salesmen form part of their basic salary.
The salesmen’s commissions, comprising a pre-determined percentage of the selling price of the
goods sold by each salesman, were properly included in the term basic salary for purposes of
computing the 13th month pay. The salesmen’s commissions are not overtime payments, nor profit-
sharing payments nor any other fringe benefit, but a portion of the salary structure which represents
an automatic increment to the monetary value initially assigned to each unit of work rendered by a
salesman. On the other hand, in Boie-Takeda Chemicals, Inc. v. De la Serna, G.R. Nos. 92174 and
102552, December 10, 1993, 228 SCRA 329, the so-called commissions paid to or received by
medical representatives were excluded from the term basic salary because these were paid to the
medical representatives and rank-and-file employees as productivity bonuses, which were generally
tied to the productivity, or capacity for revenue production, of a corporation and such bonuses
closely resemble profit-sharing payments and had no clear direct or necessary relation to the
amount of work actually done by each individual employee.
Applying the above rule, the productivity allowance cannot be included.
NOTE: The foregoing answer can be found in page 492 of the book entitled Principles and Cases
Labor Standards and Social Legislation, Second Edition 2018. Question involving the same subject
matter was given during the 2011 Bar Examination. An alternative answer can be given by stating
that it will depend as to whether the productivity bonus form part of the salary. In fine, whether or not
the productivity bonus forms part of the basic salary depends upon the circumstances or conditions
for its payment, which indubitably are factual in nature. If the productivity bonuses were because
they were generally tied to the productivity, or capacity for revenue production it will not form part of
the salary. However, if has a clear direct or necessary relation to the amount of work actually done
by each individual employee then it form part of the salary. This was the distinction given by the case
of Reyes v. NLRC, G.R. No. 160233, August 8, 2007 citing the cases of Phil Duplicators, Inc. v.
NLRC, G.R. No. 110068, November 11, 1993 and monetary value initially assigned to each unit of
work rendered by a salesman. On the other hand, in Boie-Takeda Chemicals, Inc. v. De la Serna,
G.R. Nos. 92174 and 102552, December 10, 1993.
 VIII
Nathaniel has been a salesman assigned by Newmark Enterprises (Newmark) for nearly two years
at the Manila office of Nutrition City, Inc. (Nutrition City). He was deployed pursuant to a service
agreement between Newmark and Nutrition City, the salient provisions of which were as follows:
a) the Contractor (Newmark) agrees to perform and provide the Client (Nutrition City), on a non-
exclusive basis, such tasks or activities that are considered contractible under existing laws, as may
be needed by the Client from time to time;
b) the Contractor shall employ the necessary personnel like helpers, salesmen, and drivers who are
determined by the Contractor to be efficiently trained;
c) the Client may request replacement of the Contractor’s personnel if quality of the desired result is
not achieved;
d) the Contractors personnel will comply with the Client's policies, rules, and regulations; and
e) the Contractor’s two service vehicles and necessary equipment will be utilized in carrying out the
provisions of this Agreement.
When Newmark fired Nathaniel, he filed an illegal dismissal case against the wealthier company,
Nutrition City, Inc., alleging that he was a regular employee of the same. Is Nathaniel correct?
(2.5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Nathaniel is correct in so far as the existence of employer-employee relationship between him and
the principal.
The rules requires that the Service Agreement between the principal and the contractor shall include
the following:
i. The specific description of the job or work being subcontracted, including its term or duration.
ii. The place of work and terms and conditions governing the contracting arrangement, to include the
agreed amount of the contracted job or work as well as the standard administrative fee of not less
than ten percent (10%) of the total contract cost; and
iii. A provision on the issuance of the bond/s defined under Section 3(a) renewable every year.
(Section 11, D.O. No. 174, Series of 2017)
On the other hand, a finding of violation of 11 shall render the principal the direct employer of the
employees of the contractor or subcontractor, pursuant to Article 109 of the Labor Code, as
amended. (Section 12, D.O. No. 174, Series of 2017)
Applying the above rules, since Newmark and Nutrition City violated the required terms to be stated
in the Service Agreement then Nutrition City is the direct employer of Nathaniel.
As to whether Nathaniel is a regular employee of Nutrition City, the rules are as follows:
Regular employees are further classified into: (1) regular employees by nature of work; and (2)
regular employees by years of service. (E. Ganzon, Inc. vs. National Labor Relations Commission,
G.R. No. 123769, 22 December 1999, 321 SCRA 434, 440) The former refers to those employees
who perform a particular activity which is necessary or desirable in the usual business or trade of the
employer, regardless of their length of service; while the latter refers to those employees who have
been performing the job, regardless of the nature thereof, for at least a year. (Pangilinan vs. General
Milling Corporation, G.R. No. 149329, 12 July 2004)
Tested from the nature of his work and the activity of the principal Nathaniel could be a regular
employee while if it is tested on the length of service then Nathaniel is a regular employee as he has
been employed with the principal for a least a year. In fact he was employed for nearly two years.
NOTE: The foregoing answer can be found in page 561 of the book entitled Principles and Cases
Labor Standards and Social Legislation, Second Edition 2018, and page 676 of the book entitled
Principles and Cases Labor Relations, Second Edition 2018, by Atty. Voltaire T. Duano. Questions
involving the same subject matter were given during the 2009 (on terms of Service Agreement) and
22013 and 2008 (on regular employees) Bar Examinations. An alternative answer can be given by
characterizing the relationship of the principal with the contractor as to whether it is a job contracting
or LOC. Then as to who would be the direct employer and extent of liability can be determined or
concluded.

