1.

Requirements of Substantive Due Process

Substantive due process ensures that laws, rules, or regulations must not violate fundamental
rights and must have a legitimate purpose. It protects individuals from arbitrary actions of the
government.

Legal Basis: Article III, Section 1 of the 1987 Constitution

"No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, nor shall any
person be denied the equal protection of the laws."

Requirements:

● Legitimate Purpose: The law must serve a lawful government objective, such as
protecting public welfare, health, or safety.
● Reasonableness: The means employed must be appropriate and not oppressive.
● Prohibition of Arbitrary Acts: Any action that is unjust, unreasonable, or overly broad
violates substantive due process.

Example: If a law bans certain behaviors, it must reasonably relate to the promotion of public
safety or welfare.

2. Requirements of Procedural Due Process

Procedural due process ensures fairness in the process of enforcing the law. It requires that
proper notice and an opportunity to be heard are given before depriving a person of life, liberty,
or property.

Legal Basis: Article III, Section 1 of the 1987 Constitution

"No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, nor shall any
person be denied the equal protection of the laws."

Requirements:

● Notice: The person must be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation or
action.
● Opportunity to be Heard: The person must have a chance to present their case, defend
themselves, or contest the decision.
● Impartial Tribunal: The decision-making body must be unbiased and competent.
● Conformity to Established Rules: Actions must follow the procedures set by law.

Example: In disciplinary proceedings, an employee must be notified of charges against them,

given access to evidence, and allowed to present their side before a decision is made.

3. What are the two aspects of procedural due process?

Procedural due process has two key aspects:
 1. Substantive Aspect: Ensures that the law being applied is fair, reasonable, and not
arbitrary. It examines whether the legal provisions themselves conform to due process
standards.
○ Example: A law that discriminates without a valid basis violates this aspect.
2. Procedural Aspect: Ensures that proper procedures are followed before depriving a
person of life, liberty, or property.
○ Example: Proper notice and a fair hearing must be given to individuals before a
decision affecting their rights is made.

4. Requirements for Administrative Proceedings

Administrative due process is a less rigid standard than in judicial proceedings but must still
observe fairness and justice.

Requirements:

1. Right to Notice: The individual must be informed of the charges or issues against them.
2. Opportunity to be Heard: The person must have the chance to present their side, either
orally or in writing.
3. Decision Rendered on Evidence: The ruling must be based on substantial evidence
presented during the hearing.
4. Impartial Tribunal: The decision-maker must not have any interest in the outcome or
bias.
5. Right to Appeal: When applicable, the person must have a chance to seek a review of
the decision.

5. Requirements for Judicial Proceedings

Judicial due process is more stringent as it involves courts of law and protects fundamental
rights.

Requirements:

1. Competent Jurisdiction: The court must have authority over the subject matter and the
parties involved.
2. Proper Notice: Parties must be duly notified of the proceedings.
3. Hearing: There must be a fair trial or hearing where parties can present evidence and
arguments.
4. Decision Based on Evidence: Judgments must be based on legally admitted evidence
and the merits of the case.
5. Impartiality: The judge must be unbiased and neutral.
6. Right to Appeal: The losing party must be allowed to seek review or reconsideration of
the judgment, when permitted by law.
 6. Elements of Substantial Distinction
Substantial distinction is a principle used in determining whether a classification is valid under
the Equal Protection Clause of the 1987 Constitution.

Legal Basis:
Article III, Section 1:
"No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, nor shall any
person be denied the equal protection of the laws."

Elements:

1. Genuine and Substantial Differences: The classification must be based on real,

substantive distinctions rather than arbitrary criteria.
○ Example: Age, occupation, or status (e.g., minors vs. adults, public officials vs.
private individuals).
2. Relation to the Law's Purpose: The distinctions must have a reasonable connection to
the purpose of the law.
3. Not Arbitrary or Oppressive: The classification must not unjustly discriminate against
any group.

7. What are the instances where reasonable searches are allowed?

Reasonable searches may be conducted without violating the right to privacy if they are
justified by law.

Legal Basis:
Article III, Section 2 of the 1987 Constitution:
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against
unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated."

Instances:

1. Search Warrant: Issued by a judge based on probable cause.

2. Consent Searches: When the person voluntarily consents.
3. Search Incidental to a Lawful Arrest: To secure weapons or evidence that may be
destroyed.
4. Customs and Border Inspections: At airports, ports, and borders.
5. Stop-and-Frisk: When police reasonably suspect a person is armed and dangerous.
6. Plain View Doctrine: When evidence is clearly visible and legally in view of law
enforcement.
7. Exigent Circumstances: When immediate action is necessary to prevent harm,
destruction of evidence, or escape.

8. Instances where warrantless arrests are permitted

Legal Basis:
Rule 113, Section 5 of the Rules of Court provides the following instances:
 1. In Flagrante Delicto: When the person is caught in the act of committing a crime.
○ Example: A thief caught stealing.
2. Hot Pursuit: When law enforcement has probable cause to believe that a person just
committed a crime.
○ Example: A suspect fleeing the crime scene.
3. Escaped Prisoner: When a person who escaped from custody is arrested without a
warrant.
○ Example: A prisoner escaping jail.

9. Instances where warrantless searches are permitted

Legal Basis:
Established in jurisprudence and supported by the 1987 Constitution.

Instances:

1. Search Incidental to Lawful Arrest: To ensure officer safety and preserve evidence.
2. Plain View Doctrine: When evidence is in plain sight during lawful presence.
3. Consent Searches: Voluntary agreement by the person being searched.
4. Stop-and-Frisk: For weapons or contraband if there is reasonable suspicion.
5. Customs and Border Searches: Routine checks at airports, borders, and ports.
6. Exigent Circumstances: When there is immediate danger or threat of evidence
destruction.
7. Search of Moving Vehicles: When there is probable cause that the vehicle contains
contraband or evidence of a crime (Carroll Doctrine).
8. Checkpoints: As long as they are conducted lawfully and not arbitrary.

These exceptions aim to balance public safety and individual rights.

10. What is the "Fruit of the Poisonous Tree" doctrine?

The "Fruit of the Poisonous Tree" doctrine is a legal principle that prohibits the use of evidence
obtained through illegal or unconstitutional methods. Evidence derived from an unlawful search,
seizure, or interrogation is inadmissible in court because it is "tainted."

Legal Basis:
Article III, Section 2 of the 1987 Constitution:
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against
unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated."

Example: If police obtain evidence without a warrant, any evidence derived from it (e.g.,
confessions or other discoveries) may also be excluded under this doctrine

11. What are the limitations to the general rule that the right to privacy of communications and
correspondence is inviolable? Legal Basis:
Article III, Section 3(1) of the 1987 Constitution:
"The privacy of communication and correspondence shall be inviolable except upon lawful order
of the court, or when public safety or order requires otherwise as prescribed by law."

Limitations:

1. Lawful Court Order: A valid judicial order authorizes the interception of

communications.
○ Example: Wiretaps authorized for criminal investigations.
2. Public Safety or Order: In cases where national security or public order is at risk.
○ Example: Anti-Terrorism Act provisions (if consistent with due process).
3. Consent of the Parties: When one party voluntarily consents to the surveillance or
disclosure.
4. Customary Business Practices: Employers may monitor official communication under
specific guidelines.

12. What is the Two-Fold Test for establishing entitlement to privacy?

The Two-Fold Test determines whether an individual has a legitimate expectation of privacy:

1. Subjective Expectation of Privacy: The person must have an actual, subjective

expectation that their activity or communication is private.
2. Objective Reasonableness: The expectation must be recognized as reasonable by
society.
Example:
● A phone call in a private room (reasonable expectation of privacy).
● Posting on social media (no reasonable expectation of privacy).

13. What are the two aspects of freedom of expression?

1. Freedom from Prior Restraint: Protects against censorship or suppression of speech before
it is made.

○ Example: Prohibiting a government agency from stopping a protest before it

happens.
2. Freedom from Subsequent Punishment: Protects individuals from penalties or
sanctions after the expression of their views unless it falls within exceptions like libel or
obscenity.
○ Example: Shielding whistleblowers from prosecution for exposing public
corruption.

Legal Basis:
Article III, Section 4 of the 1987 Constitution:
"No law shall be passed abridging the freedom of speech, of expression, or of the press."

14. Exceptions to Prior Restraint

Prior restraint is prohibited, but the following exceptions exist when the speech poses a clear
and present danger to significant public interests:

1. Obscenity: Speech or material deemed obscene is not protected (Miller v. California

standard).
2. Advocacy of Imminent Lawless Action: Speech inciting immediate violence or illegal
acts.
3. National Security: Speech that endangers national security (e.g., disclosing military
secrets).
4. Defamation or Libel: Statements that harm another’s reputation.
5. Speech Creating a Clear and Present Danger: Instances where speech directly
threatens public order or safety.
6. False or Misleading Advertising: Commercial speech that deceives consumers.

Legal Basis:
Article III, Section 4 of the 1987 Constitution, coupled with jurisprudence like Chavez v.
Gonzales (G.R. No. 168338), clarifies these exceptions.

15. What is the Non-Establishment Clause?

The Non-Establishment Clause prohibits the government from establishing an official religion,
favoring one religion over another, or promoting religion in general.

Legal Basis:
Article III, Section 5 of the 1987 Constitution:
"No law shall be made respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise
thereof."

Key Principles:

● The government must remain neutral toward religion.

● No government funding or support for religious activities.
● Separation of Church and State.

