QuickTime™ and a TIFF (Uncompressed) decompressor
are needed to see this picture.
Appellate jurisdiction: decision shall be immediately executory upon issuance of entry of final judgment; can be reviewed by the CA in a petition for certiorari under Rule 65
Jurisdiction
1. Inter-union conflicts 2. Intra-union conflicts
3. All disputes, grievances or problems arising from or affecting labor-management relations in all workplaces EXCEPT those arising from the implementation or interpretation of the CBA which shall be the subject of grievance procedure and/or voluntary arbitration
4. Complaint involving federations, national unions, industry unions, its officers or member organizations
Compromise Agreements
If voluntarily agreed upon by the parties with the assistance of the BLR or the regional office of DOLE Æ final and binding upon the parties The only time NLRC or any courts can assume
jurisdiction over issues involved therein: a. in case of non-compliance thereof
b. if there is prima facie evidence that the settlement was obtained through fraud, misrepresentation or coercion
Power to Issue Subpoena
When relevant to a labor dispute under its jurisdiction either at the request of any interested party or at its own initiative
Privileged Communication
Information and statements made at conciliation meetings shall NOT be used as evidence in the NLRC
Conciliators and similar officials shall not testify in any court or body regarding any matters taken up at conciliation proceeding conducted by them
Appeal
within 10 days to the DOLE Secretary Grounds:
a. grave abuse of discretion b. gross incompetence
Marino, Jr., et. al. v. Gamilla, et. al., 31 January 2005
Issue:
Does the bureau of labor relations have jurisdiction over claims for actual, moral, exemplary and other forms of damages arising from intra-union or inter-union disputes?
Held:
No. Unlike the NLRC which is explicitly vested with the jurisdiction over claims for actual, moral, exemplary and other forms of damages, the BLR is not specifically empowered to adjudicate claims of such nature arising from intra-union or inter-union disputes.
As long as the agreement is voluntarily entered into and has a reasonable award, it is valid. It must be approved by the LA (NLRC Rules) At the DOLE Secretary’s level, the Secretary
must approve.
On appeal, the NLRC must approve the agreement.
An offer to settle is not proof that something is due to the employee.
Mindoro Lumber and Hardware v. Eduardo D. Bacay, et. al., 08 June 2005
Article 277 of the labor code states that any compromise settlement, including those involving labor standard laws, voluntarily agreed upon by the parties with the assistance of the Bureau or the regional office of the Department of Labor shall be final and binding upon the parties. ‘A’, a member of a labor union and a party to a labor dispute executed a compromise settlement. He appeared before the Office of the Regional Director to file said compromise settlement together with a motion to dismiss the case.
Issue:
Is the compromise settlement in compliance with Article 277?
Held:
The assistance of the BLR or the regional office of the DOLE in the execution of a compromise settlement is a basic requirement. Without it, there can be no valid compromise settlement. Mere appearance before BLR or the regional office of the DOLE to file the already executed compromise settlement is not the “assistance” required by the law. As such, the compromise settlement executed by ‘A’ cannot qualify as a valid compromise settlement.
Jurisdiction of Labor Arbiters
1. ULP (priority Æ resolved within 30 cal days from submission for decision)
2. termination disputes
3. claims for wages, rates of pay, hours of work and other terms and conditions of employment
4. claims for actual, moral, exemplary and other forms of damages arising from employer- employee relationship
QuickTime™ and a TIFF (Uncompressed) decompressor
are needed to see this picture.
5. cases arising from prohibited activities during strikes, including questions involving the legality of strikes and lockouts
6. all other claims arising from employer-employee relationship involving an amount exceeding P5000 regardless of whether accompanied by a claim for reinstatement except ECC, SSS, Medicare, & maternity benefits
7. Wage distortion cases in unorganized establishments
8. All monetary claims of OFWs arising from EER or by virtue of any law or contract involving Filipino workers for overseas deployment, including claims for actual, moral, exemplary and other forms of damages (RA 8042)
9. Enforcement of compromise agreements when there is non-compliance by any of the parties pursuant to Art. 227 of the Code (Sec. 1, Rule V, 2005 NLRC Rules)
Cooperatives
Termination of members of cooperatives is not cognizable by the LA (members are not employees)
LA has jurisdiction over illegal dismissal cases involving employees of cooperatives
LA does NOT have jurisdiction over
Intra-corporate disputes
Cases involving corporate officers (bec. they are not employees) – BUT in Prudential Bank v.
