Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
Liberally construed to carry out the objectives of the Constitution, the Labor
Code of the Philippines and other relevant legislations, and to assist the
parties in obtaining just, expeditious and inexpensive resolution and
settlement of labor disputes (Section 2)
(a) Commission means the National Labor Relations Commission or any of its
divisions, as the case may be, as provided under this Code.
(b) Bureau means the Bureau of Labor Relations and/or the Labor Relations
Divisions in the regional offices established under PD No. 1, in the
Department of Labor.
(c) Board means the National Conciliation and Mediation Board established
under EO No. 126.
(d) Council means the Tripartite Voluntary Artibtration Advisory Council
established under EO No. 126, as amended.
(e) Employer includes any person acting in the interest of an employer, directly
or indirectly. The term shall not include any labor organization or any of its
officers or agents except when acting as employer.
(f) Employee includes any person in the employ of an employer. The term
shall not be limited to the employees of a particular employer, unless this
Code so explicitly states. It shall include any individual whose work has
ceased as a result of or in connection with any current labor dispute or
because of any unfair labor practice if he has not obtained any other
substantially equivalent and regular employment.
(g) Labor organization means any union or association of employees which
exists in whole or in part for the purpose of collective bargaining or of dealing
with employers concerning terms and conditions of employment.
(h) Legitimate labor organization means any labor organization duly registered
with the Department of Labor and Employment, and includes any branch or
local thereof.
(i) Company union means any labor organization whose formation, function or
administration has been assisted by any act defined as unfair labor practice
by this Code.
(j) Bargaining representative means a legitimate labor organization or any
officer or agent of such organization whether or not employed by the
employer.
1 LABOR LAW REVIEW NOTES: 2011 NLRC RULES OF PROCEDURE
MACAPAGAL, STEPHANIE LUZETTE M. BSU COLLEGE OF LAW
(k) Unfair labor practice means any unfair labor practice as expressly defined
by this Code.
(l) Labor dispute includes any controversy or matter concerning terms and
conditions of employment or the association or representation of persons in
negotiating, fixing, maintaining, changing, or arranging the terms and
conditions of employment, regardless of whether the disputants stand in
proximate relation of employer and employee.
(m) Managerial employee is one who is vested with powers or
prerogatives to lay down and execute management policies and/or hire,
transfer, suspend, layoff, recall, discharge, assign, or discipline employees.
Supervisory employees are those who, in the interest of the employer,
effectively recommend such managerial actions if the exercise of such
authority is not merely routinary or clerical in nature but requires the use of
independent judgment. All employees not falling within any of the above
definitions are considered rank-and-file employees for purposes of this Book.
(n) Voluntary Arbitrator means any person accredited by the Board as such, or
any person named or designated in the Collective Bargaining Agreement by
the parties to act as their voluntary arbitrator, or one chosen, with or without
the assistance of the National Conciliation and Mediation Board, pursuant to
a selection procedure agreed upon in the Collective Bargaining Agreement,
or any official that may be authorized by the Secretary of Labor and
Employment to act as voluntary arbitrator upon the written request and
agreement of the parties to a labor dispute.
(o) Strike means any temporary stoppage of work by the concerted action of
employees as a result of an industrial or labor dispute.
(p) Lockout means the temporary refusal of an employer to furnish work as a
result of an industrial or labor dispute.
(q) Internal union dispute includes all disputes or grievances arising from any
violation of or disagreement over any provision of the constitution and
bylaws of a union, including any violation of the rights and conditions of
union membership provided for in this Code.
(r) Strike breaker means any person who obstructs, impedes, or interferes
with by force, violence, coercion, threats, or intimidation any peaceful
picketing by employees during any labor controversy affecting wages, hours
or conditions of work or in the exercise of the right of self-organization or
collective bargaining.
(s) Strike area means the establishment, warehouses, depots, plants or
offices, including the sites or premises used as runaway shops, of the
employer struck against, as well as the immediate vicinity actually used by
picketing strikers in moving to and fro before all points of entrance to and
exit from said establishment.
