Question B.19, 2019 Labor Law Bar Exam

Atty. Jericho Del Puerto

Atty. Jericho Del Puerto

Lawyer, Author, Mentor

B.19.

(Question B.19, Labor Law, 2019 Bar Exam)

Because of dwindling sales and the consequent limitation of productions, rumors were rife that XYZ, Inc. would reduce its employee force. The next day, the employees of XYZ, Inc. received a notice that the company will have a winding down period of 10 days, after which there will be a six (6)-month suspension of operations to allow the company to address its precarious financial position.

On the fourth (4th) month of suspension of its operations XYZ, Inc. posted announcement that it will resume its operations in 60 days but at the same time announced that instead of closing down due to financial losses, it will retrench 50% of the work force.

(a) Is the announcement that there would be retrenchment affecting 50% of the work force sufficient compliance with the legal requirements for retrenchment? Explain. (2.5%)

(b) Assuming that XYZ, Inc., instead of retrenchment, extended the suspension of its operations from six (6) months to eight (8) months, would the same be legally permissible? If not, what are the consequences? (2.5%)

Suggested Answer:

(a) No. Answer

Under the Labor Code, retrenchment requires two notices to be sent, to wit: (a) a 30-day advance notice to DOLE; and (b) a 30-day advance notice to the employees. Rule

In the case at bar, the Company did not send a 30-day advance notice to DOLE and to the employees in violation of the Labor Code. Apply

Thus, the announcement is not sufficient to comply with the legal requirements for retrenchment. Conclusion

(b) No. Under the Labor Code, an employer is allowed to undergo a bona fide suspension of business operations for a period not exceeding six (6) months. On/before the expiration of the last day of the 6-month period, the employer may either re-admit the employees back to work or to permanently retrenched them subject to payment of separation pay. If no action is taken by the employer before the lapse of the period, the employer may be held liable for constructive dismissal.

..

(Notice: The suggested answers simulate those that a bar examinee may provide, and thus specific citations are not provided. Notwithstanding, in the reviewers, the bar exam question is answered under the appropriate topic which discusses the concepts and principles, as well as provide for specific citations. Accordingly, please refer to it on the reviewer or in the Library.)

Share:

WhatsApp
Telegram
Facebook
Twitter
Subjects

Political Law, Labor Law

G. Executive clemency

Frequency: ★★★☆☆ | Probability: ★★★☆☆ 1. Forms and limitations General Rules: 1) The President may grant reprieves, commutations and pardons, and remit fines and forfeitures,

Question B.20, 2019 Labor Law Bar Exam

B.20. (Question B.20, Labor Law, 2019 Bar Exam) Discuss the differences between compulsory and voluntary/optional retirement as well as the minimum benefits provided under the

B. Powers, functions, and jurisdiction

Frequency: ★★★★☆ 1. Civil Service Commission (CSC) Civil Service. The Civil Service shall be administered by the Civil Service Commission. (Section 1[1], Part B, Article

C. Crimes against public order

Frequency: ★★★☆☆ CHAPTER 1: REBELLION, SEDITION AND DISLOYALTY 1. Rebellion or insurrection a. CONCEPT Article 134. Rebellion or insurrection; How committed. – The crime of

B. Anti-Fencing Law of 1979

Frequency: ★★☆☆☆ “Fencing” – is the act of any person who, with intent to gain for himself or for another, shall buy, receive, possess, keep,

1. Criminal liabilities and felonies

Frequency: ★★★★★ FELONIES: Acts and omissions punishable by law are felonies (delitos). (Article 3, Act No. 3815, Revised Penal Code) DOLO; CULPA: Felonies are committed

7. Civil liability in criminal cases

Frequency: ★★★☆☆ a. Civil liability of certain persons Every person criminally liable for a felony is also civilly liable. (Article 100, Ibid.) 1) Rules regarding

Question 12, 2018 Legal Ethics Bar Exam

XII (Question XII, Legal and Judicial Ethics, 2018 Bar Exam) From February to November 2004, Atty. Calumpang, in fraudulent connivance with brokers, convinced Corinna to

error: Content is protected.