Post by grifter on Nov 15, 2005 11:08:15 GMT 7
Labor and Social Legislation
2005 Bar Questions
-I-
(1) As Human Resources Department (HRD) manager of EZ Components, an unorganized manufacturer of electric and electronic components for household appliances, you are suddenly confronted with demands for recognition and collective bargaining negotiations from two competing labor unions. They both claim to represent all the rank-and-file employees. Union A is led by a moderate faction, while Union B is affiliated with a militant federation identified with leftist ideology.
Which of the following courses of action should you take to best protect the interests of your company and employees?
(a) Recognize Union A as the rightful bargaining representative because it will be more reasonable to deal with;
(b) Recognize Union B because you do not want to antagonize its leftist connections and foment inter-union conflicts;
(c) Ignore the demands of either union since you cannot be compelled legally to deal with them at this stage; or
(d) Petition the Bureau of Labor Relations to conduct a certification election to determine which union really represents the majority of the employees in the bargaining unit. (10%)
Suggested Answer
(d) Petition the Bureau of Labor Relations to conduct a certification election to determine which union really represents the majority of the employees in the bargaining unit. (Ilaw at Buklod ng Manggagawa [IBM] v. Calleja, G.R. No. 84685, February 23,1990)
Alternative answer:
(c) Ignore the demands of either union since you cannot be compelled legally to deal with them at this stage.
(2)
Little Hands Garment Company, an unorganized Manufacturer of children's apparel with around 1,000 workers, suffered losses for the first time in history when its US and European customers shifted their huge orders to China and Bangladesh. The management informed its employees that it could no longer afford to provide transportation shuttle services. Consequently, it announced that a normal fare would be charged depending on the distance traveled by the workers availing of the service.
Was the Little Hands Garments Company within its rights to withdraw this benefit which it had unilaterally been providing to its employees? Select the best answer(s) and briefly explain your reason(s) therefor.
(a) Yes, because it can withdraw a benefit that is unilaterally given;
(b) Yes, because it is suffering losses for the first time;
(c) Yes, because this is a management prerogative which is not due any legal or contractual obligation;
(d) No, because this amounts to a diminution of benefits which is prohibited by the Labor Code;
(e) No, because it is a fringe benefit that has already ripened into a demandable right or entitlement. (10%)
Suggested answer:
(b) Yes, because it is suffering losses for the first time;
(c) Yes, because this is a management prerogative which is not due any legal or contractual obligation;
An employer cannot be forced to continue giving a benefit, being given as a management prerogative, when it can no longer afford to pay for it. To hold otherwise, would be to penalize the employer for his past generosity. (Producer's Bank of the Philippines v. NLRC, G.R. No. 100701, March 28, 2001)
Alternative answer:
(d) No, because this amounts to a diminution of benefits which is prohibited by the Labor Code;
(e) No, because it is a fringe benefit that has already ripened into a demandable right or entitlement.
A company practice favorable to employees had indeed been established and the payments made pursuant thereto, ripened into benefits enjoyed by them. And any benefit and supplement being enjoyed by the employees cannot be reduced, diminished, discontinued or eliminated by the employer by virtue of Article 100 of the Labor Code of the Philippines which prohibits the diminution or elimination of the employer of the employees' existing benefits. (Sevilla Trading Co. v. Semana, G.R. No. 152456, April 28,2004)
Alternative answer:
(b) Yes, because it is suffering losses for the first time;
(d) No, because this amounts to a diminution of benefits which is prohibited by the Labor Code.
You cannot compel an employer to continue paving the benefits if it is suffering from serious business losses. However, the benefit has already ripened into an employer practice or policy, and therefore it cannot be withdrawn without violating Article 100 of the Labor Code on non-diminution of benefits.
-II-
(1) During the open forum following your lecture to a group of managers and HRD personnel, you were asked the following questions:
(a)What qualifying circumstances will convert "illegal recruitment" to "economic sabotage," thus subjecting its perpetrator or perpetrators to a penalty of life imprisonment and a fine of at least P500,000.00? Please explain your answer briefly.(3%)
Suggested answer:
Under Article 38(b) of the Labor Code, as amended by P.D. ^o. 2018, it provides that illegal recruitment shall be considered an offense involving economic sabotage if any of the following qualifying C1rcumstances exists:
(1)When illegal recruitment is committed by a syndicate, requiring three or more persons who conspire or confederate with one another in carrying out any unlawful or illegal transaction, enterprise or scheme;
(2)When illegal recruitment is committed in a large scale, as when it is committed against three or more persons individually or as a group. (People v. Navarra, G.R. No. 119361, February 19, 2001; See also Sec. 6 of R.A. No. 8042)
(b) Is the commission of an unfair labor practice by an employer subject to criminal prosecution? Please explain your answer briefly. (3%)
Suggested answer:
Yes, because unfair labor practices are not only violations of the civil rights of both labor and management but are also criminal offenses against the State which shall be subject to prosecution and punishment. (Article 247, Labor Code; See also B.P. Big. 386 as amended by R.A. No. 6715)
However, the criminal aspect can only be filed when the decision of the labor tribunals, finding the existence of unfair labor practice, shall have become final and executory.
(c)How are the "portability" provisions of Republic Act No. 7699 beneficial or advantageous to SSS and GSIS members in terms of their creditable employment services in the private sector or the government, as the case may be, for purposes of death, disability or retirement? Please explain your answer briefly. (3%)
Suggested answer:
Portability provisions of R.A. No. 7699 shall benefit a covered worker who transfers employment from one sector to another or is employed in both sectors, whose creditable services or contributions in both systems credited to his service or contribution record in each of the system and shall be totalized for purposes of old-age, disability, survivorship and other benefits. (Sec. 3, RA No. 7699)
The "portability" provisions of RA. No. 7699 allow the transfer of funds for the account and benefit of the worker who transfers from one system to another.
This is advantageous to the SSS and GSIS members for purposes of death, disability or retirement benefits. In the event the employees transfer from the private sector to the public sector, or vice-versa, their creditable employment services and contributions are carried over and transferred as well.
Suggested answer:
(2) Mariano Martillo was a mason employed by the ABC Construction Company. Every time that ABC had a project, it would enter into an employment contract with Martillo for a fixed period that coincided with the need for his services, usually for a duration of three to six months.
Since the last project involved the construction of a 40-storey building, Martillo was contracted for 14 months. During this period, ABC granted wage increases to its regular employees, composed mostly of engineers and rank-and-file construction workers as a result of the just concluded CBA negotiations, feeling aggrieved and discriminated against, Martillo and other similarly-situated project workers demanded that increases be extended to them, inasmuch as they should now be considered regular employees and members of the bargaining unit. Briefly explain your answers. (6%)
(a)If you were ABC's legal counsel, how would you respond to this demand?
Alternative answer:
The demand is without legal basis.
The simple fact that the employment of petitioners as project employees had gone beyond one (1) year does not detract from, or legally dissolve, their status as project employees. The second paragraph of Article 280 of the Labor Code, providing that an employee who has served for at least one (1) year shall be considered a regular employee, relates to casual employees, not to project employees. (ALUTUCP v. NLRC, G.R. No. 109902, August 2, 1994)
In the case of Mercado, Sr. v. NLRC, G.R. No. 79869, September 5, 1991, the Supreme Court ruled that the proviso in the second paragraph of Article 280 of the Labor Code relates 0lily to casual employees and is not applicable to those who fall within the definition of said Article's first paragraph, i.e., project employees, the familiar rule is that a proviso is to be construed with reference to the immediately preceding part of the provision to which it is attached, unless there is clear legislative intent to the contrary. No such intent is observable in Article 280 of the Labor Code.
Alternative answer:
If I were ABC's legal counsel, I will argue that the project workers are not regular employees but fixed-term employees.
Stipulation in employment contracts providing for term employment or fixed period were agreed upon knowingly and voluntarily by the parties without force, duress or improper pressure, being brought to bear upon the employee and absent any other circumstances vitiating his consent, or where it satisfactorily appears that the employer and employee dealt with each other on more or less equal terms with no moral dominance whatever being exercised by the former over the latter. (Pangilinan v. General Milling Corp., G.R. No. 149329, July 12, 2004)
(b) How is the project worker different from a casual or contractual worker? Briefly explain your answers.
Alternative answer:
A "contractual worker" is a generic term used to designate any worker covered by a written contract to perform a specific undertaking for a fixed period. On the other hand, a "project worker" is used to designate workers in the construction industry, hired to perform a specific undertaking for a fixed period, co-terminus with a project or phase thereof determined at the time of the engagement of the employee. (Policy Instruction No. 19, DOLE) In addition, to be considered a true project worker, it is required that a termination report be submitted to the nearest public employment office upon the completion of the construction project. (Aurora Land Projects Corp. v. NLRC, G.R. No. 114733, January 2, 1997) In contrast, there is no such requirement for an ordinary contractual worker.
Alternative answer:
A project worker performs job that is necessary and desirable to the nature of the business of the employer. On the other hand, a casual worker performs job that is not necessary or desirable to the nature of the business of the employer. (Art. 280, Labor Code)
A project worker becomes a regular employee if the employer fails to submit as many reports to the DOLE on terminations as there were projects actually finished. (Audion Electric Co. v. NLRC, G.R. No. 106648, June 17, 1999) On the other hand, a casual worker becomes a regular employee if he has rendered service for at least one (1) year whether the same is continuous or broken. (Art. 280, Labor Code)
- III-
(1)Antonio Antuquin, a security guard, was caught sleeping on the job while on duty at the Yosi Cigarette Factory. As a result, he was dismissed from employment by the Wagan Security Agency, an independent contractor. At the time of his dismissal, Antonio had been serving as a watchman in the factory for many years, often at stretches of up to 12 hours, even on Sundays and holidays, without overtime, nighttime and rest day benefits. He thereafter filed a complaint for illegal dismissal and non-payment of benefits against Yosi Cigarette Factory, which he claimed was his actual and direct employer.
As the Labor Arbiter assigned to hear the case, how would you correctly resolve the following: (6%)
(a)Antonio's charge of illegal dismissal;
Suggested answer:
This is a case involving permissible job contracting. Antonio's charge of illegal dismissal against Yosi Cigarette Factory will not prosper. Wagan Security Agency, an independent contractor, is Antonio's direct employer. Yosi is only Antonio's indirect employer. By force of law, there is in reality no employer-employee relationship between Yosi and Antonio. (Baguio v. NLRC, G.R. Nos. 79004-08, October 4, 1991)
(b)Antonio's claim for overtime and other benefits.
Suggested answer:
I will dismiss Antonio's claim for overtime and other benefits tor lack of merit as against Yosi.
In legitimate job contracting, the principal employer (Yosi) becomes jointly and severally liable with the job contractor (Wagan) 0n'y for the payment of the c mployee's (Antonio) wages whenever ne contractor fails to pay t ?ame. Other than that, the principal employer (Yosi) is not resp< >le for any other claim made by the employee (Antonio). (San Miguel Corp. v. MAERC Integrated Services, Inc., G.R. No. 144872, July 10, 2003)
(2)Mans Weto had been an employee of Nopolt Assurance Company for the last ten (10) years. His wife of six (6) years died last year. They had four (4) children. He then fell in love with Jovy, his co-employee, and they got married.
In October this year, Weto's new wife is expected to give birth to her first child. He has accordingly filed his application for paternity leave, conformably with the provisions of the Paternity Leave Law which took effect in 1996. The HRD manager of the assurance firm denied his application, on the ground that Weto had already used up his entitlement under the law. Weto argued that he has a new wife who will be giving birth for the first time, therefore, his entitlement to paternity leave benefits would begin to run anew. (6%)
(a) Whose contention is correct, Weto or the HRD manager?
Alternative answer.
The contention of Weto is correct. The law provides that every married male is entitled to a paternity leave of seven (7) days for the first four (4) deliveries of the legitimate spouse with whom he is cohabiting. Jovy is Weto's legitimate spouse with whom he is cohabiting. The fact that Jovy is his second wife and that Weto had 4 children with his first wife is beside the point. The important fact is that this is the first child of Jovy with Weto. The law did not distinguish and we should therefore not distinguish.
The paternity leave was intended to enable the husband to effectively lend support to his wife in her period of recovery and/or in the nursing of the newlyborn child. (Sec. 3, R.A. No. 8187) To deny Weto this benefit would be to defeat the rationale for the law.
Moreover, the case of Weto is a gray area and the doubt should be resolved in his favor.
Alternative answer:
Weto's contention is correct. R.A. No. 8187 provides that paternity leave of (7) days with full pay shall be granted to all married employees in the private and public sectors for the first four (4) deliveries of the legitimate spouse with whom he is cohabiting. With the death of Weto's first wife, the first (4) deliveries provided by law, shall apply to the new legitimate spouse of Weto with whom he is cohabiting.
Alternative answer:
Since R.A. No. 8282 is silent on the matter, the doubt should be resolved in favor of the second wife.
(b)Is Jovy entitled to maternity leave benefits?
Yes, Jovy's maternity benefit is personal to her and she is entitled under the law to avail herself of the same for the first four times of her deliver. (R.A. No. 8282)
2005 Bar Questions
-I-
(1) As Human Resources Department (HRD) manager of EZ Components, an unorganized manufacturer of electric and electronic components for household appliances, you are suddenly confronted with demands for recognition and collective bargaining negotiations from two competing labor unions. They both claim to represent all the rank-and-file employees. Union A is led by a moderate faction, while Union B is affiliated with a militant federation identified with leftist ideology.
Which of the following courses of action should you take to best protect the interests of your company and employees?
(a) Recognize Union A as the rightful bargaining representative because it will be more reasonable to deal with;
(b) Recognize Union B because you do not want to antagonize its leftist connections and foment inter-union conflicts;
(c) Ignore the demands of either union since you cannot be compelled legally to deal with them at this stage; or
(d) Petition the Bureau of Labor Relations to conduct a certification election to determine which union really represents the majority of the employees in the bargaining unit. (10%)
Suggested Answer
(d) Petition the Bureau of Labor Relations to conduct a certification election to determine which union really represents the majority of the employees in the bargaining unit. (Ilaw at Buklod ng Manggagawa [IBM] v. Calleja, G.R. No. 84685, February 23,1990)
Alternative answer:
(c) Ignore the demands of either union since you cannot be compelled legally to deal with them at this stage.
(2)
Little Hands Garment Company, an unorganized Manufacturer of children's apparel with around 1,000 workers, suffered losses for the first time in history when its US and European customers shifted their huge orders to China and Bangladesh. The management informed its employees that it could no longer afford to provide transportation shuttle services. Consequently, it announced that a normal fare would be charged depending on the distance traveled by the workers availing of the service.
Was the Little Hands Garments Company within its rights to withdraw this benefit which it had unilaterally been providing to its employees? Select the best answer(s) and briefly explain your reason(s) therefor.
(a) Yes, because it can withdraw a benefit that is unilaterally given;
(b) Yes, because it is suffering losses for the first time;
(c) Yes, because this is a management prerogative which is not due any legal or contractual obligation;
(d) No, because this amounts to a diminution of benefits which is prohibited by the Labor Code;
(e) No, because it is a fringe benefit that has already ripened into a demandable right or entitlement. (10%)
Suggested answer:
(b) Yes, because it is suffering losses for the first time;
(c) Yes, because this is a management prerogative which is not due any legal or contractual obligation;
An employer cannot be forced to continue giving a benefit, being given as a management prerogative, when it can no longer afford to pay for it. To hold otherwise, would be to penalize the employer for his past generosity. (Producer's Bank of the Philippines v. NLRC, G.R. No. 100701, March 28, 2001)
Alternative answer:
(d) No, because this amounts to a diminution of benefits which is prohibited by the Labor Code;
(e) No, because it is a fringe benefit that has already ripened into a demandable right or entitlement.
A company practice favorable to employees had indeed been established and the payments made pursuant thereto, ripened into benefits enjoyed by them. And any benefit and supplement being enjoyed by the employees cannot be reduced, diminished, discontinued or eliminated by the employer by virtue of Article 100 of the Labor Code of the Philippines which prohibits the diminution or elimination of the employer of the employees' existing benefits. (Sevilla Trading Co. v. Semana, G.R. No. 152456, April 28,2004)
Alternative answer:
(b) Yes, because it is suffering losses for the first time;
(d) No, because this amounts to a diminution of benefits which is prohibited by the Labor Code.
You cannot compel an employer to continue paving the benefits if it is suffering from serious business losses. However, the benefit has already ripened into an employer practice or policy, and therefore it cannot be withdrawn without violating Article 100 of the Labor Code on non-diminution of benefits.
-II-
(1) During the open forum following your lecture to a group of managers and HRD personnel, you were asked the following questions:
(a)What qualifying circumstances will convert "illegal recruitment" to "economic sabotage," thus subjecting its perpetrator or perpetrators to a penalty of life imprisonment and a fine of at least P500,000.00? Please explain your answer briefly.(3%)
Suggested answer:
Under Article 38(b) of the Labor Code, as amended by P.D. ^o. 2018, it provides that illegal recruitment shall be considered an offense involving economic sabotage if any of the following qualifying C1rcumstances exists:
(1)When illegal recruitment is committed by a syndicate, requiring three or more persons who conspire or confederate with one another in carrying out any unlawful or illegal transaction, enterprise or scheme;
(2)When illegal recruitment is committed in a large scale, as when it is committed against three or more persons individually or as a group. (People v. Navarra, G.R. No. 119361, February 19, 2001; See also Sec. 6 of R.A. No. 8042)
(b) Is the commission of an unfair labor practice by an employer subject to criminal prosecution? Please explain your answer briefly. (3%)
Suggested answer:
Yes, because unfair labor practices are not only violations of the civil rights of both labor and management but are also criminal offenses against the State which shall be subject to prosecution and punishment. (Article 247, Labor Code; See also B.P. Big. 386 as amended by R.A. No. 6715)
However, the criminal aspect can only be filed when the decision of the labor tribunals, finding the existence of unfair labor practice, shall have become final and executory.