Reyes (G.R. No. 141093, 20 February 2001), it
was held that an employee who rose from the ranks is a regular employee and not a mere corporate officer
Cases involving GOCCs with original charters Cases involving entities immune from suit (except
when the entity performs proprietary functions) Local water districts (since they are quasi-public
corporations)
Actions based on tort (Tolosa v. NLRC, 10 April
2003 – Claim of a seaman for damages is under
torts, regular court has jurisdiction.)
Jurisdiction of the NLRC
1. Original Jurisdiction
a. Injunction in ordinary labor disputes to enjoin or restrain any actual or threatened commission of any or all prohibited or unlawful acts or to require the performance of a particular act in any labor dispute which, if not restrained or performed forthwith , may cause grave or irreparable damage to any party
b. Injunction in strikes or lockouts under Art. 264
c. Certified labor dispute causing or likely to cause a strike or lockout in an industry indispensable to the national interest, certified to it by the DOLE Secretary for compulsory arbitration
2. Exclusive Appellate Jurisdiction
a. All cases decided by the LAs, including contempt cases
b. Cases decided by the DOLE Regional Directors or his duly authorized hearing officers involving recovery of wages, simple money claims and other benefits not exceeding Php 5,000 and not accompanied by a claim for reinstatement
OCULAR INSPECTION by Labor Arbiter & NLRC at any time during working hours
Jurisdiction of the POEA
Cancellation / Suspension of License of Authority to recruit of Recruitment Agencies (until phase out within 5 years as provided in RA 8042)
Disciplinary Action against OFWs
Appeal to Secretary of DOLE within 10 calendar days Æ cancellation/ revocation/ supervision of license or authority
Appeal to NLRC within 10 calendar days
1. violation of overseas employment contracts 2. disciplinary cases filed against overseas
contract workers
Jurisdiction of DOLE Regional Directors
1. visitorial power (Art. 128)
2. claims not exceeding Php 5,000 (Art. 129)
3. violation of the constitution & by-laws and rights & conditions membership
4. inter-union and intra-union disputes involving independent unions and chartered locals
Jurisdiction of the NCMB
conciliation, mediation, and voluntary arbitration cases
(SEE ANNEX L)
B. PROCEDURE
Art. 221. Technical rules not binding and prior resort to amicable settlement
Art. 222. Appearances and Fees
The rules of evidence prevailing in courts of law or equity shall not be controlling.
It is the spirit and intention of this Code which shall be used as reasonable means to ascertain the facts in each case
QuickTime™ and a TIFF (Uncompressed) decompressor
are needed to see this picture.
Without regard to technicalities of law and procedure all in the interest of due process
Parties may be represented by legal counsel but it shall be the duty of the Chairman, any presiding Commissioner or any labor arbiter to exercise compete control of the proceedings at all stages GR: The only way to acquire jurisdiction is to
serve summons
Voluntary appearance of the lawyer amounts to voluntary submission to the jurisdiction of the LA.
(Santos v. NLRC, GR No. 101699, 13 March 1996)
Payment of docket fees is not required in labor standards claims under Art. 277(d). EXCEPT: in case of bargaining deadlock, the fees are shared by the parties
Failure to implead a substitute party is not a fatal defect. (Chu v. Pasajo, 13 April 2003)
Sec. 3, Rule V of the NLRC Rules allows parties to submit position papers with attachments and they can be made basis of the LA’s decision. Holding of trial on the merits is discretionary on
the part of the LA.
Due process in Art. 277(b) (termination disputes) Æ end line is hearing with representative of own choice
Due process in Art. 221 Æ opportunity to be heard
It is wrong to apply opportunity be heard in due process under Art. 277(b).
Verification and Certification of Non-Forum Shopping are required BUT Art. 221 can be invoked.
NLRC Rules provide that before deciding, LA must inform parties that the case has been submitted for decision. If this is not complied with, decision is still valid because of Art. 221.
Art. 218(c) cannot be invoked to support a faulty decision of the LA. The provision refers to a power of the NLRC and not the LA.
C. APPEALS Art. 223. Appeal
Art. 224. Execution of decisions, orders or awards
Appeal of LA’s Decision
Appeal from the decision of the Labor Arbiter is brought by ordinary appeal to the NLRC within 10 calendar days from receipt by the party of the decision.
From the decision of the NLRC, there is no appeal.
The only way to elevate the case to the CA is by way of the special civil action of certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.
From the ruling of the Court of the Appeals, it may be elevated to the SC by way of ordinary appeal under Rule 45 of the Rules of Civil Procedure. (St. Martin Funeral Home vs. NLRC,
et al., GR No. 130866, 16 September 1998) Grounds
1. prima facie evidence of abuse of discretion on the part of LA
2. the decision, order or award was secured through fraud or coercion including graft and corruption 3. pure questions of law
4. raised serious errors in the findings of facts which could cause grave or irreparable damage or injury to the appellant
5. additional Requirement: in case of judgment involving a monetary award-employer (appellant) may perfect the appeal only upon the posting of a cash or surety bond issued by a reputable bonding company duly accredited by the NLRC in the amount equivalent to the monetary award in the judgment appealed from
Requisites for Perfection of Appeal
1. filed within the reglementary period 2. Memorandum of Appeal under oath 3. appeal fee
4. cash, property, or surety bond, if judgment involves monetary award
5. proof of service to the adverse party
Procedure
1. File Memorandum of Appeal within 10 calendar days, counted from receipt of decision
2. Other party can file an Answer within 20 calendar days from receipt of Appeal
3. NLRC decides
4. NLRC decision becomes final and executory 10 days after it is rendered
Appeal Involving Monetary Award
No monetary award, no appeal bond required If LA’s decision does not provide for a
computation of the monetary award, no appeal bond is required to be filed.
Bond should be posted within the 10-day period for filing of appeal
If no bond is filed, appeal is not perfected
Remedy in case of failure to post bond, remedy is to file a motion to dismiss
QuickTime™ and a TIFF (Uncompressed) decompressor
are needed to see this picture.
Motion to reduce bond does not toll the running of the period to perfect appeal
In order to effectively stop the running of the period within which to perfect the appeal, the motion to reduce bond must comply with the requisites that:
1. filed within the reglementary period 2. based on meritorious grounds
3. a reasonable amount of bond in relation to the monetary award should be posted together with said motion
A substantial monetary award, even if it runs into millions, does not necessarily give the employer- appellant a ‘meritorious case’ and does not automatically warrant a reduction of the appeal bond. (Calabash Garments v. NLRC, GR No.
110827, 08 August 1996)
Partial payment of the bond is deemed substantial compliance with the rules while the motion to reduce bond is still pending with the NLRC. [Rosewood Processing v. NLRC, 352 Phil
1013 (1998)] But the partial payment must be
made within the reglementary period.
An appellant cannot invoke financial difficulties as a ground in support of a Motion to Reduce Bond. Suffice it to say that the law does not require outright payment of the total monetary award, but only the posting of a bond to ensure that the award will be eventually paid should the appeal fail. (Times Transportation v. NLRC, GR No.
16378, 16 February 2005) Enforcement
Any law enforcement agency may be deputized by the DOLE Secretary or the NLRC
Issuance of writ of execution on a judgment within 5 years from date it becomes final and executory motu proprio or in motion of any interested party
Reinstatement Pending Appeal
If reinstatement is ordered in an illegal dismissal case, it is immediately executory even pending appeal
Self-executing with no need for a writ of execution
Either admitted back to work under the same terms and conditions prevailing prior to his dismissal or separation or merely reinstated in the payroll (at the option of the employer, i.e. confidential employee, but the choice must be communicated to the employee by the employer) Posting of a bond shall not stay the execution of
reinstatement
The unjustified refusal of the employer to reinstate an illegally dismissed employee entitles the employee to payment of his salaries.
If despite several writs of execution, the employer still refuses to reinstate the employee, the remedy is not the grant of additional backwages to serve as damages but to file a motion to cite the employer for contempt. (Christian Literature
Crusade v. NLRC, 171 SCRA 712, 10 April 1989)
LA upheld the validity of the dismissal; NLRC reversed. CA held that dismissal was valid.
HELD: The employer is liable to pay for the
salary of the employee previously ordered reinstated by the NLRC although later on, the dismissal of the employee was held not to be illegal. (Roquero v. PAL, G.R. No. 152329, 22
April 2003)
If the former position is already filled up, the employee ordered reinstated under Article 223 should be admitted back to work in a substantially equivalent position. (Medina v.
Consolidated Broadcasting System, 222 SCRA 707)
Appeal of Voluntary Arbitrator’s Decision
Appealable by ordinary appeal under Rule 43 of the Rules of Civil Procedure directly to the Court of Appeals.
From the CA, the case may be elevated to the Supreme Court by way of ordinary appeal under the same Rule 45. (Luzon Development Bank v.
Association of Luzon Development Bank Employees, et al., GR No. 120319, 06 October 1995)
Appeal of BLR’s Decision
1. Denial of application for registration of a union Denial by the Regional Office, appeal to the
BLR
Denial is originally made by the BLR, appeal may be had to the DOLE Secretary
2. Cancellation of registration of a union
Cancellation by the Regional Office, appeal to the BLR.
Cancellation by the BLR in a petition filed directly, appeal to DOLE Secretary by ordinary appeal
3. Decision of the BLR rendered in its original jurisdiction may be appealed to the DOLE Secretary whose decision thereon may only be elevated to the CA by way of certiorari under Rule 65.
4. Decision of the BLR rendered in its appellate jurisdiction may not be appealed to the DOLE Secretary but may be elevated directly to the CA by way of certiorari under Rule 65. (Abbott
QuickTime™ and a TIFF (Uncompressed) decompressor
are needed to see this picture.
Laboratories Philippines, Inc. vs. Abbott Laboratories Employees Union, et al., GR No. 131374, 26 January 2000)
Appeal of Regional Director’s Decision under Art. 129
Appeal to NLRC
Summary
Decision of the Voluntary Arbiter – appeal to CA under Rule 43 (Luzon Dev’t Bank)
Decision of the DOLE and other attached agencies (including NLRC) should be brought to the CA under Rule 65 (St. Martin Funeral Homes) Decision of the DOLE Secretary – certiorari to the
CA under Rule 65 (NAFLU v. Laguesma)
Order of the Med-Arbiter in CE in organized establishments – not appealable under DO 40-03 (2003). Thus, the recourse is certiorari under Rule 65.
Decisions of the BLR in its appellate– certiorari under Rule 65 (UST Employees Union v. Bitonio) Certiorari is not a substitute for lost appeal.
10 days to perfect appeal by filing a Memorandum of Appeal
Property bond is now allowed. [UERM-Memorial
Medical Center v. NLRC, 269 SCRA 70 (1997)]
Appeal bond must be strictly complied with. NLRC cannot resuscitate a lost appeal. Only 1 MR is allowed.
LA cannot entertain an MR or a petition for relief of judgment
After the decision has become final and executory, the writ of execution is NOT appealable.
To stay writ of execution, ask for an injunction under Art. 218(e)
Period to appeal cannot be extended BUT in a number of cases, SC entertained appeals filed out of time under the interest of justice rule (esp. if the appellants are the employees).
Doctrine of supervening event (i.e. closure of company) requires payment of separation pay and full backwages up to the time of the closure of the company.
Reinstatement Pending Appeal (RPA)
1. Decision of the LA 2. Independent right 3. Payroll reinstatement 4. Receipt of LA’s decision
Even if NLRC reverses LA decision, the employee is still entitled to the benefit of RPA.
NLRC cannot order a refund of benefits or salaries.
Rationale: for the employee to earn after all he won in the LA level
Time to reckon reinstatement is the date of receipt of LA’s decision; not NLRC decision Relief of the employer is to ask for an injunction
under Art. 218(e)
If the employee is confidential, only payroll reinstatement is required.
VII. PENAL PROVISIONS AND LIABILITIES Penalties for Violations of the Provisions of the Labor Code
Fine of Php 1,000 to Php 10,000, or imprisonment for 3 months to 3 years, or both at the discretion of the court.
Persons liable if an offense is committed by a juridical person
The penalty shall be imposed upon the guilty officer or officers of such corporation, trust, firm, partnership, association or entity.
Prescriptive period of offenses penalized by the Labor Code
GR: 3 years from the time the cause of action
accrued
Exception: ULP cases prescribe within 1 year from
accrual of such unfair labor practice