Regional Arbitration Branch (RAB) any of the regional arbitration branches
or sub-regional branches of the Commission
Facts: Mandaue Galleon Trade was sued by its former employees for illegal dismissal
before the LA. The LA decided in favor of the employees and ordered Mandaue
Galleon Trade to pay the complainants the sum of P917,700.00. Mandaue Galleon
Trade filed an appeal before the NLRC but failed to attach a certification of non-
forum shopping to their notice of appeal, as required by Section 4, Rule VI of the
2005 NLRC Rules of Procedure. The NLRC dismissed Mandaue Galleon Trades
appeal for being fatally defective, and the LAs decision was affirmed in toto with
finality. An entry of judgment was then issued by the NLRC, stating that its decision
had already become final and executory.
Mandaue Galleon Trade then filed a petition for certiorari before the CA. The
CA dismissed the same. Mandaue Galleon Trade then filed another petition for
certiorari before the SC, stating that the CA committed grave abuse of discretion in
denying its appeal on mere technicality.
Issue: W/N the CA committed a grave and reversible error in affirming the decision
of the NLRC denying Mandaue Galleon Trades appeal on mere technicality despite
the existence of a meritorious case.
Ruling: NO. Based on Section 4(a), Rule VI of the [2005] NLRC Rules of
Procedure, a certificate of non-forum shopping is a requisite for the perfection of an
appeal, and non-compliance therewith shall not stop the running of the period for
perfecting an appeal. The filing of a certificate of non-forum shopping is mandatory
3 LABOR LAW REVIEW NOTES: 2011 NLRC RULES OF PROCEDURE
MACAPAGAL, STEPHANIE LUZETTE M. BSU COLLEGE OF LAW
in initiatory pleadings. The subsequent compliance with the requirement does not
excuse a partys failure to comply therewith in the first instance. In those cases
where the SC excused non-compliance with the requirement to submit a certificate
of non-forum shopping pursuant to Administrative Circular No. 04-94, it found
special circumstances or compelling reasons which made the strict application
thereof clearly unjustified or inequitable. In this case, however, Mandaue Galleon
Trade offered no valid justification for their failure to comply with the Circular.
While it is true that litigation is not a game of mere technicalities and that
rules of procedure shall not be strictly enforced at the cost of substantial justice, it
does not mean that the Rules of Court may be ignored at will and at random to the
prejudice of orderly presentation and assessment of the issues and their just
resolution. It must be emphasized that procedural rules should not be belittled or
dismissed simply because their non-observance might have resulted in prejudice to
a partys substantial rights. Like all rules, they are required to be followed, except
only for the most persuasive of all reasons.
Administrative Circular 28-91 (1994): Requires that every petition filed with
the SC or the CA must be accompanied by a certificate of non-forum shopping
Facts: Several persons filed separate complaints for regularization, unfair labor
practice, and several money claims against ABS-CBN Cebu for being allegedly
excluded from the CBA coverage because they were considered by the company as
temporary employees. ABS-CBN argued that they were only contractual employees
who were paid talent fees, whose services are engaged for a specific program or
production, or a segment thereof, and whose said contracts are terminated once the
program, production, or segment is completed. The LA rendered its decision in favor
of the complainants, holding that they were already regular employees of ABS-CBN,
not independent contractors, and are entitled to the benefits and privileges of
regular employees. ABS-CBN then appealed the case to the NLRC, still contending
that the complainants were independent contractors and not regular employees.
While the case was on appeal with the NLRC, ABS-CBN dismissed the
complainants for their refusal to sign up contracts of employment with their service
contractor. The dismissed complainants filed another complaint for illegal dismissal
which was handled by the same LA who handled the previous regularization case.