16. What is the Free Exercise Clause?

The Free Exercise Clause guarantees individuals the right to freely practice their religion without
government interference, subject to reasonable limitations.

Legal Basis:
Article III, Section 5 of the 1987 Constitution:
"The free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship, without discrimination or
preference, shall forever be allowed."
Key Limitations:
Religious practices that endanger public safety, morals, or health can be regulated.

● Example: Banning human sacrifices, even if part of religious rituals.

17. What are the exceptions or limitations to the liberty of abode?

Legal Basis:
Article III, Section 6 of the 1987 Constitution:
"The liberty of abode and of changing the same within the limits prescribed by law shall not be
impaired except upon lawful order of the court, or when necessary in the interest of national
security, public safety, or public health."

Exceptions:

1. Court Order: A judge may restrict an individual’s place of residence (e.g., house arrest).
2. National Security: Movement may be restricted to protect state interests.
3. Public Safety or Health: Evacuations during natural disasters or pandemics.

18. What are the exceptions or limitations to the right to travel?

Legal Basis:
Article III, Section 6 of the 1987 Constitution:
"The right to travel shall not be impaired except in the interest of national security, public safety,
or public health, as may be provided by law."

Exceptions:

1. National Security: Preventing individuals from leaving or entering for security reasons.
○ Example: Travel bans during martial law.
2. Public Safety: Restrictions during emergencies or disasters.
○ Example: Prohibiting entry into hazardous zones.
3. Public Health: Quarantine measures during pandemics.
4. Judicial Order: Travel restrictions imposed on individuals facing criminal charges.
○ Example: Hold departure orders.

19. What is the coverage of the right to information?

The right to information ensures access to official records, documents, and public transactions
involving public interest.

Legal Basis:
Article III, Section 7 of the 1987 Constitution:
"The right of the people to information on matters of public concern shall be recognized."

Coverage:
 1. Official Records: Government contracts, budgets, and expenditures.
2. Public Transactions: Procurement, bidding, and other dealings involving public funds.
3. Government Policies: Information on laws, rules, and regulations affecting the public.

Exceptions:

1. National Security: Classified military or diplomatic matters.

2. Privacy Concerns: Personal information protected by law.
3. Privileged Communication: Internal government deliberations or attorney-client
communications.

20. Coverage of the right to association

The right to association guarantees individuals the freedom to form and join groups,
organizations, or unions for lawful purposes.

Legal Basis:
Article III, Section 8 of the 1987 Constitution:
"The right of the people, including those employed in the public and private sectors, to form
unions, associations, or societies for purposes not contrary to law shall not be abridged."

Coverage:

1. Labor Unions: Workers organizing to protect their rights.

2. Political Organizations: Forming political parties or movements.
3. Civic and Religious Groups: Forming organizations for social, cultural, or religious
activities.

Limitations:
Associations must not engage in illegal, immoral, or subversive activities.

21. Coverage of the Non-Impairment Clause (Non-Impairment of Contracts)

The Non-Impairment Clause prohibits the government from passing laws that alter or impair
existing valid contracts.

Legal Basis:
Article III, Section 10 of the 1987 Constitution:
"No law impairing the obligation of contracts shall be passed."

Coverage:

1. Private Contracts: Agreements between individuals or entities (e.g., leases, loans).

2. Government Contracts: Agreements entered into by the government, provided they
comply with public policy.
Exceptions:

1. Police Power: Laws regulating contracts in the interest of public welfare.

○ Example: Rent control laws limiting rent increases.
2. National Security: Contracts that jeopardize national safety or public interest.

22. What are the rights of a person during custodial investigation?

During custodial investigation, a person has the following rights to protect against
self-incrimination and ensure due process:

Legal Basis:
Article III, Section 12 of the 1987 Constitution:
"Any person under investigation for the commission of an offense shall have the right to be
informed of his rights."

Rights Include:

1. Right to Be Informed: The person must be informed of their rights in a language they
understand.
2. Right to Remain Silent: The person cannot be compelled to speak or provide evidence
against themselves.
3. Right to Counsel: The person has the right to competent and independent legal
counsel. If they cannot afford one, the government must provide a lawyer.
4. Protection from Coercion: Confessions obtained through force, violence, intimidation,
or undue influence are inadmissible.

23. What warnings must be given to a person prior to any questioning?

Before questioning, law enforcement must provide the following warnings, commonly referred to
as Miranda Rights:

1. Right to Silence: Inform the individual that they have the right to remain silent.
2. Right to Counsel: Inform the person that they have the right to a lawyer, and if they
cannot afford one, a lawyer will be provided.
3. Consequences of Statements: Warn that any statement made can be used as
evidence against them in court.

Legal Basis:
Article III, Section 12 of the 1987 Constitution and the Miranda v. Arizona doctrine (as adopted
in Philippine jurisprudence).

24. When do the rights under custodial investigation become available?

These rights become available once a person is under custodial investigation—that is, when
law enforcement begins to interrogate a suspect who is deprived of their liberty in connection
with a crime.

Examples:

● After an arrest.
● During detention for questioning related to a criminal offense.

Exceptions:

● These rights do not apply during a preliminary investigation or general inquiry when the
individual is not yet a suspect.

25. What are the rights of the accused?

The rights of the accused ensure fairness and justice in legal proceedings.

Legal Basis:
Article III, Sections 12–14 of the 1987 Constitution.

Key Rights Include:

1. Presumption of Innocence: Until proven guilty.

2. Right to Be Heard: Including legal representation by a competent lawyer.
3. Right to Be Informed: About the nature and cause of the accusation.
4. Right to a Speedy, Impartial, and Public Trial.
5. Right Against Self-Incrimination: No one can be forced to testify against themselves.
6. Right Against Double Jeopardy: Protection from being tried twice for the same
offense.
7. Right to Appeal: In cases where appeal is allowed.

26. When is the right to bail a matter of right, discretion, or prohibited?

Legal Basis:
Article III, Section 13 of the 1987 Constitution:
"All persons, except those charged with offenses punishable by reclusion perpetua when
evidence of guilt is strong, shall, before conviction, be bailable."

1. Matter of Right:

● Before conviction, all persons have the right to bail except when charged with offenses
punishable by reclusion perpetua, life imprisonment, or death, and the evidence of
guilt is strong.

2. Matter of Discretion:
 ● After conviction by the trial court but before the judgment becomes final, bail is at the
discretion of the court.

3. Prohibited:

● Bail is prohibited for crimes punishable by reclusion perpetua, life imprisonment, or

death, when the evidence of guilt is strong.

Examples:

● Bail is a right for minor offenses or bailable crimes.

● Bail is discretionary for convicted individuals appealing their sentence.
● Bail is prohibited for heinous crimes like murder or treason if guilt is strongly evidenced.

27. Exception to the right against involuntary servitude

Legal Basis:
Article III, Section 18(2) of the 1987 Constitution:
"No involuntary servitude in any form shall exist except as a punishment for a crime whereof the
party shall have been duly convicted."

Exception:
Involuntary servitude is allowed as a form of punishment for crimes following a lawful conviction.

● Example: Community service or hard labor as part of a criminal sentence.

28. Is the death penalty considered cruel and inhuman under the 1987 Constitution?
Legal Basis:
Article III, Section 19(1) of the 1987 Constitution:
"Excessive fines shall not be imposed, nor cruel, degrading, or inhuman punishment inflicted.
Neither shall the death penalty be imposed, unless, for compelling reasons involving heinous
crimes, the Congress hereafter provides for it."

Answer:
The 1987 Constitution does not categorically prohibit the death penalty. However, it limits its
imposition to heinous crimes and requires compelling justification from Congress. If imposed
arbitrarily or excessively, it may be deemed cruel or inhuman.

29. Does BP 22 violate the constitutional prohibition against imprisonment for non-payment of
debt?
Legal Basis:
Article III, Section 20 of the 1987 Constitution:
"No person shall be imprisoned for debt."
Answer:
BP 22 (Bouncing Checks Law) does not violate this prohibition because the imprisonment under
BP 22 is not for non-payment of debt per se, but for the act of issuing a worthless or dishonored
check, which constitutes fraud or deceit. This makes it a criminal offense rather than mere
failure to pay a debt.

30. Can an Executive Order repeal the Administrative Code?

No, an Executive Order (EO) cannot repeal the Administrative Code (specifically, the
Administrative Code of 1987 or EO 292). An EO is an executive directive issued by the
President to implement or clarify existing laws or policies, but it cannot override or repeal
statutory law. The Administrative Code, being a law enacted by Congress, requires an act of
Congress to amend, repeal, or modify it. An Executive Order can, however, affect the
administrative structure or functions within the bounds of existing statutory law, but it cannot
change the underlying laws set forth in the Administrative Code.

31. Define and enumerate administrative relationships.

Administrative relationships refer to the interactions and responsibilities between various
actors within the administrative state, typically between government agencies, the public, and
other branches of government. Key types of administrative relationships include:

1. Vertical Relationships – These are hierarchical relationships within the administrative

agencies, where subordinates are required to comply with the directives and decisions of
their superiors. For example, the relationship between a department and its bureaus or
offices.
2. Horizontal Relationships – These are relationships between agencies at the same
level of government, often collaborating to achieve common goals. For example, a
regulatory agency working with a local government agency on a shared project.
3. Agencies and the Legislature – The relationship between the executive (agencies) and
the legislature (Congress), where agencies are often tasked with the implementation of
laws, but legislative bodies oversee and can amend these laws.
4. Agencies and the Judiciary – Courts have a supervisory role over administrative
agencies, ensuring they act within the law. Courts can review agency decisions and
actions through judicial review (e.g., rulemaking or adjudication).
5. Public and Agencies – The relationship between administrative agencies and the
public, which includes citizens and organizations interacting with agencies through the
process of administrative rulemaking, adjudication, or regulatory compliance.

