(5 POINTS)
Inday was employed by mining company X to perform laundry service at its staffhouse. While attending to her assigned task, she slipped and hit her back on a stone.
Unable to continue with her work, she was permitted to go on leave for medication, but thereafter she was not allowed to return to work. She filed a complaint for illegal dismissal but her employer X contended that Inday was not a regular employee but a mere househelp. Decide.
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
QUESTIONS IN THE 2007 PHILIPPINE BAR EXAMINATION.
INSTRUCTIONS:
Use this website to share your legal mind.
Please feel free to post your Suggested Answers to these Bar Questions.
You can also view and response to the opinions of others.
Please feel free to post your Suggested Answers to these Bar Questions.
You can also view and response to the opinions of others.
Links To Other Exams
TOPICS / KEYWORDS
- appeal (1)
- civil (1)
- codetermination (1)
- community of interest rule (1)
- compromise agreement (1)
- conciliation proceedings (1)
- criminal (1)
- disciplinary action (1)
- DOLE (1)
- employment of minor (1)
- employment status (1)
- foreigner (1)
- globe doctrine (1)
- househelp (1)
- illegal dismissal (1)
- illegal strike (1)
- labor arbiter (1)
- maternity leave (1)
- NLRC (1)
- non-lawyer (1)
- OFW (1)
- order of execution (1)
- PD 1508 (1)
- permit (1)
- POEA (1)
- procedure (1)
- recruitment (1)
- reinstatement or illegal dismissal (1)
- retirement due (1)
- single (1)
- unfair labor (1)
- valid strike (1)
1 comment:
XVIII.
Inday is not a mere househelp. A laundrywoman working in staffhouses of a company who attends to the needs of company’s guests is not a househelper or domestic servant. She is considered an industrial worker. And whether Inday is a househelp or a regular industrial worker, she is entitled to security of tenure and should not be unjustly terminated.
Post a Comment