The LA upheld the validity of the dismissal of the complainants due to redundancy,
an authorized cause under the law. The complainants were then awarded separation
pay. ABS-CBN then appealed the illegal dismissal case to the NLRC, which rendered
a joint decision on both the regularization and illegal dismissal cases. It affirmed the
LA decision with respect to regularization, additionally granting the complainants
CBA benefits and privileges, and reversed the LA with respect to the illegal
dismissal case. Both ABS-CBN and complainants moved for reconsideration, and the
NLRC resolved both motions for reconsideration by reinstating the two separate
decisions of the LA with respect to regularization and illegal dismissal. The NLRC
denied complainants second motion for reconsideration for being a prohibited
pleading. The complainants then went to the CA through a petition for certiorari
under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. The CA upheld the NLRC decisions.
Issue: W/N the dismissal of the complainants by ABS-CBN is tainted with bad faith.
A close parallel that can be drawn to characterize this bad faith is the
prohibition against forum-shopping under the Rules of Court. In forum-shopping, the
Rules characterize as bad faith the act of filing similar and repetitive actions for the
same cause with the intent of somehow finding a favorable ruling in one of the
actions filed. ABS-CBNs actions in the two cases are of the same character, since its
obvious intent was to defeat and render useless, in a roundabout way and other
than through the appeal it had taken, the LAs decision in the regularization case.
Forum-shopping is penalized by the dismissal of the actions involved. The penalty
against ABS-CBN for its bad faith in the present case should be no less.
Petition granted.
Jurisdiction of LA: original and exclusive (Section 1; Article 217 of the Labor
Code)
o Unfair labor practices (Section 1a; Article 217a(1))
o Termination disputes (Section 1b; Article 217a(2))
Companies with CBA not exclusively under LA; shared jurisdiction
between LA and VA
Constitutional bias in favor of voluntary arbitration even if there have
already been proceedings with the labor arbiter, the same can at
anytime be transferred with the voluntary arbitrator
o If accompanied with a claim for reinstatement, those cases that workers
may file involving wages, rates of pay, hours of work, and other terms and
conditions of employment (Section 1c; Article 217a(3))
o Claims for actual, moral, exemplary, and other forms of damages arising
from employer-employee relations (Section 1d; Article 217a(4))
o Cases arising from any violation of Article 264 of the Labor Code, as
amended, including questions involving the legality of strikes and lockouts
(Section 1e; Article 217a(5))
o Except claims for employees compensation not included in the next
succeeding paragraph, social security, medicare, and maternity benefits,
all other claims arising from employer-employee relations, including those
8 LABOR LAW REVIEW NOTES: 2011 NLRC RULES OF PROCEDURE
MACAPAGAL, STEPHANIE LUZETTE M. BSU COLLEGE OF LAW
of persons in domestic or household service, involving an amount
exceeding P5,000.00, whether or not accompanied with a claim for
reinstatement (Section 1f; Article 217a(6))
o Wage distortion disputes in unorganized establishments not voluntarily
settled by the parties pursuant to Republic Act No. 6727 (Section 1g)
If the wage distortion is caused by a CBA, it is not actionable
o Enforcement of compromise agreements when there is non-compliance by
any of the parties pursuant to Article 227 of the Labor Code, as amended
(Section 1h)
LA has no power to review, amend, or critique compromise
agreements; they can only order enforcement
o Money claims arising out of employer-employee relationship 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
as provided by Section 10 of RA 8042, as amended by RA 10022 (Section
1i)
o Other cases as may be provided by law (Section 1j)
Coverage (Section 2): Cases falling under the administrative and quasi-judicial
functions of all DOLE offices and attached agencies including the NLRC except:
Single Entry Assistance Desk Officer (Section 3b) person designated to provide
assessment, evaluation, and counseling services before the filing of any labor
complaint or dispute
Who may file request for assistance (Section 4) any aggrieved worker, union,
group of workers, or the employer
Unless the parties agree otherwise, conciliation-mediation shall be carried out and
terminated within the prescribed 30-day period. The parties are required to appear
at all times. Lawyers may be allowed to join the conference only to render advice to
parties. (Section 12, pars. 1 and 2)
In case of voluntary settlement, the Desk Officer shall reduce the agreement into
writing, have the parties understand the contents thereof, sign the same in his/her
presence, and attest the document to be the true and voluntary act of the parties.