32. What are the powers of Administrative Agencies?

Administrative agencies derive their powers from legislation enacted by Congress, which grants
them the authority to regulate specific areas of public policy. The general powers of
administrative agencies include:
 1. Rulemaking Power – Administrative agencies have the authority to create rules and
regulations to implement and enforce statutes. These rules have the force of law and
govern the behavior of regulated parties.
2. Adjudicatory Power – Agencies often have the power to adjudicate disputes between
parties, including issuing decisions or orders in cases involving violations of regulations
or disputes between parties under the agency’s jurisdiction.
3. Investigatory Power – Agencies have the authority to investigate violations of the law
within their jurisdiction, including conducting inspections, hearings, and issuing
subpoenas to gather information.
4. Enforcement Power – Administrative agencies can enforce laws and regulations by
issuing sanctions, fines, or penalties against violators, and in some cases, they have the
authority to issue cease-and-desist orders or take legal action in court.
5. Licensing and Permitting Power – Agencies often regulate certain industries or
professions by issuing licenses or permits and ensuring that those regulated comply with
statutory requirements.
6. Advisory Power – Agencies may provide advice, guidance, and recommendations on
legal, technical, or policy matters within their area of expertise.

33. What is the Doctrine of Primary Administrative Jurisdiction?

The Doctrine of Primary Administrative Jurisdiction refers to the principle that certain
matters within an agency's expertise should be initially handled by the agency itself, rather than
by the courts. This doctrine applies when a case involves issues that are better suited to the
specialized knowledge and experience of an administrative agency. The courts may defer to the
agency for primary consideration of the matter before allowing a judicial resolution.

For example, if a case involves a regulatory issue concerning the interpretation of an agency's
rule, the court may refer the matter to the agency for a decision before it can proceed to judicial
review.

34. What is the Doctrine of Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies?

The Doctrine of Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies requires that before a party can
seek judicial review of an agency decision or action, it must first exhaust all available
administrative remedies within the agency. This means that the party must go through all
procedural steps and remedies provided by the agency’s rules before the courts will intervene.

The purpose of this doctrine is to allow agencies to resolve disputes within their own system and
to avoid unnecessary judicial intervention in matters that could be resolved administratively.

35. What are the exceptions to the Doctrine of Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies?
While the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies is well-established, there are
several exceptions where a party may bypass administrative remedies and seek judicial relief
directly:
 1. Unconstitutional Acts – If the action of the agency is alleged to be unconstitutional
(e.g., a violation of constitutional rights), the court may allow the party to seek judicial
review without exhausting administrative remedies.
2. Futility – If pursuing administrative remedies would be futile, meaning that the agency
has already made clear that it would not provide a remedy, the court may intervene
immediately. This could occur, for example, where the agency has a pattern of not
enforcing its own rules or is clearly biased.
3. Lack of Adequate Remedy – If there is no adequate remedy available within the
agency (for instance, when an agency’s decision cannot fully address the harm
suffered), judicial review may be sought.
4. Time Sensitivity – If the party's legal right is threatened by the delay in administrative
action, or if there is an urgent need for judicial intervention (e.g., in cases where there is
no alternative remedy to avoid imminent harm), the court may allow the case to bypass
administrative processes.
5. Statutory Exceptions – In some cases, statutes provide that certain issues can be
brought directly to court without first going through administrative procedures.

Each of these exceptions reflects situations where the need for judicial intervention outweighs
the administrative process.

36. What are the sources of International Law?

The sources of international law are primarily outlined in Article 38 of the Statute of the
International Court of Justice (ICJ). These sources are generally classified as:

1. International Conventions (Treaties) – These are written agreements between states

or international organizations that create binding obligations. They are the primary
source of international law. Treaties may be bilateral (between two parties) or multilateral
(among many states).
2. Customary International Law – This refers to practices and customs that are generally
accepted as binding on states, even if not codified in written treaties. Customary law
develops from the consistent practice of states accompanied by the belief that such
practice is legally obligatory (opinio juris).
3. General Principles of Law – These are principles of law recognized by civilized nations,
often derived from domestic legal systems. Examples include principles of justice, equity,
and fairness, as well as procedural principles like due process.
4. Judicial Decisions and Teachings of the Most Highly Qualified Publicists – The
decisions of international courts and tribunals, such as the ICJ, as well as scholarly
writings of respected legal scholars, can serve as subsidiary means of determining the
rules of international law.

37. What are the elements of Customary International Law?

The two key elements of Customary International Law are:
 1. State Practice (usus) – This refers to the consistent and general practice of states in
relation to a particular subject matter. It requires that the practice be widespread,
representative of a significant number of states, and conducted over a period of time.
2. Opinio Juris (Belief that the Practice is Legally Obligatory) – This refers to the belief
or conviction that the practice is followed out of a sense of legal obligation, not merely
out of habit or convenience. States must act in a particular way because they believe
they are legally required to do so.

Both elements must coexist for a practice to qualify as customary international law. A practice
without opinio juris or a belief that it is obligatory is not considered customary law, and vice
versa.

38. What are the Doctrine of Incorporation and the Doctrine of Transformation?
These two doctrines explain how international law is incorporated into domestic legal systems:

1. Doctrine of Incorporation – Under this doctrine, international law automatically

becomes part of domestic law without the need for any additional legislation. Once a
treaty or customary international law exists, it is immediately enforceable in the domestic
legal system. This doctrine is commonly followed in monist systems, such as in the
Netherlands or France, where international law does not require separate national
legislation for it to have domestic legal effect.
2. Doctrine of Transformation – This doctrine requires that international law be expressly
incorporated into national law through specific legislative action. In other words, treaties
or customary international law are not automatically part of domestic law until they are
transformed into domestic legal provisions by an act of the legislature. This approach is
followed in dualist systems, such as in the United Kingdom or the United States, where
international law must be formally adopted into the national legal system through
domestic laws or statutes before it can have domestic legal effect.

39. Elements of a State

A state in international law is a legal entity with four essential elements:

1. Territory – A defined geographic area over which the state exercises control and
sovereignty. This includes land, water, and airspace.
2. Population – A group of people who permanently reside within the state’s territory. A
state needs a population, although the size can vary significantly.
3. Government – An organized political structure that exercises control over the state’s
territory and population. The government must be able to establish and maintain public
order and enforce laws.
4. Sovereignty – The capacity to enter into relations with other states and to exercise full
control over domestic and foreign affairs, free from interference by external actors.
Sovereignty is the cornerstone of statehood in international law.
If a state lacks any of these elements, it may not be recognized as a full legal subject under
international law.

40. What are the instances when the President cannot unilaterally withdraw from a treaty?
Under the Philippine Constitution (Article VII, Section 21), the President cannot unilaterally
withdraw from a treaty in certain circumstances:

1. Ratification Requirement by the Senate – For the Philippines, treaties are negotiated
and signed by the President but require Senate ratification to be effective. This means
the President cannot unilaterally withdraw from a treaty without consulting and securing
the Senate’s approval. If a treaty was ratified by the Senate, withdrawing from it would
likely require Senate concurrence.
2. Constitutional and Legal Limitations – If a treaty involves constitutional commitments
or critical legal obligations, such as human rights obligations or trade commitments that
are protected under national laws or other international obligations, the President may
not have the unilateral authority to withdraw from it without following due process.
3. International and Constitutional Legal Obligations – In some cases, treaties may
contain provisions that prohibit withdrawal, or the state may be bound by other
international legal principles (e.g., jus cogens norms), making unilateral withdrawal
impermissible.
4. International Relations and Precedents – Withdrawal from certain multilateral treaties,
such as those involving human rights or peace agreements, may require more formal
processes or even be subject to international law (e.g., withdrawal from the UN
Convention on the Law of the Sea requires notice and compliance with specific
conditions).

41. What is Rebus Sic Stantibus?

The doctrine of Rebus Sic Stantibus (Latin for "things thus standing") is a principle in
international law that allows a state to withdraw from or suspend the operation of a treaty when
there has been a fundamental change in circumstances that was unforeseen at the time of the
treaty's conclusion. This doctrine applies when:

1. The change in circumstances affects the very foundation of the treaty.

2. The change was unforeseen and outside the control of the parties.
3. The change fundamentally alters the obligations of the parties or makes them impossible
to fulfill.

This doctrine is limited and does not apply to all treaties, particularly to those involving human
rights or peremptory norms of international law (jus cogens). It is recognized under Article 62 of
the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (1969).

42. What is Jus Cogens?

Jus Cogens refers to peremptory norms of international law that are universally recognized and
accepted as fundamental principles, from which no derogation is allowed. These norms are
non-negotiable and bind all states, regardless of their consent. They are recognized as
higher-order principles of international law.

Examples of jus cogens norms include:

● The prohibition against genocide.

● The prohibition against slavery and human trafficking.
● The prohibition against torture.
● The prohibition against crimes against humanity.

These norms cannot be overridden by any treaty or agreement between states, and they take
precedence over other international obligations. States cannot opt out of jus cogens norms.

43. What is the Principle of Pacta Sunt Servanda?

The principle of Pacta Sunt Servanda (Latin for "agreements must be kept") is a fundamental
concept in international law that states that treaties and agreements are legally binding upon the
parties who have consented to them and must be performed in good faith. This principle is
foundational for the operation of international law, ensuring that treaties are respected and that
states adhere to their international obligations.