IX
Sgt. Nemesis was a detachment non-commissioned officer of the Armed Forces of the Philippines in
Nueva Ecija. He and some other members of his detachment sought permission from their Company
Commander for an overnight pass to Nueva Vizcaya to settle some important matters. The
Company Commander orally approved their request and allowed them to carry their firearms as the
place they were going to was classified as a “critical place.” They arrived at the place past midnight;
and as they were alighting from a tricycle, one of his companions accidentally dropped his rifle,
which fired a single shot, and in the process hit Sgt. Nemesis fatally. The shooting was purely
accidental. At the time of his death, he was still legally married_to Nelda but had been separated de
facto from her for 17 years. For the last 15 years of his life, he was living in with Narda, with whom
he has two minor children. Since Narda works as a kasambahay, the two children lived with their
grandparents, who provided their daily- support. Sgt. Nemesis and Narda only sent money to them
every year to them for their school tuition.
Nelda and Narda, both for themselves and the latter, also on behalf of her minor children, separately
filed claims for compensation as a result of the death of Sgt. Nemesis. The Line of Duty Board of the
AFP declared Sgt. Nemesis’ death to have been “in line of duty’, and recommended that all benefits
due to Sgt. Nemesis be given to his dependents. However, the claims were denied by GSIS
because Sgt. Nemesis was not in his workplace nor performing his duty as a soldier of the Philippine
Army when he died.

(a) Are the dependents of Sgt. Nemesis entitled to compensation as a result of his death? (2.5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The death of Sgt. Nemesis is compensable because it is work-connected. However, in so far as
entitlement of the dependents of Sgt. Nemesis for compensation as a result of his death the
dependent spouse cannot claim compensation. The law requires that the dependent spouse should
be a legitimate spouse living with the employee. (Article 173 [i], Labor Code).
In this case, the legitimate spouse Nelda is not entitled because she is not living with Sgt. Nemesis
while Narda will not qualify as dependent spouses as she is not a legitimate spouse of Sgt. Nemesis
although she is living with the latter. On the other hand, in so far as the dependent child the law
requires that the dependent child be legitimate, legitimated, legally adopted or xxx, who is
unmarried, not gainfully employed, not over 21 years of age provided he is incapacitated and
incapable of self-support due to physical or mental defect which is congenital or acquired during
minority. The two minor children are therefore qualified as dependent children. Hence, entitled to
compensation.
NOTE: The foregoing answer can be found in pages 835 and 857-860 of the book entitled Principles
and Cases Labor Standards and Social Legislation, Second Edition 2018, by Atty. Voltaire T. Duano.
Question involving the same subject matter was given during the 2005 and 1996 Bar Examinations.
(b) As between Nelda and Narda, who should be entitled to the benefits? (2.5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Nelda and Narda are not entitled to the benefits because they failed to qualify within the definition
(Article 173 [i], Labor Code) of dependent spouse.
NOTE: The foregoing answer can be found in pages 835 and 857-860 of the book entitled Principles
and Cases Labor Standards and Social Legislation, Second Edition 2018, by Atty. Voltaire T. Duano.
Question involving the same subject matter was given during the 2005 and 1996 Bar Examinations.