Any settlement agreement reached by the parties before the Desk Officer shall be
final and binding. (Section 10)
Referral (Section 3d) the document issued by the Desk Officer referring the
unresolved issue/s to the appropriate DOLE office or agency that has jurisdiction
over the dispute.
The Desk Officer shall monitor the voluntary and faithful compliance with the
settlement agreement by causing the parties to make a report of compliance or
non-compliance within two weeks from the date of agreement or agreed period of
compliance. Failure of the parties to make a report within the prescribed period
shall render the said agreement deemed duly complied with absent proof to the
contrary. (Section 11, par. 1)
In instances provided in Sections 12 and 14, the issuance of the referral on the date
of termination of the conciliation-mediation services shall be motu proprio;
otherwise, upon request of any or both parties to the proceedings. Failure of the
Desk Officer to observe the period to issue the referral shall be dealt with
accordingly as an administrative offense. (Section 16)
NOTES:
SEnA does not take into account the original and exlusive jurisdiction of the
different agencies.
After the SEADO refers a case to the NLRC, the complainant still needs to
accomplish a complaint to allow the NLRC to send out summonses, so that
RURAL BANK OF CORON v. ANNALISA CORTES (GR No. 164888, 6 December 2006)
Carpio Morales
Facts: Annalisa Cortes was hired as the Corporate Secretary and Personnel Officer of
the Rural Bank of Coron, and a Personnel Officer of both Empire Cold Storage and
Development Corporation, and Citizens Development Incorporated, firms which
were practically financially controlled by her sister-in-law, Anita Cortes-Garcia. Upon
inspection of the books of the said corporations where Annalisa was hired as a
personnel officer, it was discovered that the latter was involved in several
anomalies, prompting them to terminate her services from the corporations.
Annalisa stated her willingness to abide by the decision regarding her termination
but stressed her right to separation pay. When her demand went unheeded, she
filed a complaint for illegal dismissal and non-payment of salaries and other
benefits. The petitioners moved for the dismissal of the complaint on the ground
that it was an intra-corporate controversy involving the removal of a corporate
officer. The LA found that Annalisa was not a corporate officer, and thus the case
falls within the ambit of the jurisdiction of the LA.
Ruling: NO. While, indeed, Cortes was the Corporate Secretary of the Rural
Bank of Coron, she was also its Financial Assistant and the Personnel Officer of the
two other petitioner corporations. Jurisprudence instructs that a corporation can
engage its corporate officers to perform services under a circumstance which would
make them employees. The Labor Arbiter has thus jurisdiction over Cortes
complaint.
Notes on Jurisdiction:
When one says that the NLRC has no jurisdiction, what particular point is one
focusing on? Lack of employer-employee relationship.
A: NO. A motion for new trial is clearly a prohibited pleading. Proceedings before
the NLRC and before all labor tribunals are not bound by the strict rules of
procedure and technicalities.
Q: A decision had already been rendered by the LA. The respondent filed a
petition for relief from judgment on the ground that there was no summons issued
to him. The records do not show that he had been given the opportunity to be
heard; worse, there is no showing on record that jurisdiction over his person had
been acquired. Is he correct?
A: NO. If respondent really had not been served with summons, his recourse is
to file a petition for extraordinary remedies (Rule XII), pray for the issuance of a
temporary restraining order, or a permanent injunction, and in addition, pray for the
remand of the case to the LA so that appropriate proceedings may be taken
Article 223. Appeal. Decisions, awards, or orders of the Labor Arbiter are final and
executory unless appealed to the Commission by any or both parties within 10
(a) If there is prima facie evidence of abuse of discretion on the part of the Labor
Arbiter;
(b) If the decision, order, or award was secured through fraud or coercion,
including graft and corruption;
(c) If made purely on questions of law; and
(d) If serious errors in the findings of facts are raised which would cause grave or
irreparable damage or injury to the appellant.
In all cases, the appellant shall furnish a copy of the memorandum of appeal
to the other party who shall file an answer not later than 10 calendar days from
receipt thereof.