This principle is enshrined in Article 26 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties
(1969), which states:

"Every treaty in force is binding upon the parties to it and must be performed by
them in good faith."

The principle of pacta sunt servanda underscores the importance of stability and predictability in
international relations, as parties to treaties are expected to honor their commitments unless
there are exceptional reasons, such as a fundamental change in circumstances (rebus sic
stantibus) or the termination or suspension of the treaty by mutual consent or under the
provisions of the treaty itself.

44. What are the qualifications of a voter? What are the qualifications for an SK voter?
Qualifications of a Voter

According to the Omnibus Election Code (B.P. 881) and the Philippine Constitution, the
qualifications for a regular voter are:

1. Citizenship – The individual must be a citizen of the Philippines.

2. Age – The individual must be 18 years old on or before election day.
 3. Residence – The individual must have resided in the Philippines for at least 1 year
and must have resided in the place where he/she intends to vote for at least 6
months immediately preceding the election.
4. Registration – The individual must be registered with the Commission on Elections
(COMELEC) as a qualified voter in the appropriate precinct.

Qualifications for an SK Voter

For an Sangguniang Kabataan (SK) voter, the qualifications are as follows:

1. Citizenship – The individual must be a citizen of the Philippines.

2. Age – The individual must be at least 15 years old but not more than 30 years old on
the day of the election.
3. Residence – The individual must have resided in the barangay where they intend to
vote for at least 6 months immediately preceding the election.
4. Registration – The individual must be registered with the COMELEC as an SK voter.

45. What are the qualifications of an overseas voter, and what elections are covered?
Qualifications of an Overseas Voter

As per Republic Act No. 9189 (The Overseas Absentee Voting Act of 2003), the qualifications
for an overseas voter are:

1. Citizenship – The individual must be a citizen of the Philippines.

2. Age – The individual must be at least 18 years old on election day.
3. Residence – The individual must have resided outside the Philippines at the time of
registration and must intend to return to the Philippines.
4. Registration – The individual must be registered with the COMELEC as an overseas
voter. Registration can be done at any Philippine embassy, consulate, or other
designated registration centers.

Elections Covered

Overseas voters are allowed to participate in:

● Presidential elections (for President and Vice President),

● Senatorial elections (for Senate),
● Party-list elections (for party-list representatives).

They are not eligible to vote in local elections (e.g., for governors, mayors, etc.) unless they are
also registered as local voters in the Philippines.

46. What are the requirements for local absentee voting, and what elections are covered?
Local absentee voting is a system provided for certain qualified individuals to vote even if they
cannot be physically present in their precinct on election day due to work or other reasons. The
requirements for local absentee voting are:

Requirements for Local Absentee Voting

1. Citizenship – The individual must be a citizen of the Philippines.

2. Age – The individual must be 18 years old or older on election day.
3. Occupation – The voter must be a government employee, member of the Armed
Forces, police officers, or other persons authorized by law who are unable to go to
their precinct because of their duties or assignment.
4. Registration – The voter must be duly registered with the COMELEC.
5. Application – The voter must apply for local absentee voting before the deadline set
by the COMELEC, which is usually 2 months before the election.

Elections Covered

Local absentee voting applies to:

● Presidential elections
● Legislative elections (Senatorial and House of Representatives)
● Party-list elections
● Local elections (if the voter is unable to go to the precinct due to work-related reasons,
including government employees and military personnel, etc.).

47. What are the four inviolable parameters of the party-list election?
The party-list election is governed by Article VI, Section 5 of the Philippine Constitution
and Republic Act No. 7941 (The Party-List System Act). There are four inviolable parameters
that must be observed in party-list elections:

1. Proportional Representation – Party-list representatives are elected through a system

of proportional representation, where seats in the House of Representatives are
allocated based on the percentage of votes received by the party-list group.
2. Sectoral Representation – The party-list system is designed to give voice to
marginalized and underrepresented sectors, including workers, farmers, women,
youth, indigenous peoples, and other similar groups.
3. No Political Dynasties – The party-list system prohibits the use of the party-list as a
vehicle for political families or dynasties to gain representation in the House of
Representatives. This is to ensure that the system serves marginalized sectors and not
established political elites.
4. Minimum Representation – A party-list organization must receive at least 2% of the
total votes cast in the party-list election to gain representation in the House of
Representatives. A party-list can secure more than one seat depending on the number
of votes it receives (based on the proportional representation system).
48. What are the three groups allowed to register and participate as a party-list?
Under Republic Act No. 7941 (The Party-List System Act) and the Philippine Constitution,
only the following three types of groups are allowed to register and participate as party-lists:

1. Marginalized and Underrepresented Sectors – Groups that represent marginalized

and underrepresented sectors of society, such as labor, farmers, indigenous people,
youth, women, and other groups that lack adequate representation in government.
These groups are intended to provide a voice for those who are traditionally excluded or
disadvantaged in the political process.
2. Sectoral Organizations – These are organizations that represent particular sectors,
professions, or interest groups that aim to contribute to legislation affecting their sectors,
such as the labor sector, teachers, healthcare workers, etc.
3. Political Parties – Political parties, provided they are not traditional political parties
aiming to represent the general public through the standard election system, but those
specifically adhering to the ideals of representing marginalized or underrepresented
groups. These parties must demonstrate that their platform and programs are geared
toward benefiting such sectors.

These groups must also meet the requirements for registration with the COMELEC, which
includes showing that their advocacy is primarily for the welfare of marginalized groups, and that
they have no affiliation with any traditional political party system or political dynasty.

49. What are the general guiding principles for a candidate’s qualification?
The qualifications for a candidate are generally set by the Philippine Constitution and the
Omnibus Election Code (B.P. 881), and they are based on the principle that candidates must
have the ability and integrity to represent the people. The general guiding principles for a
candidate’s qualification include:

1. Citizenship – The candidate must be a citizen of the Philippines.

2. Age – The candidate must meet the age requirement set for the office sought. For
example:
○ President/Vice President: At least 40 years old (Constitution, Article VII).
○ Senators: At least 35 years old (Constitution, Article VI).
○ Members of the House of Representatives: At least 25 years old
(Constitution, Article VI).
○ Local Government Officials (Mayor, Governor, etc.): At least 23 years old for
certain positions.
3. Residency – The candidate must have resided in the Philippines for at least one
year and in the locality where they intend to run for office for at least six months
prior to the election (Omnibus Election Code, Sec. 39).
4. Registered Voter – The candidate must be a registered voter of the district or locality
they intend to represent.
 5. Not Disqualified – The candidate must not be disqualified by law or by the
Commission on Elections (COMELEC) under any grounds of disqualification.

These principles ensure that candidates are eligible to serve the people in an honest and
competent manner and are well-established in the electoral system.

50. Ministerial duty of COMELEC to receive Certificates of Candidacy (COCs)

Under Section 74 of the Omnibus Election Code, the COMELEC has a ministerial duty to
receive Certificates of Candidacy (COCs) from any individual who files a candidacy for any
elective position during the filing period. The COMELEC has no discretion to reject or refuse to
receive the COCs unless the filing is made outside the designated filing period or if the
candidate fails to submit the required documents (e.g., a valid Certificate of Nomination for
party-list candidates).

The term ministerial duty means that the COMELEC is required to receive COCs without delay
or refusal, regardless of whether the candidate is qualified or not. The qualification of a
candidate will only be resolved after the filing of the COC, often through petitions for
disqualification or other legal challenges.

51. What are the grounds for disqualification under the Omnibus Election Code and the Local
Government Code? What are the grounds under RA 10742 or the SK Reform Act of 2015?
Grounds for Disqualification under the Omnibus Election Code (B.P. 881):

1. Not a Citizen of the Philippines.

2. Not a Registered Voter of the district or local government unit.
3. Not a Resident of the Philippines or of the Locality where the candidate is running for
at least one year (for national office) or six months (for local office).
4. Convicted of a Crime Involving Moral Turpitude – Anyone convicted of a crime
involving moral turpitude (e.g., serious crimes like theft, fraud, etc.) may be disqualified
from running for public office.
5. Under Suspension from Public Office – If the candidate is under suspension from
holding public office.
6. Declared Insane or Incompetent by a competent court.
7. Has been found guilty of election offenses.
8. Has committed an act of rebellion or subversion and has not been granted amnesty.
9. Has been a public official who was found to have committed acts of corruption, as
determined by the proper court or government agency.

Grounds for Disqualification under the Local Government Code:

1. Having been convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude.

2. Being an undischarged bankrupt.
3. Being a habitual drunkard.
 4. Being mentally incompetent.
5. Being disqualified under any law.
6. Being a government official who has been dismissed from public service for
administrative reasons.

Grounds for Disqualification under RA 10742 (Sangguniang Kabataan Reform Act of

2015):

The grounds for disqualification for an SK candidate are:

1. Not a Filipino citizen.

2. Not a resident of the barangay where the candidate intends to run for at least six
months before the election.
3. Conviction for a crime involving moral turpitude.
4. Undischarged bankruptcy.
5. Being a government official removed from office due to graft and corruption.
6. Being a person under the sentence of imprisonment for more than 1 year.

These laws are designed to ensure that those seeking to hold public office or positions within
the SK are of good moral character, have the necessary qualifications, and are not involved in
disqualifying activities.

