2017 (Labor Law) Bar Exam Questions: Question 12

[Answer/discuss the question below, or see 2017 bar exam Labor Law Instructions; 2016 Labor Law and Social Legislation Questions: 1234567891011, and 13; See also 2017 Bar Exam: Information, Discussions, Tips, Questions and Results]



Juanito initiated a case for illegal dismissal against Mandarin Company. The Labor Arbiter decided in his and ordered his immediate reinstatement with full backwages and without loss of seniority and other benefits. Mandarin Company did not like to allow him back in its premises to prevent him from influencing his co-workers to move against the interest of the company; hence, it directed his payroll reinstatement and paid his full backwages and other benefits even as it appealed to the NLRC.

A few months later, the NLRC reversed the ruling of the Labor Arbiter and declared that Juanito’s dismissal was valid. The reversal ultimately became final.

May Mandarin Company recover the backwages and other benefits paid to Juanito pursuant to the decision of the Labor Arbiter in view of the reversal by the NLRC? Rule, with reasons. (2.5%)


Gene is a married regular employee of Matibay Corporation. The employees and Matibay Corporation had an existing CBA that provided for funeral or bereavement aid of P15,000.00 in case of the death of a legal dependent of a regular employee. His widowed mother, who had been living with him and his family for many years, died; hence, he claimed the funeral aid. Matibay Corporation denied the claim on the basis that she had not been his legal dependent as the term legal dependent was defined by the Social Security Law.

(a) Who may be the legal dependents of Gene under the Social Security Law? (2.5%)

(b) Is Gene entitled to the funeral aid for the death of his widowed mother? your answer. (2%)


Rosa was granted vacation leave by her employer to spend three weeks in Africa with her family. Prior to her departure, the General Manager of the company requested her to visit the plant of a client of the company in Zimbabwe in order to derive best manufacturing practices useful to the company. She accepted the request because the errand would be important to the company and Zimbabwe was anyway in her itinerary. It appears that she contracted a serious disease during the trip. Upon her return, she filed a claim for compensation, insisting that she had contracted the disease while serving the interest of her employer.

Under the Labor Code, the sickness or death of an employee, to be compensable, must have resulted from an illness either definitely accepted as an occupational disease by the Employees’ Compensation Commission, or caused by employment subject to proof that the risk of contracting the same is increased by working conditions.

Is the serious disease Rosa contracted during her trip to Africa compensable? Explain your answer. (2.5%)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *