Home›Bar Review›2013›Labor Law›Question XVI
Question XVI
XVI. Ricardo operated a successful Makati seafood restaurant patronized by a large clientele base for its superb cuisine and impeccable service. Ricardo charged its clients a 10% service charge and distributed 85% of the collection equally among its rank-and-file employees, 10% among managerial employees, and 5% as reserve for losses and break ages. Because of the huge volume of sales, the employees received sizeable shares in the collected service charges.
As part of his business development efforts, Ricardo opened a branch in Cebu where he maintained the same practice in the collection and distribution of service charges. The Cebu branch, however, did not attract the forecasted clientele; hence, the Cebu employees received lesser service charge benefits than those enjoyed by the Makati-based employees. As a result, the Cebu branch employees demanded equalization of benefits and filed a case with the NLRC for discrimination when Ricardo refused their demand.
XVI(l) Will the case prosper? (1%)
(a)(A) Yes, because the employees are not receiving equal treatment in the distribution of service charge benefits.
(b)(B) Yes, because the law provides that the 85% employees' share in the service charge collection should be equally divided among all the employees, in this case, among the Cebu and Makati employees alike.
Model answer · ALAC
Answer — Legal basis — Application — Conclusion.
AI-drafted in ALAC form and AI-verified against landmark authorities — refined with every round of verification.