52. Who are considered nuisance candidates? What are the effects of a declaration of nuisance
candidacy?
Nuisance candidates are those who file candidacies with the intention of causing confusion
or disrupting the election process. The definition of a nuisance candidate is provided in Section
69 of the Omnibus Election Code. The following individuals may be considered nuisance
candidates:

1. **Those who file candidacies for the purpose of defeating the genuine candidacies of
others by confusing voters.
2. **Those who do not have the intention of winning the election but only wish to disrupt
or confuse the electoral process.
3. **Those who file candidacies but lack the means, resources, or seriousness to mount
a legitimate campaign.

Effects of a Declaration of Nuisance Candidacy:

If a candidate is declared a nuisance by the COMELEC, the candidate’s Certificate of

Candidacy (COC) will be canceled, and the person will be disqualified from the election. The
candidate will be removed from the list of official candidates, and their name will not appear on
the ballot.

A nuisance candidacy is a serious offense, as it undermines the integrity of the electoral process
and wastes the time and resources of both election officials and voters.
 53. Differentiate between a petition for disqualification and a petition to deny due course to or
cancel a COC.
Petition for Disqualification:

A petition for disqualification is a legal challenge filed with the COMELEC to disqualify a
candidate from running for office on the grounds that they do not meet the legal qualifications
required for candidacy. The grounds for disqualification may include:

1. The candidate is not a Filipino citizen.

2. The candidate is under criminal conviction.
3. The candidate lacks the required age, residency, or voter registration.
4. The candidate has been involved in election offenses.

A petition for disqualification can be filed by any registered voter or other interested parties.
The COMELEC will investigate and decide whether to disqualify the candidate based on the
merits of the petition.

Petition to Deny Due Course to or Cancel a COC:

A petition to deny due course to or cancel a COC is a challenge to the validity of a

Certificate of Candidacy (COC) filed by a candidate. This petition typically asserts that:

1. The COC was filed with false or misleading information (e.g., false claims of citizenship,
age, or residency).
2. The COC is defective or invalid due to procedural or substantive errors.
3. The candidate did not truly intend to run for office or filed the COC in bad faith.

The effect of a successful petition to deny due course is that the COC will be rejected, and the
candidate will not be considered as a qualified candidate, even if the candidate had not yet been
officially disqualified. If the petition to cancel a COC is granted, the candidate's name will be
removed from the official list of candidates, and they will no longer be recognized as running for
office.

In short:

● A petition for disqualification addresses whether the candidate is legally qualified to

run for office.
● A petition to deny due course to or cancel a COC focuses on the validity of the
candidate’s candidacy papers or the candidate's intent to participate in the election.

54. Define the Penera Doctrine in relation to the Lanot Doctrine

The Penera Doctrine and the Lanot Doctrine both relate to the validity of the election of
public officials in the Philippines, particularly concerning the effect of failure to file a
Statement of Contributions and Expenses (SOCE), a requirement under election laws to
ensure transparency in campaign financing.

● Penera Doctrine (Penera v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 191317, 2011): This doctrine
emphasizes that the failure to file the SOCE is a ground for disqualification and is a
mandatory requirement for candidates to be declared validly elected. The doctrine
holds that a candidate who fails to file the SOCE within the prescribed period cannot
assume office, even if they win the election. It underscores the importance of
compliance with the election laws, particularly the full disclosure of campaign
contributions and expenditures.
● Lanot Doctrine (Lanot v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 122867, 1997): This doctrine, on the
other hand, explains that the failure to file the SOCE does not automatically
disqualify a candidate from being elected, but it does bar the candidate from
assuming office until the required documents are submitted. The Lanot Doctrine
allows for remedial measures like filing the SOCE even after the election, thereby
granting candidates a grace period.

Relation between the two: Both doctrines address the legal consequence of failing to file the
SOCE, but the Penera Doctrine is more stringent, asserting that failure to file the SOCE
results in automatic disqualification, while the Lanot Doctrine offers some flexibility, allowing
candidates to be elected but barring them from assuming office until they comply with the SOCE
filing requirements.

.
55. What is the allowable amount of expenses for candidates?
The allowable amount of campaign expenses for candidates is determined by the Omnibus
Election Code (B.P. 881), and the COMELEC Resolution No. 10730 which regulates the
amount that a candidate can spend for their campaign, depending on the position they are
running for.

● For Presidential candidates: The maximum allowable campaign expenditure is ₱10.00

per voter in the entire country.
● For Vice Presidential candidates: The maximum allowable campaign expenditure is
₱5.00 per voter in the entire country.
● For Senatorial candidates: The maximum allowable campaign expenditure is ₱3.00 per
voter in the entire country.
● For Party-List candidates: The maximum allowable campaign expenditure is ₱3.00 per
voter in the entire country.
● For Local candidates (e.g., Governor, Mayor, etc.): The maximum allowable
campaign expenditure depends on the population of the city or province. The general
rule is:
○ For candidates running for Governor, Mayor, or Vice Mayor: ₱3.00 per voter in
the area.
○ For Members of the House of Representatives and Local Board Members:
₱3.00 per voter in their district or locality.
These expenditure limits ensure fairness in elections and prevent the undue influence of money
in the electoral process. Candidates must report all campaign contributions and expenses in
their Statement of Contributions and Expenses (SOCE).

56. When must the Statement of Contributions and Expenses (SOCE) be filed?
The Statement of Contributions and Expenses (SOCE) must be filed by all candidates and
political parties as part of the post-election requirements under Section 14 of the Omnibus
Election Code and COMELEC Resolution No. 10730.

● Deadline: The SOCE must be filed within 30 days after the election for national
candidates and political parties.
● For local candidates, the SOCE must be filed within 30 days after the proclamation of
the winning candidates.

If the candidate or party fails to file the SOCE within the prescribed period, they may be subject
to disqualification and may be prohibited from assuming office, as the Penera Doctrine
suggests.

57. What are the pre-election remedies?

Pre-election remedies are legal actions that candidates, parties, or voters may file before the
election to ensure the proper conduct of the electoral process or to resolve disputes regarding
qualifications. These remedies include:

1. Petition for Disqualification – A candidate may be disqualified before the election for
failure to meet qualifications or for reasons such as being a convicted criminal or lacking
residency requirements.
2. Petition to Deny Due Course to or Cancel a Certificate of Candidacy (COC) – This
remedy is filed when a person’s COC is challenged for reasons such as fraud,
misrepresentation, or noncompliance with qualifications.
3. Petition for the Substitution of Candidates – A political party may file a petition to
substitute a candidate who is disqualified, or withdraws, with another candidate.
4. Petition for Injunction – A party may seek an injunction to stop certain illegal acts or to
compel action by the COMELEC in cases where the electoral process is threatened or
disrupted.
5. Petition for the Correction of Entries in Voter Registration – This includes cases
where a voter seeks to correct an error or to be included in the official voters list.

Pre-election remedies allow for disputes and issues to be resolved before the election process
begins, ensuring that only qualified candidates appear on the ballot.

58. What are the remedies during the election?

During the election, there are several remedies available to ensure that the election process is
conducted fairly and to address any issues that arise on election day:

1. Petition for the Suspension of Election Proceedings – A petition may be filed to

suspend an election in certain areas due to violence, threats, or other extraordinary
circumstances.
2. Petition for the Recount of Votes – If a party believes that there was an error in the
counting of votes, a recount may be requested during the election process (usually done
through a motion for recount or petition for annulment of election results).
3. Petition for the Investigation of Election Offenses – This remedy is available if there
are allegations of election violations, such as vote-buying, coercion, or manipulation
during the election.
4. Motion for Proclamation – If a candidate is prejudiced or delayed in the proclamation
of election results, they may file a motion to request their immediate proclamation.
5. Request for Protection Orders – In the case of election-related violence or
harassment, a candidate or party may file for a protection order to safeguard their safety
during the election.

These remedies ensure that the integrity of the election process is maintained, and candidates'
rights are protected during the conduct of the election.

59. What are the post-proclamation remedies?

Post-proclamation remedies are legal actions that may be taken after the official proclamation of
winners to address issues such as election fraud, errors in the count, or other challenges to
the results of the election. These remedies include:

1. Petition for Election Contest – A formal challenge to the election results, which may be
filed by a losing candidate or political party if they believe the results are tainted by fraud
or irregularities. This can be filed in Congress (for presidential and vice-presidential
elections) or in the appropriate court (for local elections).
2. Petition for Recount or Revision – A losing candidate may file a petition for recount or
revision of votes if they believe that the counting of votes was erroneous. This may be
done in special courts or tribunals.
3. Petition to Cancel Proclamation – If it is discovered that a candidate was disqualified
after proclamation or if the results were significantly altered due to fraud or errors, a
petition can be filed to cancel the proclamation.
4. Petition for Declaration of the Invalidity of the Election – If there are grounds for
substantial irregularities or violations during the election process that affected the
results, this remedy may be pursued.
5. Petition for the Issuance of a Writ of Execution – After a favorable ruling in an
election contest, a writ of execution may be issued to enforce the judgment, such as
compelling the proclamation of the winner or nullifying a candidate’s proclamation.
Post-proclamation remedies ensure that candidates have a fair chance to challenge the results,
and any errors or fraud are addressed before the winner assumes office.

60. How should labor laws be construed?

Labor laws in the Philippines are generally liberally construed in favor of labor and to
protect the rights of workers. This is based on the principle of social justice embedded in the
Constitution, which seeks to provide adequate protection to labor and promote the welfare of
workers. The Labor Code of the Philippines (Presidential Decree No. 442, as amended)
reflects this principle by ensuring that workers' rights are upheld and their dignity respected.

