Practice question
A factory closes. Workers had occupied company housing solely because of employment and had agreed to return it when required. They return their uniforms but retain the premises after lawful demands to vacate. Their negotiated benefits expressly contemplate accountabilities. They insist that returning uniforms necessarily completes every clearance obligation because land can never count. Which is most accurate under Milan?
- The argument is too narrow: employment-related accountability can include company real property, and the actual occupancy and agreement must be examined
- Only movable objects can be an accountability
- Closure automatically gives workers title to company housing
- The word clearance authorizes forfeiture of every benefit without inquiry
- The workers’ possession is necessarily unrelated to employment
Legal references
- Milan v.NLRC, GR202961, February4,2015: https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2015/feb2015/gr_202961_2015.html
Answer this question in flashcards to review your response and continue practicing.