1. LABOR ARBITERS HAVE NO JURISDICTION OVER SMALL MONEY CLAIMS LODGED UNDER ARTICLE 129.
As earlier emphasized, under Article 129 of the Labor Code, DOLE Regional Directors have jurisdiction over claims amounting to
P5,000
or below, provided the following requisites concur:1. The claim must arise from employer-employee relationship;
2. The claimant does not seek reinstatement; and
3. The aggregate money claim of each employee does not exceed
P5,000.00
.2. IN INSPECTION OF ESTABLISHMENT CASES UNDER ARTICLE 128 (VISITORIAL AND ENFORCEMENT POWER), THE DOLE REGIONAL DIRECTORS HAVE JURISDICTION REGARDLESS OF WHETHER OR NOT THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF CLAIMS PER EMPLOYEE EXCEEDS
P5,000.00
.a. Requisites.
For the valid exercise by the DOLE Secretary or any of his duly authorized representatives (DOLE Regional Directors) of the visitorial and enforcement powers provided under Article 128(b), the following requisites should concur:
(1) The employer-employee relationship should still exist;
(2) The findings in question were made in the course of inspection by labor inspectors; and
(3) The employees have not yet initiated any claim or complaint with the DOLE Regional Director under Article 129, or the Labor Arbiter under Article 217.
3. HOWEVER, JURISDICTION OVER CONTESTED CASES UNDER THE EXCEPTION CLAUSE IN ARTICLE 128(b) OF THE LABOR CODE INVOLVING INSPECTION OF ESTABLISHMENTS BELONGS TO THE LABOR ARBITERS AND NOT TO DOLE REGIONAL DIRECTORS.
a. Relation of paragraph (b) of Article 128 to the jurisdiction of Labor Arbiters.
The Labor Arbiters have jurisdiction over contested cases under the exception clause in Article 128(b), which states: “xxx. The Secretary or his duly authorized representatives shall issue writs of execution to the appropriate authority for the enforcement of their orders, except in cases where the employer contests the findings of the labor employment and enforcement officer and raises issues supported by documentary proofs which were not considered in the course of inspection.”
In interpreting the afore-quoted provision of the exception clause, three (3) elements must concur to divest the Regional Directors or their representatives of jurisdiction thereunder, to wit:
(a) That the employer contests the findings of the labor regulations officer and raises issues thereon;
(b) That in order to resolve such issues, there is a need to examine evidentiary matters; and (c) That such matters are not verifiable in the normal course of inspection.
The 2009 case of Meteoro v. Creative Creatures, Inc., best illustrates the application of the exception 1 clause. Here, it was held that the Court of Appeals aptly applied the “exception clause” because at the earliest opportunity, respondent company registered its objection to the findings of the labor inspector on the ground that there was no employer-employee relationship between petitioners and respondent company. The labor inspector, in fact, noted in his report that “respondent alleged that petitioners were contractual workers and/or independent and talent workers without control or supervision and also supplied with tools and apparatus pertaining to their job.” In its position paper, respondent again insisted that petitioners were not its employees. It then questioned the Regional Director’s jurisdiction to entertain the matter before it, primarily because of the absence of an employer-employee relationship. Finally, it raised the same arguments before the Secretary of Labor and the appellate court. It is, therefore, clear that respondent contested and continues to contest the findings and conclusions of the labor inspector. To resolve the issue raised by respondent, that is, the existence of an employer-employee relationship, there is a need to examine evidentiary matters.
IV.
JURISDICTION OVER CLAIMS FOR DAMAGES 1. LABOR ARBITERS HAVE JURISDICTION OVER CLAIMS FOR DAMAGES.
It is now a well-settled rule that claims for damages as well as attorney’s fees in labor cases are cognizable by the Labor Arbiters, to the exclusion of all other courts. Rulings to the contrary are deemed abandoned or modified accordingly.
2. CLAIMS FOR DAMAGES OF OVERSEAS FILIPINO WORKERS (OFWs).
Claims for actual, moral, exemplary and other forms of damages that may be lodged by overseas Filipino workers are cognizable by the Labor Arbiters.
V.
JURISDICTION OVER LEGALITY OF STRIKES AND LOCKOUTS 1. JURISDICTIONAL INTERPLAY IN STRIKE OR LOCKOUT CASES.