● Legal Basis: The 1987 Constitution, Article XIII, Section 3 explicitly states that:
"The State shall afford full protection to labor, local and overseas, organized and
unorganized, and promote full employment and equality of employment opportunities for
all."
● Interpretation: Courts and administrative agencies, particularly the National Labor
Relations Commission (NLRC), DOLE (Department of Labor and Employment), and
labor tribunals, must interpret and apply labor laws in a way that favors employees,
considering their weaker bargaining position in comparison to employers. When in doubt,
labor laws should be interpreted in favor of the worker, especially in cases involving
contracts of employment, dismissal, wages, and benefits.

61. What is Social Justice?

Social justice refers to the equitable distribution of resources, opportunities, and privileges
within society to ensure that all individuals, especially those from marginalized groups such as
workers, are treated fairly and with dignity. In the context of labor law, social justice means
creating a legal framework that promotes equal treatment, fair wages, safe working
conditions, and job security for workers, while addressing power imbalances between
employers and employees.

● Legal Basis: The 1987 Philippine Constitution, particularly in Article XIII, Section 3,
advocates for social justice by providing protection for labor:
"The State shall afford full protection to labor, local and overseas, organized and
unorganized, and promote full employment and equality of employment opportunities for
all."

Social justice also seeks to protect workers from exploitation, ensure fair working conditions,
and promote access to social services such as health and housing.

62. What are the tests to determine the existence of an employer-employee relationship?
To determine whether there is an employer-employee relationship, courts and labor tribunals
typically apply the following tests:
 1. The Control Test – This is the most common test used to determine the existence of an
employer-employee relationship. It asks whether the employer has the right to control
not only the result of the work but also the manner and means by which the work
is done. If the employer has control over how the employee performs the job, an
employer-employee relationship exists.
○ Legal Basis: The Labor Code and jurisprudence have consistently used this
test. In Alabang Workers Union v. NLRC, the Supreme Court emphasized that
control over the employee’s work performance is key in determining the
relationship.
2. The Economic Reality Test – This test looks at the economic dependence of the
worker on the employer. If the worker depends on the employer for economic support,
then the relationship is likely one of employer-employee.
○ This test focuses on the worker's financial dependence on the employer, such
as receiving regular compensation and benefits from the employer.
3. The Four-Fold Test (Combination of All Tests) – This test combines the elements of the
control test, economic reality test, and considers whether the worker performs tasks
that are necessary and integral to the business, whether the worker’s services are
exclusive to the employer, and whether the employer has the power to dismiss the
worker.

In determining the employer-employee relationship, courts and the DOLE consider all
circumstances of the working arrangement.

63. What are the types of employment?

The Labor Code classifies employment into different types based on the nature and duration of
the work arrangement. These are:

1. Regular Employment – This is the most common type, where the employee is hired to
perform tasks that are usually necessary and integral to the business of the employer.
Regular employees enjoy the full benefits and protections under the Labor Code.
○ Legal Basis: Article 280 of the Labor Code provides that a regular employee is
one who has been employed to perform tasks that are necessary and desirable
to the business.
2. Casual Employment – Casual employees are hired for work that is not essential or
necessary to the business, and their employment is typically temporary. Casual
employees can become regular employees if they are employed for more than 1 year
under the same terms and conditions.
○ Legal Basis: Article 280 of the Labor Code.
3. Project Employment – Project employees are hired for a specific project or
undertaking, and their employment ends once the project is completed. This type of
employment must be based on a specific undertaking and not be of a continuous
nature.
○ Legal Basis: Article 280 provides that project employees are exempt from
regularization.
 4. Seasonal Employment – These employees are hired to work for specific seasons of
the year when the demand for certain work increases. For example, agricultural workers
or retail workers during peak seasons.
○ Legal Basis: Article 280 of the Labor Code.
5. Fixed-Term Employment – Employees hired for a specified period or under a
fixed-term contract. Employment terminates upon the expiration of the contract unless
renewed.
○ Legal Basis: Under Article 280, a fixed-term contract is valid as long as it is not
a subterfuge to circumvent labor laws.
6. Temporary Employment – This is when the employment relationship is for a limited
duration, often to fill in for a regular employee who is absent, such as during sick leave,
maternity leave, or emergency situations.

64. What are the just causes for termination?

Just causes for termination refer to reasons that are deemed legally valid for an employer to
terminate an employee without the need for separation pay. These causes are specified in
Article 297 (formerly Article 282) of the Labor Code:

1. Serious Misconduct – This refers to willful disobedience or gross misconduct, such

as dishonesty, theft, or engaging in criminal activities within the workplace.
2. Willful Disobedience of Employer’s Lawful Orders – Employees may be terminated if
they willfully fail to comply with reasonable and lawful orders related to their work.
3. Gross and Habitual Neglect of Duties – If an employee neglects their duties to a
significant extent, or does so habitually, they may be dismissed.
4. Fraud or Willful Concealment of Facts – If an employee commits fraud or conceals
important facts, such as falsifying records, they can be terminated.
5. Commission of a Crime or Offense – If an employee commits a crime during work
hours or within the premises of the employer’s business, they can be dismissed.
6. Other analogous cases – This refers to any other situation that involves serious
misconduct or negligence that impacts the employment relationship.

65. What are the authorized causes for termination?

Authorized causes for termination refer to the reasons for dismissal that are considered
legally justifiable, but where the employee is entitled to separation pay. These causes are
specified in Article 298 (formerly Article 283) of the Labor Code:

1. Installation of Labor-Saving Devices – When technological advances or labor-saving

devices make certain positions redundant or unnecessary.
2. Redundancy – This refers to the termination of employment due to the employer having
more employees than necessary to carry out the business operations.
3. Retrenchment – This is the termination of employees due to the employer’s need to
reduce the workforce for economic reasons, such as cost-cutting or downsizing.
 4. Closure or cessation of business operation – If the business operations cease,
whether temporarily or permanently, employees may be terminated.
5. Disease – An employee may be dismissed if they have a contagious disease that
makes them unable to perform their duties and poses a health risk to others.

In all of these cases, the employee is generally entitled to separation pay, calculated based on
their years of service. The amount of separation pay depends on the cause of termination:

● For redundancy, retirement, or retrenchment, separation pay is 1 month’s salary or

at least half-month pay for every year of service.
● For disease-related termination, the employee is entitled to separation pay based on
the duration of employment, but this is subject to medical evaluation.

These authorized causes aim to balance the need for the employer to manage their workforce
while still respecting the worker's rights and providing them compensation.

CASE

Hubilla v. HSY Marketing Ltd. (G.R. No. 207354) is a Philippine Supreme Court case that
deals with labor law, specifically termination of employment and the burden of proof in
cases involving illegal dismissal.

Facts of the Case:

Hubilla was employed by HSY Marketing Ltd., a company engaged in the distribution of goods.
In the course of his employment, he was allegedly terminated for cause. Hubilla filed a case
for illegal dismissal before the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), claiming that
his dismissal was without just cause and due process.

The company, on the other hand, contended that Hubilla was dismissed for serious
misconduct, citing several incidents of alleged misbehavior. The Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of
the employer, dismissing the case. However, Hubilla appealed the decision, arguing that his
dismissal was unjustified and lacked the proper due process. The Court of Appeals (CA)
upheld the Labor Arbiter’s decision.

Issue:

The primary issue in this case was whether Hubilla’s dismissal was valid and whether the
employer complied with the requirements of just cause and due process for terminating an
employee. Additionally, the Court also examined the burden of proof in cases of illegal
dismissal, particularly in the context of the employer’s duty to prove the legality of dismissal.

Ruling:
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Hubilla, reversing the decisions of the lower courts. The
Court found that HSY Marketing Ltd. failed to properly substantiate its allegations of serious
misconduct. The dismissal was deemed illegal because the company could not sufficiently
prove that Hubilla committed the acts of misconduct that justified termination. Furthermore, the
employer did not comply with the required due process (i.e., notice and hearing) in dismissing
Hubilla.

Legal Basis:

1. Burden of Proof: The Supreme Court reiterated the principle that in cases of illegal
dismissal, the employer bears the burden of proving that the dismissal was for a
just and valid cause. Under Article 277(b) of the Labor Code, an employer must prove
that the employee's dismissal is justified by a just cause, such as serious misconduct,
dishonesty, or gross negligence, among others. Failure to provide sufficient evidence
leads to the presumption that the dismissal is illegal.
2. Due Process in Termination: The Court emphasized that due process requires two (2)
notices:
○ Notice to explain: The employee must be informed in writing of the charges
against him and given a reasonable opportunity to explain.
○ Hearing or conference: The employee must be given the chance to be heard
before a decision is made.
3. In this case, the employer failed to comply with this requirement, which rendered the
dismissal invalid under the Labor Code.
4. Article 297 (formerly Article 282) of the Labor Code: This provision specifies the just
causes for termination of employment, including serious misconduct, gross neglect,
fraud, or other analogous cases. The employer must establish these causes through
evidence.
5. Article 277(b) of the Labor Code: The law requires that the employer follow due
process in dismissing an employee, including serving two notices (the notice of infraction
and a notice of termination) and providing the employee the opportunity to be heard.

Conclusion:

In Hubilla v. HSY Marketing Ltd., the Supreme Court ruled that the dismissal was illegal due to
the employer’s failure to prove just cause and to comply with procedural due process
requirements. The case reinforces the principle that the burden of proof rests on the
employer in illegal dismissal cases and that failure to follow due process renders the
termination unlawful.