X
Nonato had been continuously employed and deployed as a seaman who performed services that
were necessary and desirable to the business of N-Train hipping, through its local agent, Narita
Maritime Services (Agency), in accordance with the 2010 Philippine Overseas Employment
Administration Standard Employment Contract (2010 POEA-SEC). Nonato's last contract (for ye
months) expired on November 15, 2016. Nonato was then repatriated due to "finished contract." He
immediately reported to the Agency and complained that e had been experiencing dizziness,
weakness, and difficulty in breathing. The agency referred him to Dr. Neri, who examined, treated,
and prescribed him with medications. After a few months of treatment and consultations, Nonato
was declared fit to resume work as a seaman. Nonato went back to the Agency to ask for re-
deployment but the Agency rejected his application. Nonato filed an illegal dismissal case against
the Agency and its principal, with a claim for total disability benefits based on the ailments that he
developed on board N-Train hipping-vessels. The claim was based on the certification of his own
physician, Dr. Nunez, that he was unfit for sea duties because of his hypertension and diabetes.

a) Was Nonato a regular employee of N-Train Shipping? (2.5%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Nonato is not a regular employee of N-Train Shipping. The fact that seafarers are not regular
employees is already a settled rule.
In Petroleum Shipping Limited (formerly Esso International Shipping (Bahamas) Co., Ltd.) v. NLRC,
G.R. No. 148130, June 16,2006, the Supreme Court said that the issue on whether seafarers are
regular employees is already a settled matter. Thus, the High Court said:
It was in Ravago v. Esso Eastern Marine, Ltd., G.R. No. 158324, 14 March 2005, 453 SCRA 381
where the Honorable Supreme Court traced its ruling in a number of cases that seafarers are
contractual, not regular, employees. Thus, in Brent School, Inc. v. Zamora, G.R. No. 48494, 5
February 1990, 181 SCRA 702 the Supreme Court cited overseas employment contract as an
example of contracts where the concept of regular employment does not apply, whatever the nature
of the engagement and despite the provisions of Article 280 of the Labor Code. In Coyoca v. NLRC,
G.R. No. 113658 March 31, 1995, the Supreme Court held that the agency is liable for payment of a
seaman’s medical and disability benefits in the event that the principal fails or refuses to pay the
benefits or wages due the seaman although the seaman may not be a regular employee of the
agency.
The Supreme Court squarely passed upon the issue in Millares v. NLRC, G.R. No. 110524, July 29,
2002, where one of the issues raised was whether seafarers are regular or contractual employees
whose employment are terminated every time their contracts of employment expire. The Supreme
Court explained:
[I]t is clear that seafarers are considered contractual employees. They can not be considered as
regular employees under Article 280 of the Labor Code. Their employment is governed by the
contracts they sign everytime they are rehired and their employment is terminated when the contract
expires. Their employment is contractually fixed for a certain period of time. They fall under the
exception of Article 280 whose employment has been fixed for a specific project or undertaking the
completion or termination of which has been determined at the time of engagement of the employee
or where the work or services to be performed is seasonal in nature and the employment is for the
duration of the season. We need not depart from the rulings of the Court in the two aforementioned
cases which indeed constitute stare decisis with respect to the employment status of seafarers.
NOTE: The foregoing answer can be found in pages 721-723 of the book entitled Principles and
Cases Labor Relations, Second Edition 2018, by Atty. Voltaire T. Duano. Questions involving the
same subject matter were given during the 2017, 2014 and 2002 Bar Examinations.