Based on the Labor Code, below is an outline of the interplay in jurisdiction among them.
1. Filing of a notice of strike or lockout with NCMB. - A union which intends to stage a strike or an employer which desires to mount a lockout should file a notice of strike or notice of lockout, as the case may be, with the
NCMB
and not with any other office. It must be noted, however, that the NCMB, per Tabigue v.International Copra Export Corporation, is not a quasi-judicial body; hence, the Conciliators-Mediators of 2 the NCMB do not have any decision-making power. They cannot issue decisions to resolve the issues raised in the notice of strike or lockout. Their role is confined solely to the conciliation and mediation of the said issues, although they can suggest to the parties that they submit their dispute to voluntary arbitration through the Voluntary Arbitrators accredited by the NCMB.
2. Filing of a complaint to declare the illegality of the strike or lockout with the Labor Arbiter or Voluntary Arbitrator or panel of Voluntary Arbitrator. - In case a party wants to have the strike or lockout declared illegal, a complaint should be filed either with the Labor Arbiter under Article 224(a)(5) [217(a)(5)] of the Labor Code or, upon mutual agreement of the parties, with the Voluntary Arbitrator or panel of Voluntary Arbitrators under Article 275 [262] of the same Code. The issue of illegality of the strike or lockout cannot be resolved by the Conciliators-Mediators of the NCMB as earlier pointed out and discussed.
3. Filing of an injunction petition with the Commission (NLRC). - In case illegal acts violative of Article 279 [264] are committed in the course of the strike or lockout, a party may file a petition for injunction directly with the Commission (NLRC) under Article 225(e) [218(e)] of the Labor Code for purposes of securing a temporary restraining order (TRO) and injunction. The Labor Arbiters or Voluntary Arbitrators are not possessed of any injunctive power under the Labor Code. In other words, the aggrieved party, despite the pendency of the case for the declaration of the illegality of the strike or lockout with the Labor Arbiter or Voluntary Arbitrator, as the case may be, may directly go to the Commission to secure the injunctive relief.
4. Assumption of jurisdiction by the DOLE Secretary. – Under Article 278(g) [263(g)] of the Labor Code, the DOLE Secretary has the power to assume jurisdiction over labor disputes which, in his opinion, may cause or likely to cause a strike or lockout in industries indispensable to the national interest (so-called “national interest” cases). Once he makes the assumption, he shall decide all the issues related to the labor dispute himself, to the exclusion of all other labor authorities.
5. Certification of the labor dispute to the NLRC. - Under the same provision of Article 278(g) [263(g)]
of the Labor Code, the DOLE Secretary has the option of not assuming jurisdiction over the labor dispute in national interest cases. Instead, he may certify it to the NLRC for compulsory arbitration, in which case, it will be the NLRC which shall hear and decide all the issues subject of the certification order.
G.R. No. 171275, July 13, 2009.
1
G.R. No. 183335, Dec. 23, 2009; See also Hotel Employees Union-NFL v. Waterfront Insular Hotel Davao, G.R. Nos. 174040-41, Sept. 22, 2010.
2
In case at the time of the said assumption or certification, there is a pending case before the Labor Arbiter or Voluntary Arbitrator on the issue of illegality of the strike or lockout, the same shall be deemed subsumed in the assumed or certified case. Resultantly, it is no longer the Labor Arbiter or the Voluntary Arbitrator who should decide the said case but the DOLE Secretary, in the case of assumed cases, or the NLRC, in the case of certified cases.
6. Assumption of jurisdiction over a national interest case by the President. - The President of the Philippines is not precluded from intervening in a national interest case by exercising himself the powers of his alter ego, the DOLE Secretary, granted under Article 278(g) [263(g)] by assuming jurisdiction over the same for purposes of settling or terminating it.
7. Submission of a national interest case to voluntary arbitration. - Despite the pendency of the assumed or certified national interest case, the parties are allowed to submit any issues raised therein to voluntary arbitration at any stage of the proceeding, by virtue of Article 278(h) [263(h)] which provides that “(b)efore or at any stage of the compulsory arbitration process, the parties may opt to submit their dispute to voluntary arbitration.”