This case serves as a reminder that in labor disputes, employers must not only substantiate the
grounds for dismissal with adequate evidence but also follow the correct procedural steps to
ensure that the dismissal is lawful and fair.
Brent v. Zamora (G.R. No. L-48494, November 18, 1988) is a landmark labor case decided by
the Supreme Court of the Philippines. The case primarily deals with the issue of illegal
dismissal and the concept of "constructive dismissal" under Philippine labor law.

Facts of the Case:

In this case, Brent School, Inc. (the employer) hired Zamora as a teacher. Zamora was a
teacher at Brent School for several years, and his employment was characterized by a
continuous renewal of contracts. However, at the end of one of his contract renewals,
Zamora’s contract was not renewed for the next school year. He was informed by the employer
that he was no longer required.

Zamora filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, alleging that his termination was unjustified and
without valid cause, and that he was not given proper notice or due process.

Brent School, on the other hand, argued that it had the discretion not to renew Zamora’s
contract because his appointment was "temporary" or "fixed-term," and therefore, the
non-renewal of the contract was not a dismissal but the expiration of a fixed-term arrangement.
The employer also contended that Zamora was not dismissed but his contract merely
ended.

Issue:

The key issue in this case is whether Zamora's non-renewal of his contract by Brent School
constituted a constructive dismissal, and whether the employer followed due process and had
just cause to terminate his employment.

Ruling:

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Zamora, declaring his dismissal illegal and that the
non-renewal of his contract amounted to constructive dismissal.

● The Court explained that constructive dismissal exists when an employee is forced to
resign due to the employer’s act, conduct, or failure to act, which makes the working
environment intolerable for the employee. In this case, Brent School’s failure to
renew Zamora’s contract under what the Court found to be questionable
circumstances created a situation tantamount to dismissal.
● The Court further emphasized that an employee under a fixed-term contract may be
terminated early only for just or authorized causes under the Labor Code, and
failure to renew the contract, without due process or any valid reason, could amount to
constructive dismissal.
● The Court also ruled that non-renewal of a contract by itself does not necessarily
prevent a finding of dismissal, especially if the reason for non-renewal is linked to the
employer’s arbitrary or unjust actions. If the employee is led to believe that his
 employment is continuing or that he will be re-employed, and then is suddenly told his
contract will not be renewed, it may be considered as a de facto dismissal.

Legal Basis:

1. Article 297 (formerly Article 282) of the Labor Code (Just Causes for Termination):
This article provides the valid grounds for dismissal, such as serious misconduct, gross
neglect, fraud, and others. However, constructive dismissal occurs when the
employer’s actions, such as not renewing a fixed-term contract in an arbitrary or
unjust manner, force the employee to leave, which is equivalent to being terminated.
2. Article 279 of the Labor Code (Security of Tenure): An employee cannot be dismissed
without just or authorized cause and due process. Under this provision, an employee’s
tenure is protected, and the employer cannot simply terminate or refuse to renew a
contract without valid reasons or due process, even for fixed-term employees.
3. Jurisprudence on Constructive Dismissal: The Supreme Court has consistently ruled
that constructive dismissal is a form of unlawful dismissal that occurs when the
employer’s actions make it impossible for the employee to continue working, which can
include not renewing the contract for arbitrary reasons. The Court in Brent v. Zamora
clarified that non-renewal of an employment contract can amount to constructive
dismissal if it is not done in good faith and if the employee is not given a fair chance to
continue employment.
4. Due Process Requirements: In cases of termination or dismissal, employers must
observe due process, which includes:
○ Notice of the cause for dismissal (whether just or authorized), and
○ The opportunity for the employee to explain or contest the dismissal.
5. In the case of Brent v. Zamora, the failure to renew the contract without proper
notice and hearing was seen as a violation of due process and a form of illegal
dismissal.

Conclusion:

In Brent v. Zamora, the Supreme Court ruled that Zamora’s non-renewal of contract was
tantamount to constructive dismissal. The Court found that Brent School did not provide
justifiable reasons for the non-renewal and failed to observe due process. As a result, the
dismissal was illegal, and Zamora was entitled to reinstatement and back wages.

The case underscores the importance of just cause, due process, and fair treatment in
employment relationships, particularly concerning fixed-term contracts and constructive
dismissal. The decision is significant in clarifying that non-renewal of a contract can amount
to dismissal if not done in good faith or with valid reasons, thereby protecting employees from
arbitrary actions by employers.

Jaka Food Processing v. Pacot (G.R. No. 151378, March 26, 2007)
Case Overview:

The case of Jaka Food Processing Corporation v. Pacot involves the issue of illegal
dismissal, specifically relating to the employer’s duty to prove the validity of the termination of
an employee. The Supreme Court ruled on whether or not the dismissal of Pacot, an employee
of Jaka Food Processing Corporation, was justified.

Facts of the Case:

● Jaka Food Processing Corporation (the employer) employed Pacot as a company

driver. He was dismissed from his employment on the grounds of serious misconduct
due to his alleged involvement in an accident while on duty, resulting in damage to the
company’s vehicle.
● Pacot contested his dismissal, arguing that it was without just cause and that he was
not afforded proper due process. He claimed that the company failed to establish that
the alleged misconduct actually occurred, and the termination was an overreaction.
● Jaka Food Processing argued that Pacot was dismissed for serious misconduct
under Article 297 (formerly Article 282) of the Labor Code because the accident
involved negligence and that Pacot’s behavior was a breach of the company’s rules
and regulations. The company claimed that the dismissal was based on his actions
during the incident.
● The Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of Pacot, finding that there was no substantial evidence
to justify his dismissal. The company was ordered to reinstate Pacot with back wages.
● On appeal, the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) affirmed the decision of
the Labor Arbiter, ruling that there was no serious misconduct on Pacot’s part, and thus
his dismissal was illegal.
● The case was brought before the Supreme Court.

Issues:

1. Was the dismissal of Pacot for serious misconduct justified?

2. Did Jaka Food Processing Corporation observe the proper procedural due
process in dismissing Pacot?
3. Was Pacot entitled to reinstatement and back wages?

Ruling:

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Pacot and affirmed the decision of the NLRC.

● On the issue of serious misconduct: The Court emphasized that for a dismissal to be
valid on the ground of serious misconduct, the employer must prove that the
employee's actions were indeed grave and made the continuation of employment
impossible. The Court found that the employer did not provide sufficient evidence to
support the claim that Pacot’s actions amounted to serious misconduct. The mere
 accident that occurred was not sufficient to justify dismissal. The employer failed to
establish that Pacot's actions were intentional or grossly negligent.
● On the issue of procedural due process: The Court emphasized the importance of
observing due process in cases of dismissal. Under the Labor Code, when an
employee is dismissed for a just cause (like serious misconduct), the employer must
serve the employee with a notice to explain the reason for the termination and provide
the employee with an opportunity to be heard in a hearing. The employer must also
serve a notice of dismissal if it decides to terminate the employee. The Court found
that Jaka Food Processing Corporation failed to comply with these due process
requirements, thus rendering the dismissal invalid.
● On the issue of reinstatement and back wages: Since the Court found that Pacot’s
dismissal was illegal, it ruled that he was entitled to reinstatement to his previous
position and back wages. In cases of illegal dismissal, the employee is entitled to
reinstatement without loss of seniority rights, and if reinstatement is no longer feasible,
the employer is required to pay separation pay. In this case, the Court ordered the
reinstatement of Pacot and the payment of back wages, as he was unjustly dismissed.

Legal Basis:

1. Article 297 (formerly Article 282) of the Labor Code – This article lists the just
causes for termination, including serious misconduct, gross neglect of duties, fraud,
and others. For dismissal to be valid on these grounds, the employer must provide
sufficient evidence to prove the existence of the cause. The employee must also be
given due process.
2. Article 277 (b) of the Labor Code – This article outlines the due process
requirements for dismissal. An employer must provide the employee with:
○ A notice to explain the charges against them,
○ An opportunity to be heard in a conference, and
○ A written notice of dismissal if the employer decides to terminate the
employee.
3. Jurisprudence on Illegal Dismissal: The Supreme Court has consistently held that
the employer bears the burden of proving that a dismissal was valid. In the
absence of proper evidence or if the employer fails to comply with the procedural
requirements, the dismissal is considered illegal.
4. Due Process in Dismissal: The Court reiterated the importance of substantive due
process (just cause for dismissal) and procedural due process (proper notice and
hearing). If the employer fails to comply with either of these, the dismissal is considered
illegal.

Conclusion:

In Jaka Food Processing v. Pacot, the Supreme Court ruled that Pacot’s dismissal was
illegal because the employer failed to prove the serious misconduct and did not observe the
necessary due process. As a result, the Court affirmed the NLRC's decision granting
reinstatement and back wages to Pacot. The case underscores the importance of both
substantive and procedural due process in employment termination cases, highlighting that
employers must provide sufficient evidence to support the grounds for dismissal and follow the
due process requirements set by the Labor Code.

Calalang v. Williams (G.R. No. L-10342, September 17, 1957)

Case Overview:

The case of Calalang v. Williams revolves around the issue of the validity of the dismissal of
an employee and the nature of the employment contract between a public official (Williams)
and his employee (Calalang). Specifically, it deals with contractual relationships in
government employment and the legal rights of an employee when their contract is not
renewed.