b) Can Nonato successfully claim disability benefits against N-Train Shipping and its agent Narita
Maritime Services? (2.5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The claim for disability benefits of Nonato against N-Train Shipping and its agent Narita Maritime
Services will not prosper for prematurity.
The Supreme Court laid down the procedures for filing disability benefits and its effect in case of
failure to comply with the procedures in Daraug v. KGJS Fleet Management Manila, G.R. No.
211211, January 14, 2015. Thus, in denying the claim for disability benefits due to prematurity the
Supreme Court ruled:
Petitioner Did Not Comply With The Procedures
In Vergara v. Hammonia Maritime Services, Inc.31 (Vergara), it was stated that the Department of
Labor and Employment (DOLE), through the POEA, has simplified the determination of liability for
work-related death, illness or injury in the case of Filipino seamen working on foreign oceangoing
vessels. Every seaman and the vessel owner (directly or represented by a local manning agency)
are required to execute the POEA Standard Employment Contract (POEA-SEC) as a condition sine
qua non prior to the deployment of the seaman for overseas work. The POEA-SEC is supplemented
by the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) between the owner of the vessel and the covered
seaman. In this case, the parties entered in to a contract of employment in accordance with the
POEA-SEC and they agreed to be bound by the CBA.
Thus, in resolving petitioner’s claim for disability compensation, the Court will be guided by the
procedures laid down in the POEA-SEC and in the CBA. On this point, Section 20(B)(3) of the
POEA-SEC provides:
Upon sign-off from the vessel for medical treatment, the seafarer is entitled to sickness allowance
equivalent to his basic wage until he is declared fit to work or the degree of permanent disability has
been assessed by the company-designated physician but in no case shall this period exceed one
hundred twenty (120) days.
For this purpose, the seafarer shall submit himself to a post-employment medical examination by a
company-designated physician within three working days upon his return except when he is
physically incapacitated to so, in which case, a written notice to the agency within the same period is
deemed a compliance. Failure of the seafarer to comply with the mandatory reporting requirement
shall result in his forfeiture of the right to claim the above benefits.
If a doctor appointed by the seafarer disagrees with the assessment, a third doctor may be agreed
jointly between the Employer and the seafarer. The third doctor’s decision shall be final and binding
on both parties.
NOTE: The foregoing answer can be found in pages 917-921 of the book entitled Principles and
Cases Labor Standards and Social Legislation, Second Edition 2018, by Atty. Voltaire T. Duano.
Question involving the same subject matter was given during the 2013 Bar Examination.
 Xl
Your favorite relative, Tita Nilda, approaches you and seeks your advice n her treatment of her
kasambahay, Noray. Tita Nilda shows you a document called a “Contract of Engagement” for your
review. Under the Contract of Engagement, Noray shall be entitled to a rest day every week,
provided that she may be requested to work on a rest day if Tita Nilda should need her services that
day. Tita Nilda also claims that this Contract of Engagement should embody the terms and
conditions of Noray’s work as the engagement of a kasambahay is a private matter and should not
be regulated by the State.
a) Is Tita Nilda correct in saying that this is a private matter and should not be regulated by the
State? (2.5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Tita Nilda is not correct in saying that engagement of a kasambahay is a private matter and should
not be regulated by the State. This is a valid subject matter of the exercise of police power to give
effect to the declared policy of the law such as the need to protect the rights of domestic workers
against abuse, harassment, violence, economic exploitation and performance of work that is
hazardous to their physical and mental health; and in protecting domestic workers and recognizing
their special needs to ensure safe and healthful working conditions, promotes gender-sensitive
measures in the formulation and implementation of policies and programs affecting the local
domestic work. (Section 2, Article I, Republic Act No. 10361)
NOTE: The foregoing answer can be found in page 759 of the book entitled Principles and Cases
Labor Standards and Social Legislation, Second Edition 2018. This is the first time that this type of
question was asked in the Bar Examination.

