2018 BAR Q’S

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 1974-1975, 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 of service.

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

- yes, explicitly stated under the law that the provision of retirement benefits is applicable to ALL
employees in the private sector, regardless of their position, status…

(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%)

- at least one half month salary for every year of service, a fraction of at least 6 months being considered
as one whole year.

Term one-half month salary means – 15 days plus 1/12 of the 13th month pay and the cash equivalent of
not more than 5 days of SIL.

Applying the principles under Article 287, as amended, the components of retirement benefits of part-
time workers may also be computed at least in proportion to the salary and related benefits due them.

Natasha Shoe Company adopted an organizational streamlining program that resulted in the
retrenchment of 550 employees in its main plant. After having been paid their separation
benefits, the retrenched workers demanded payment of retirement benefits under a CBA
between their union and management. Natasha Shoe Company denied the workers' demand.
(a) What is the most procedurally peaceful means to resolve this dispute? (2.5%)
(b) Can the workers claim both separation pay and retirement benefits? (2.5%)
When both retirement pay and separation pay must be paid.

➢ Aquino v. NLRC, Feb. 11, 1992. In this case, the Supreme Court ordered the payment to the
retrenched employees of both the separation pay for retrenchment embodied in the CBA as well
as the retirement pay provided under a separate Retirement Plan. The reason is that these two
are not mutually exclusive. There is nothing in the CBA nor in the Retirement Plan that states that
an employee who had received separation pay would no longer be entitled to retirement benefits
or that collection of retirement benefits was prohibited if the employee had already received
separation pay
b. When separation pay may be charged to retirement pay.

➢ Ford Philippines Salaried Employees Association v. NLRC, Dec. 11, 1987. It is provided in the
retirement plan that the retirement, death and disability benefits paid in the plan are considered
integrated with and in lieu of termination benefits under the Labor Code, thus, the retirement
fund may be validly used to pay such termination or separation pay because of closure of
business.
c. When employees are entitled to only one form of benefit.

➢ Cipriano v. San Miguel Corporation, Aug. 21, 1968. The retirement plan provides that the
employee shall be entitled to either the retirement benefit provided therein or the separation
pay provided by law, whichever is higher, the employee cannot be entitled to both benefits.

Nena worked as an Executive Assistant for Nesting, CEO of Nordic Corporation. One day,
Nesting called Nena into his office and showed her lewd pictures of women in seductive poses
which Nena found offensive. Nena complained before the General Manager who, in turn,
investigated the matter and recommended the dismissal of Nesting to the Board of Directors.
Before the Board of Directors, Nesting argued, that since the Anti-Sexual Harassment Law
requires the existence of "sexual favors," he should not be dismissed from the service since he
did not ask for any sexual favor from Nena. Is Nesting correct? (2.5%)
While the law calls for a demand, request or requirement of a sexual, it is not necessary that the
demand, request or requirement of a sexual favor be articulated in a categorical oral or written
statement. It may be discerned, with equal certitude form acts of the offender. (Domingo vs.
Rayala, 546 SCRA 90 [2008]);
In sexual harassment, it is not essential that the demand, request or requirement be made as a
condition for continued employment or promotion to a higher position. It is enough that
Nesting’s act resuled in creating an intimidating, hostile or offensive environment for Nena.
Nicodemus was employed as a computer programmer by Network Corporation, a
telecommunications firm. He has been coming to work in shorts and sneakers, in violation of
the "prescribed uniform policy" based on company rules and regulations. The company human
resources manager wrote him a letter, giving him 10 days to comply with the company uniform
policy. Nicodemus asserted that wearing shorts and sneakers made him more productive, and
cited his above-average output. When he came to work still in violation of the uniform policy,
the company sent him a letter of termination of employment. Nicodemus filed an illegal
dismissal case. The Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of Nicodemus and ordered his reinstatement
with backwages. Network Corporation, however, refused to reinstate him. The NLRC 1st
Division sustained the Labor Arbiter's judgment. Network Corporation still refused to reinstate
Nicodemus. Eventually, the Court of Appeals reversed the decision of the NLRC and ruled that
the dismissal was valid. Despite the reversal, Nicodemus still filed a motion for execution with
respect to his accrued backwages.
(a) Were there valid legal grounds to dismiss Nicodemus from his employment? (2.5%)
- search
(b) Should Nicodemus' motion for execution be granted? (2.5%)
Yes. Under the Roquero doctrine, when it is due to the fault of the ER to comply with the
reinstatement order by the LA, he is not exempted from paying the reinstatement wages of
Nicodemus, computed from the time when the LA ordered the reinstatement until the date of
its reversal on appeal before the CA.
Northeast Airlines sent notices of transfer, without diminution in salary or rank, to 50 ground
crew personnel who were front-liners at Northeast Airlines counters at the Ninoy Aquino
International Airport (NAIA). The 50 employees were informed that they would be distributed
to various airports in Mindanao to anticipate robust passenger volume growth in the area.
North Union, representing rank-and-file employees, filed unfair labor practice and illegal
dismissal cases before the NLRC, citing, among others, the inconvenience of the 50 concerned
employees and union discrimination, as 8 of the 50 concerned ground crew personnel were
union officers. Also, the Union argued that Northeast Airlines could easily hire additional
employees from Mindanao to boost its ground operations in the Mindanao airports.
a) Will the transfer of the 50 ground crew personnel amount to illegal dismissal? (2.5%)
No. it is purely within management prerogative. There is want of showing that the management
intended bad faith on transferring said 50 employees. And it is even justified by the fact that, in
the company’s wisdom and judgment, said 50 employees is the most suited persons to deal with
such alleged robust passengers, considering the fact that they are front-liners in NAIA.
b) Will the unfair labor practice case prosper? (2.5%)
No.