(c)How are the "portability" provisions of Republic Act No. 7699 beneficial or advantageous to SSS and GSIS members in terms of their creditable employment services in the private sector or the government, as the case may be, for purposes of death, disability or retirement? Please explain your answer briefly. (3%)
Suggested answer:
Portability provisions of R.A. No. 7699 shall benefit a covered worker who transfers employment from one sector to another or is employed in both sectors, whose creditable services or contributions in both systems credited to his service or contribution record in each of the system and shall be totalized for purposes of old-age, disability, survivorship and other benefits. (Sec. 3, RA No. 7699)
The "portability" provisions of RA. No. 7699 allow the transfer of funds for the account and benefit of the worker who transfers from one system to another.
This is advantageous to the SSS and GSIS members for purposes of death, disability or retirement benefits. In the event the employees transfer from the private sector to the public sector, or vice-versa, their creditable employment services and contributions are carried over and transferred as well.
Suggested answer:
(2) Mariano Martillo was a mason employed by the ABC Construction Company. Every time that ABC had a project, it would enter into an employment contract with Martillo for a fixed period that coincided with the need for his services, usually for a duration of three to six months.
Since the last project involved the construction of a 40-storey building, Martillo was contracted for 14 months. During this period, ABC granted wage increases to its regular employees, composed mostly of engineers and rank-and-file construction workers as a result of the just concluded CBA negotiations, feeling aggrieved and discriminated against, Martillo and other similarly-situated project workers demanded that increases be extended to them, inasmuch as they should now be considered regular employees and members of the bargaining unit. Briefly explain your answers. (6%)
(a)If you were ABC's legal counsel, how would you respond to this demand?
Alternative answer:
The demand is without legal basis.
The simple fact that the employment of petitioners as project employees had gone beyond one (1) year does not detract from, or legally dissolve, their status as project employees. The second paragraph of Article 280 of the Labor Code, providing that an employee who has served for at least one (1) year shall be considered a regular employee, relates to casual employees, not to project employees. (ALUTUCP v. NLRC, G.R. No. 109902, August 2, 1994)
In the case of Mercado, Sr. v. NLRC, G.R. No. 79869, September 5, 1991, the Supreme Court ruled that the proviso in the second paragraph of Article 280 of the Labor Code relates 0lily to casual employees and is not applicable to those who fall within the definition of said Article's first paragraph, i.e., project employees, the familiar rule is that a proviso is to be construed with reference to the immediately preceding part of the provision to which it is attached, unless there is clear legislative intent to the contrary. No such intent is observable in Article 280 of the Labor Code.
Alternative answer:
If I were ABC's legal counsel, I will argue that the project workers are not regular employees but fixed-term employees.
Stipulation in employment contracts providing for term employment or fixed period were agreed upon knowingly and voluntarily by the parties without force, duress or improper pressure, being brought to bear upon the employee and absent any other circumstances vitiating his consent, or where it satisfactorily appears that the employer and employee dealt with each other on more or less equal terms with no moral dominance whatever being exercised by the former over the latter. (Pangilinan v. General Milling Corp., G.R. No. 149329, July 12, 2004)
(b) How is the project worker different from a casual or contractual worker? Briefly explain your answers.
Alternative answer:
A "contractual worker" is a generic term used to designate any worker covered by a written contract to perform a specific undertaking for a fixed period. On the other hand, a "project worker" is used to designate workers in the construction industry, hired to perform a specific undertaking for a fixed period, co-terminus with a project or phase thereof determined at the time of the engagement of the employee. (Policy Instruction No. 19, DOLE) In addition, to be considered a true project worker, it is required that a termination report be submitted to the nearest public employment office upon the completion of the construction project. (Aurora Land Projects Corp. v. NLRC, G.R. No. 114733, January 2, 1997) In contrast, there is no such requirement for an ordinary contractual worker.