b) is the stipulation that she may be requested to work on a rest day legal? (2.5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The stipulation that Noray may be requested to work on a rest day is legal. The law provides that, “
Nothing in this provision shall deprive the domestic worker and the employer from agreeing to the
following:
(a) Offsetting a day of absence with a particular rest day;
(b) Waiving a particular rest day in return for an equivalent daily rate of pay;
(c) Accumulating rest days not exceeding five (5) days; or
(d) Other similar arrangements. (Section 21, Article IV, Republic Act No. 10361)
NOTE: The foregoing answer can be found in page 778 of the book entitled Principles and Cases
Labor Standards and Social Legislation, Second Edition 2018. This is the first time that this type of
question was asked in the Bar Examination.

c) Are stay-in family drivers included under the Kasambahay Law?(2.5%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Stay-in family drivers are not included under the Kasambahay Law. This was very clear in the Rules
Implementing the Kasambahay Law providing as follows:
The following are not covered:
(a) Service providers;
(b) Family drivers;
(c) Children under foster family arrangement; and
(d) Any other person who performs work occasionally or sporadically and not on an occupational
basis. (Section 2, Rule I, Implementing Rules and Regulations of Republic Act 10361)
NOTE: The foregoing answer can be found in page 761 of the book entitled Principles and Cases
Labor Standards and Social Legislation, Second Edition 2018. Questions involving the same subject
matter were given during the 2012 and 1998 Bar Examinations.

XVIII
Nestor and Nadine have been living in for the last 10 years without the benefit of marriage. Their
union has produced four children. Nadine was three months pregnant with her 5th child when Nestor
left her for another woman. When Nadine was eight months pregnant with her 5th child, she applied
for maternity leave benefits. Her employer refused on the ground that this was already her 5"
pregnancy and that she was only living in with the father of her child, who is now in a relationship
with another woman. When Nadine gave birth, Nestor applied for paternity leave benefits. His
employer also denied the application on the same grounds that Nadine’s employer denied her
application.

(a) Can Nadine’s employer legally deny her claim for maternity benefits? (2.5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes, Nadine’s employer can legally deny her claim for maternity benefits. This is because the
maternity benefits shall be paid only for the first four (4) deliveries or miscarriages. (See Section 14-
A, RA 8282) In this case, the said pregnancy was the 5th child of Nadine. Thus, she already
exhausted the limitations for entitlement to maternity benefits under the law.
NOTE: The foregoing answer can be found in page 474 of the book entitled Principles and Cases
Labor Standards and Social Legislation, Second Edition 2018, by Atty. Voltaire T. Duano. Questions
involving this subject matter were given during the 2015, 2012, 2010, 2005 and 2000 Bar
Examinations.

(b) Can Nestor’s employer legally deny his claim for paternity benefits? (2.5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Nestor’s employer can legally deny his claim for paternity benefits for his failure to comply with the
conditions for entitlement to paternity benefits.
Under the law, a married male employee shall be entitled to paternity benefits provided that:
a. he is an employee at the time of delivery of his child;
b. he is cohabiting with his spouse at the time she gives birth or suffers a miscarriage.
c. he has applied for paternity leave in accordance with Section 4 hereof; and
d. his wife has given birth or suffered a miscarriage. (Section 3, Revised Implementing Rules and
Regulations of Republic Act No. 8187 for the Private Sector)
In this case, Nadine is not Nestor’s lawful wife to whom he is cohabiting.
NOTE: The foregoing answer can be found in pages 470-471 of the book entitled Principles and
Cases Labor Standards and Social Legislation, Second Edition 2018, by Atty. Voltaire T. Duano.
Questions involving this subject matter were given during the 2013, 2012, 2011, 2005 and 2002 Bar
Examinations.