The foregoing interplay explains why Article 278(i) [263(i)] makes specific reference to the President of the Philippines, the Secretary of Labor and Employment, the Commission (NLRC) or the Voluntary Arbitrator in connection with the law on strike, lockout and picketing embodied in Article 278 [263]. The only labor official not so mentioned therein but who has a significant role to play in the interaction of labor officials and tribunals in strike or lockout cases, is the Labor Arbiter. This is understandable in the light of the separate express grant of jurisdiction to the Labor Arbiters under Article 224(a)(5) [217(a)(5)] as above discussed.
VI.
JURISDICTION OVER CASES INVOLVING
LEGISLATED WAGE INCREASES AND WAGE DISTORTION 1. CASES IN ORGANIZED ESTABLISHMENTS.
Jurisdiction is with the Voluntary Arbitrator.
2. CASES IN UNORGANIZED ESTABLISHMENTS.
Jurisdiction is with Labor Arbiter.
VII.
JURISDICTION OVER ENFORCEMENT OR ANNULMENT OF COMPROMISE AGREEMENTS
1. LEGAL BASIS.
Article 233 [227] clearly embodies the following provisions on compromise agreements:
“Article 233 [227]. Compromise Agreements. - 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. The National Labor Relations Commission or any court shall not assume jurisdiction over issues involved therein except in case of non-compliance thereof or if there is prima facie evidence that the settlement was obtained through fraud, misrepresentation, or coercion.”
Clear from the foregoing provision that, although the compromise agreement may have been entered into by the parties before the Bureau of Labor Relations (BLR) or the DOLE Regional Office, it is the Labor Arbiter who has jurisdiction to take cognizance of the following issues related thereto, to the exclusion of the BLR and the DOLE Regional Directors:
(1) To enforce the compromise agreement in case of non-compliance therewith by any of the parties thereto;
(2) To nullify it if there is prima facie evidence that the settlement was obtained through fraud, or misrepresentation, or coercion.
VIII.
JURISDICTION OVER EXECUTION AND ENFORCEMENT OF DECISIONS OF VOLUNTARY ARBITRATORS 1. DECISIONS OF VOLUNTARY ARBITRATORS.
Article 276 [262-A] of the Labor Code prescribes the procedures that Voluntary Arbitrators or panel of Voluntary Arbitrators should follow in adjudicating cases filed before them. Once a decision has been rendered in a case and subsequently becomes final and executory, it may be enforced through the writ of execution issued by the same Voluntary Arbitrator or panel of Voluntary Arbitrators who rendered it, addressed to and requiring certain public officers to execute the final decision, order or award.
2. LABOR ARBITERS MAY ISSUE THE WRIT OF EXECUTION.
In situations, however, where the Voluntary Arbitrator or the panel of Voluntary Arbitrators who rendered the decision is absent or incapacitated for any reason, Article 276 [262-A] grants jurisdiction to any Labor Arbiter in the region where the winning party resides, to take cognizance of a motion for the issuance of the writ of execution filed by such party and accordingly issue such writ addressed to and requiring the public officers mentioned above to execute the final decision, order or award of the Voluntary Arbitrator or panel of Voluntary Arbitrators.
IX.
JURISDICTION OVER CASES OF OFWs
1. LABOR ARBITERS HAVE JURISDICTION OVER ALL MONEY CLAIMS OF OFWs.
All claims of OFWs with a sign of peso are cognizable by the Labor Arbiters, including claims for disability and death benefits.
2. EXCEPTION: VOLUNTARY ARBITRATORS HAVE JURISDICTION OVER MONEY CLAIMS IF THERE EXISTS A CBA.
If there is a CBA between the foreign employer and the bargaining union of the OFWs, the jurisdiction over monetary claims of OFWs belongs to the Voluntary Arbitrator and not to the Labor Arbiter.
3. OFW-RELATED CASES OVER WHICH THE POEA, AND NOT THE LABOR ARBITERS, HAS JURISDICTION.
The Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA) has original and exclusive jurisdiction to hear and decide:
(a) All cases which are administrative in character, involving or arising out of violation of rules and regulations relating to licensing and registration of recruitment and employment agencies or entities, including refund of fees collected from workers and violation of the conditions for the issuance of license to recruit workers.
(b) Disciplinary action cases and other special cases which are administrative in character, involving employers, principals, contracting partners and Filipino migrant workers.
No. 1 above covers recruitment violations or violations of conditions of license; while No. 2 above involves (a) disciplinary action cases against foreign principals or employers, and (a) disciplinary action cases against land-based OFWs and seafarers.