Ethical Considerations in Labor Administration and Practice in the Philippines

This course will discuss the Constitutional provisions relating to labor and how these principles impact on the ethical standards that we, as lawyers, must live by, in relation to labor practice in the Philippines. This will also cover how the Supreme Court, in a number of cases, emphasized the need for lawyers in labor practice to adhere to these standards. 

In the discussion of possible violations of ethical standards in labor practice, the course will focus only on cases decided by the Supreme Court with finality, only those involving members of the legal profession, and in cases which are directly related to either their position or practice. As such, while you may have heard or read about instances of public officials such as officials or employees of the Department of labor and Employment and its attached agencies, including personnel stationed abroad such as labor attaches or welfare officers who were or are being investigated for alleged corruption or even sexual harassment, or union leaders being accused of corruption or abuses, if the investigation is still pending or the concerned official or person is not a lawyer by profession, then such will not be included. 

Specifically, this course will help you: 

• Identify the laws on the 1987 constitution that protects the rights and promotes the interest of our labor force
• Discuss the Code of Professional Responsibility in relation to the Case of Martin Lahm III and James P. Concepcion vs. Labor Arbiter Jovencio ll Mayor, Jr and Duardo A. Abella, vs. Ricardo G. Barrios, Jr 
• Explain why the Supreme Court found Atty. Bacatan guilty on Gross Misconduct in the Case A.C. No. 6674
• Explain why the Supreme Court upheld the Contingency Fee Arrangements in the case of Czarina T. Malvar, vs. KRAFT FOOD PHILS., INC and Evangelina Masmud vs. NLRC and Atty. Go
• Explain why the Supreme Court declared the Contingency Fee Arrangements unconscionable in the case of Atty. Wilfredo Taganas vs. NLRC, Melchor Escultura, Et al and Eugenio e. Cortez, vs. Atty. Hernando P. Cortes 
• Enumerate the reasons why the Supreme Court found Atty. Baria guilty of negligence in mishandling A.C Case No. 5817
• List the conditions a non-lawyer may appear in any of the proceedings before the Labor Arbiter or Commission