Alternative answer:
A project worker performs job that is necessary and desirable to the nature of the business of the employer. On the other hand, a casual worker performs job that is not necessary or desirable to the nature of the business of the employer. (Art. 280, Labor Code)
A project worker becomes a regular employee if the employer fails to submit as many reports to the DOLE on terminations as there were projects actually finished. (Audion Electric Co. v. NLRC, G.R. No. 106648, June 17, 1999) On the other hand, a casual worker becomes a regular employee if he has rendered service for at least one (1) year whether the same is continuous or broken. (Art. 280, Labor Code)
- III-
(1)Antonio Antuquin, a security guard, was caught sleeping on the job while on duty at the Yosi Cigarette Factory. As a result, he was dismissed from employment by the Wagan Security Agency, an independent contractor. At the time of his dismissal, Antonio had been serving as a watchman in the factory for many years, often at stretches of up to 12 hours, even on Sundays and holidays, without overtime, nighttime and rest day benefits. He thereafter filed a complaint for illegal dismissal and non-payment of benefits against Yosi Cigarette Factory, which he claimed was his actual and direct employer.
As the Labor Arbiter assigned to hear the case, how would you correctly resolve the following: (6%)
(a)Antonio's charge of illegal dismissal;
Suggested answer:
This is a case involving permissible job contracting. Antonio's charge of illegal dismissal against Yosi Cigarette Factory will not prosper. Wagan Security Agency, an independent contractor, is Antonio's direct employer. Yosi is only Antonio's indirect employer. By force of law, there is in reality no employer-employee relationship between Yosi and Antonio. (Baguio v. NLRC, G.R. Nos. 79004-08, October 4, 1991)
(b)Antonio's claim for overtime and other benefits.
Suggested answer:
I will dismiss Antonio's claim for overtime and other benefits tor lack of merit as against Yosi.
In legitimate job contracting, the principal employer (Yosi) becomes jointly and severally liable with the job contractor (Wagan) 0n'y for the payment of the c mployee's (Antonio) wages whenever ne contractor fails to pay t ?ame. Other than that, the principal employer (Yosi) is not resp< >le for any other claim made by the employee (Antonio). (San Miguel Corp. v. MAERC Integrated Services, Inc., G.R. No. 144872, July 10, 2003)
(2)Mans Weto had been an employee of Nopolt Assurance Company for the last ten (10) years. His wife of six (6) years died last year. They had four (4) children. He then fell in love with Jovy, his co-employee, and they got married.
In October this year, Weto's new wife is expected to give birth to her first child. He has accordingly filed his application for paternity leave, conformably with the provisions of the Paternity Leave Law which took effect in 1996. The HRD manager of the assurance firm denied his application, on the ground that Weto had already used up his entitlement under the law. Weto argued that he has a new wife who will be giving birth for the first time, therefore, his entitlement to paternity leave benefits would begin to run anew. (6%)
(a) Whose contention is correct, Weto or the HRD manager?
Alternative answer.
The contention of Weto is correct. The law provides that every married male is entitled to a paternity leave of seven (7) days for the first four (4) deliveries of the legitimate spouse with whom he is cohabiting. Jovy is Weto's legitimate spouse with whom he is cohabiting. The fact that Jovy is his second wife and that Weto had 4 children with his first wife is beside the point. The important fact is that this is the first child of Jovy with Weto. The law did not distinguish and we should therefore not distinguish.
The paternity leave was intended to enable the husband to effectively lend support to his wife in her period of recovery and/or in the nursing of the newlyborn child. (Sec. 3, R.A. No. 8187) To deny Weto this benefit would be to defeat the rationale for the law.
Moreover, the case of Weto is a gray area and the doubt should be resolved in his favor.
Alternative answer:
Weto's contention is correct. R.A. No. 8187 provides that paternity leave of (7) days with full pay shall be granted to all married employees in the private and public sectors for the first four (4) deliveries of the legitimate spouse with whom he is cohabiting. With the death of Weto's first wife, the first (4) deliveries provided by law, shall apply to the new legitimate spouse of Weto with whom he is cohabiting.
Alternative answer:
Since R.A. No. 8282 is silent on the matter, the doubt should be resolved in favor of the second wife.
(b)Is Jovy entitled to maternity leave benefits?
Yes, Jovy's maternity benefit is personal to her and she is entitled under the law to avail herself of the same for the first four times of her deliver. (R.A. No. 8282)