Appeal in labor cases

Remedy from Adverse Decision of Labor Arbiter

Egypt Air Local Employees Association v NLRC: the union is correct. The motion to
correct the labor arbiters decision is in effect, a motion for reconsideration of the
Labor Arbiters decision. Hence, the Labor Arbiter should not have entertained the
said motion. The rules of the NLRC do not allow motions for reconsideration of the
Labor Arbiters decision. The only remedy which the losing party can avail of
decision. The only remedy which the losing party can avail of from decision of the
Labor Arbiter is to appeal to the NLRC.
Period to Appeal Non extendible (exceptions)
Insular Life Assurance Co. v NLRC: Notwithstanding the fact that the motion for
reconsideration was filed late by 1 day, the circumstances of the case do not
warrant the outright denial of the motion for reconsideration because the order of
the NLRC to pay backwages to the four union members until their actual
reinstatement, runs counter to the final judgment of the SC which merely ordered
payment of backwages for 3 years. Moreso, because the 4 union members are no
longer entitled to reinstatement, considering that they had already reached
retirement age during the pendency of the case.
Pacific Overseas Shipping Corp v NLRC: newly hired messenger acceptable.
City Fair Corp v NLRC: the NLRC did not commit grave abuse of discretion in
entertaining the appeal, considering that the Labor Arbiter held the salesgirls liable
for an enormous award of damages in favor of their employer.
Philippine Airlines Inc v NLRC: and the perpetuation of unjust enrichment if the
appeal is disallowed are enough combination of reasons that warrant a relaxation of
the rules on perfection of appeals in labor cases.
Memorandum of Appeal
Garcia v NLRC: the NLRC was not correct in treating the letter of Y Co. as an appeal
from the Labor Arbiters decision. The plain letter sent by Y Co. to the Labor Arbiter
is not a memorandum of appeal but a mere expression of disappointment over what
was perceived as an appalling judgment of the Labor Arbiter. It is not even under
oath, much less did it ask for affirmative relief. Worse, there is no indication that X
was furnished with a copy of the said letter. Likewise, there is no proof that th
required appeal fee and case or surety bond was paid and/or posted at the time the
letter was received by the Labor Arbiter.
Appeal Fee

Manila Mandarin Employees union v NLRC: the NLRC acted correctly in acting on the
appeal of X. X cannot be faulted for paying the appeal fee only on Feb 4, 1991. The
fact that X was in the NLRC premises, ready to pay said fee, but was unable to do so
because the NLRC Cashier or any other employee authorized receive payment in his
stead was no longer around. This is why the NLRC allowed payment of the appeal
fee to be made on the next business day.
Right of Choice
Maranaw Hotel Resort v NLRC: The NLRC is not correct. It is not within the power of
the NLRC to impose on whether the employee should be physically reinstated or just
be reinstate on payroll. The right to choose belongs exclusively to the employer. In
this particular case, the NLRC arrogated unto itself the right to choose whether to
admit the dismissed employee back to work or to reinstate her on payroll. Worse,
the NLRC in effect granted the unresolved motion for execution which had been
effectively abandoned through the employees inaction and which, for obvious
reasons, could no longer be properly resolved in a resolution finally disposing of the
appeal.
Motion for Reconsideration of NLRC Decision
Palma v NLRC: The employee is correct. The third division should not have
entertained the employers appeal to the Commission en banc because it partakes
of a second motion for reconsideration by the employer. The rule is that only one
motion for reconsideration from the same party shall be entertained.
When Judgment becomes final and executory
1. After the expiration of the period to appeal if no appeal has been perfected;
or
2. After it is decided with finality on appeal if an appeal has been perfected
Danao Development Corp. v NLRC: it is equally obviously that the backwages
aspect thereof could not be the object of execution until the respective
amounts due to all the complainants has been duly execution until the
respective amounts due to all the complainants has been duly ascertained in
a manner wherein both parties have been duly heard.
Effect of Supervening Events
City of Butuan v Ortiz: a prevailing party in a civil action is entitled to a writ of
execution of the final judgment obtained by him within 5 years from its entry. But it
has been repeatedly held in this jurisdiction, that when facts and circumstances
transpire which renders its execution impossible or unjust, the interested party may
ask the court to harmonize the same justice and the facts.