Facts of the Case:

● Calalang was a special employee of Williams, a government official (the City

Treasurer of Manila), under a contract of employment. Calalang’s position was related
to clerical duties, and his employment was on a temporary or contractual basis.
● Williams had the authority to hire or remove employees in his office, and Calalang’s
contract was not permanent but based on the discretion of his employer.
● Calalang, after serving for some time, was not reappointed by Williams for another term,
and his contract was not renewed. Calalang filed an action, claiming that his dismissal
was unjust and that the non-renewal of his contract violated his rights under the Civil
Service Law (now superseded by the Administrative Code and Civil Service Rules).
● He contended that his dismissal without cause and due process was unlawful and
that he was entitled to reinstatement and back wages as if he were a permanent
employee.

Issue:

The main issue was whether Calalang’s dismissal (or non-renewal of contract) by Williams
was valid under the law, and whether he was entitled to the protections and rights afforded to
permanent employees under the Civil Service Law.

Ruling:

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Williams, affirming the non-renewal of Calalang’s
contract and concluding that Calalang had no right to be reinstated or to claim permanent
employment rights.

● The Court ruled that Calalang’s employment was not permanent and that his
contractual relationship was based on the discretion of his employer. Since Calalang
was not a permanent civil service employee, his non-renewal was within the
 employer’s discretion, and the Civil Service Law or public employment rules did not
require that he be retained.
● The Court clarified that temporary employees or those on contractual appointments
do not have the same rights as permanent civil servants. The non-renewal of his
contract was not illegal because Calalang’s employment was temporary and not
governed by the protections that apply to permanent civil servants.
● Additionally, the Court noted that employment contracts in the public sector,
particularly for temporary or non-permanent positions, are governed by specific rules
which differ from private employment, and that these contracts could be terminated or
not renewed at the discretion of the hiring official.

Legal Basis:

1. Civil Service Law (now the Civil Service Commission Rules): The Civil Service Law
governs employment relationships in government, with a distinction between permanent
civil service positions and non-permanent or contractual employment. The law
outlines the rights of permanent civil servants to security of tenure but allows for
temporary or casual appointments that can be terminated or not renewed based on
the discretion of the appointing authority.
○ Under the Civil Service Law, temporary or contractual employees do not
enjoy the same job security as permanent employees. This means that
non-renewal of a contract does not automatically equate to illegal dismissal,
especially if the employee was hired under a temporary or contractual basis.
2. Security of Tenure: Article IX-B, Section 2 of the 1987 Constitution grants civil
servants security of tenure, but this is applicable to permanent positions. Temporary
appointments, such as those held by Calalang, do not automatically afford the same
level of job security. Temporary employees can be dismissed or not reappointed at the
employer’s discretion, unless otherwise provided by law or contract.
3. Jurisprudence on Temporary Employment: In government employment, temporary
employees are often hired for specific projects or terms and have no expectation of
permanent employment. The Supreme Court has consistently ruled that non-renewal
of contracts for temporary positions does not constitute illegal dismissal, as long as
the non-renewal is done within the bounds of the agreement and legal framework
governing the employment.

Conclusion:

In Calalang v. Williams, the Supreme Court held that Calalang, being a temporary or
contractual employee, had no right to the same protections afforded to permanent
employees in the civil service. The non-renewal of his contract was deemed valid, and he
was not entitled to reinstatement or back wages. The case established that temporary
employees do not have job security under the Civil Service Law and that non-renewal of
their contract is within the employer’s discretion.
This case is significant because it highlights the distinction between permanent and
temporary employees in the government sector, emphasizing that temporary appointments
are subject to non-renewal without violating the employee’s rights to security of tenure.

I. Construction of Labor Laws

Under Philippine Labor Law, the Labor Code (Presidential Decree No. 442, as amended) sets
out the basic principles, rules, and regulations that govern the employment relationship
between employers and employees. The construction of Labor laws is guided by the principle
of social justice, with a focus on ensuring the protection of workers' rights while balancing the
interests of employers.

Legal Basis:

● Article 4 of the Labor Code: The Labor Code should be interpreted and construed in
favor of labor. It provides that the law should promote the welfare of the workers while
respecting the right of capital to its fair return.
○ Social Justice: Social justice is the cornerstone of Philippine labor law, and it
aims to ensure that workers enjoy humane working conditions and receive fair
compensation for their labor, while also recognizing the rights of employers to
protect their business interests.

Principles of Construction:

● Beneficial Interpretation: The Labor Code and labor-related laws are generally
interpreted in favor of the worker.
● Social Justice: Laws are construed to ensure that workers are treated fairly and that
their rights are protected.
● Equality of Bargaining Power: Workers, who typically have less bargaining power
compared to employers, are entitled to the benefits of ambiguity in legal provisions.

II. Employer-Employee Relationship

An employer-employee relationship arises when one party, the employer, hires another, the
employee, to perform work in exchange for compensation under the terms of an agreement or
contract. This relationship is governed by the principles set out in the Labor Code and other
related laws.

Legal Basis:

● Article 280 of the Labor Code defines employee and employer. It states that an
employee is one who works for an employer under a contract of employment, and the
employer is the person who hires the employee in exchange for wages or salary.

Factors Determining Employer-Employee Relationship:

 1. Control Test: The most important criterion in determining the existence of an
employer-employee relationship is the degree of control the employer has over the
work to be done, the manner and means by which it is performed, and the result.
2. Payment of Wages: The worker must receive wages from the employer, a key
indication of employment.
3. Independence of the Worker: A worker who has significant freedom in determining
their work processes or output may not be considered an employee under the Labor
Code.
4. Mutual Agreement: There must be a clear agreement between the employer and the
employee on the terms and conditions of work.

III. Kinds of Employment

The Labor Code recognizes various types of employment, depending on the duration, the
nature of work, and the terms agreed upon by both the employee and employer.

Types of Employment:

1. Regular Employment:
○ Definition: Employees whose work is necessary and desirable to the usual
business operations of the employer.
○ Legal Basis: Article 280 of the Labor Code: Employees performing work that is
usually required by the employer are considered regular employees.
○ Rights: Regular employees enjoy security of tenure, meaning they cannot be
dismissed except for just or authorized causes and must go through the proper
due process.
2. Temporary or Fixed-Term Employment:
○ Definition: Employment for a fixed period or specific project. This is typically for
a set time or a certain task.
○ Legal Basis: Temporary employment may be allowed under specific agreements
or project-based arrangements, as long as it does not violate the rights of the
worker under the Labor Code.
○ Rights: While temporary workers are generally entitled to the same minimum
benefits as regular employees, they do not have security of tenure and can be
terminated at the expiration of their contract.
3. Casual Employment:
○ Definition: Employment for work that is not continuous but needed for a specific
purpose.
○ Legal Basis: Casual employees are entitled to regular benefits like wages,
leave, and others, but do not have permanent employment rights.
○ Rights: Casual employees are entitled to the same minimum wages, benefits,
and working conditions as regular employees but may not have the right to
permanent employment.
4. Probationary Employment:
 ○ Definition: A period of employment where the employer evaluates the
performance of the employee to decide if they will be regularized.
○ Legal Basis: Article 296 of the Labor Code provides that an employee may be
placed on probation for a maximum of six (6) months, at the end of which the
employee may either be regularized or terminated.
○ Rights: During probation, the employee has the same rights as a regular
employee but can be terminated for just cause during the probation period.
5. Seasonal Employment:
○ Definition: Employment that is contingent on the nature of the work, typically
revolving around certain seasons or periods of high demand.
○ Legal Basis: This type of employment is governed by the specific needs of the
employer and industry (e.g., agriculture, tourism).
○ Rights: Seasonal workers enjoy similar rights as regular employees during the
period of their employment but typically do not have the same entitlement to job
security after the season ends.

IV. Just and Authorized Causes for Termination

Under the Labor Code, an employee may only be terminated for just causes or authorized
causes.

A. Just Causes (Article 297, formerly Article 282):

Just causes for dismissal are those that relate to the employee’s behavior and include:

1. Serious Misconduct: Willful disobedience of the employer’s lawful orders or behavior

that undermines the employer's operations.
2. Gross and Habitual Neglect of Duty: Failure to perform job responsibilities without
valid reason.
3. Fraud or Willful Breach of Trust: In cases where an employee's dishonesty harms the
employer's business.
4. Commission of a Crime or Offense: An employee may be dismissed if they commit a
crime or offense related to their work or under circumstances that make it incompatible
with the employment relationship.
5. Other Analogous Causes: Other serious reasons akin to the above causes as
determined by the employer.

B. Authorized Causes (Article 298-299):

Authorized causes for termination are generally not attributable to the fault of the employee
and may include:

1. Installation of Labor-Saving Devices: When a company introduces machinery or

technologies that eliminate the need for certain employees.
 2. Redundancy: When the employer has too many employees for the work required, often
leading to the dismissal of employees who perform similar tasks.
3. Retrenchment to Prevent Losses: When a company needs to reduce its workforce to
avoid or minimize financial losses.
4. Inability to Perform Work due to Illness: Employees who have been sick for a long
period and whose sickness is deemed to be permanent or affects their ability to perform
their work.
5. Closure or Cessation of Business: When an employer closes down or ceases
operations.

C. National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC):

The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) is an administrative agency tasked with
handling labor disputes, including cases of illegal dismissal, unpaid wages, and violations of
workers' rights. It is composed of a Chairperson and commissioners who render decisions
on labor disputes and appeals from decisions made by Labor Arbiters.

● Jurisdiction: The NLRC has the jurisdiction to hear and decide cases involving illegal
dismissal, unfair labor practices, and wage claims, among other labor-related
disputes.
● Powers: The NLRC has the power to order the reinstatement of employees who were
illegally dismissed and grant back wages. Its decisions can be appealed to the Court
of Appeals and eventually to the Supreme Court.