The Commission shall decide all cases within 20 calendar days from receipt
of the answer of the appellee.
The decision of the Commission shall be final and executory after 10 calendar
days from receipt thereof by the parties.
RULE VI APPEALS
Facts: The LA decided in favor of Cortes. On the last day of the period of appeal,
petitioners filed a notice of appeal and motion for reduction of bond to which they
attached a memorandum on appeal, stating that the corporations were under
financial distress. They prayed that the amount of bond be substantially reduced,
preferably to one-half thereof or even lower. The NLRC dismissed the appeal for
failure to comply with the requirement of the filing of the appeal bond. The CA also
dismissed the petition.
Issue: W/N the filing of an appeal bond is a condition precedent for perfecting an
appeal, and non-compliance thereof warrants dismissal.
In the case at bar, the petitioners did not post a full or partial bond within the
prescribed period, thus, no appeal was perfected from the decision of the LA. For
this reason, the decision sought to be appealed to the NLRC had become final and
Petition is denied.
Once an appeal is filed, the LA loses jurisdiction over the case, without
prejudice to immediate reinstatement pending appeal under Section 6, Rule
XI (Section 9)
o Instead of a certificate of finality, once an appeal is filed, the LA issues an
entry of judgment
o A motion for reconsideration is a prohibited pleading; it MAY be treated as
an appeal by the LA provided that all the requisites for the filing of an
appeal are present
o Additionally, only the reinstatement order COMING FROM THE LABOR
ARBITER is immediately executory; all the others are not, even those
coming from the Commission
No appeal from an interlocutory order shall be entertained. To discourage
frivolous or dilatory appeals, including those taken from interlocutory orders,
the Commission after hearing may censure or cite in contempt the erring
parties and their counsels, or subject them to reasonable fine or penalty.
(Section 10)
ADDITIONAL NOTES:
o New evidence may be adduced on appeal, subject to the requirement that
an explanation why it was not submitted seasonably and that the reason
why it was not earlier available be given, otherwise it shall be treated as
forgotten evidence
o Raising new issues on appeal is not allowed.
o The theory of appeal may be changed due to the ground of lack of
jurisdiction, but only as an exception. The general rule is that the theory of
appeal should not be changed on whatever ground.
o Filing a motion for reconsideration before the NLRC is a prerequisite for
the filing of a petition for certiorari before the CAexhaustion of
administrative remedies
o Appeal from Voluntary Arbitrator to Supreme Court by way of Rule 43
MANILA HOTEL CORP. v. NLRC (GR No. 120077, 13 October 2000) Pardo
Ruling: NO. The NLRC was a seriously inconvenient forum. The main aspects of
the case transpired in two foreign jurisdictions and the case involves purely foreign
elements. The only link that the Philippines has with the case is that Santos is a
Filipino citizen. The Palace Hotel and MHICL are foreign corporations. Not all cases
involving our citizens can be tried here.
It cannot be seen how the NLRC is a convenient forum given that all the
incidents of the casefrom the time of recruitment, to employment to dismissal
occurred outside the Philippines. The inconvenience is propounded by the fact that
Considering the NLRC was forum non conveniens and considering the fact
that no employer-employee relationship existed between MHICL, MHC, and Santos,
the LA clearly had no jurisdiction over Santos claim. In all cases involving LAs
exclusive and original jurisdiction, an employer-employee relationship is an
indispensable jurisdictional requirement. Since the lack of jurisdiction of the LA was
obvious from the allegations of the complaint, the LAs failure to dismiss the case
amounts to grave abuse of discretion.
Under the rule of forum non conveniens, a Philippine court or agency may
assume jurisdiction over the case if it chooses to do so provided: (1) that the
Philippine court is one to which the parties may conveniently resort to; (2)
that the Philippine court is in a position to make an intelligent decision as to
the law and facts; and (3) that the Philippine court has or is likely to have
power to enforce its decision.
Facts: Florence Cabansag was directly hired by the Singapore branch of Philippine
National Bank, a private banking corporation organized and existing under the laws
of the Philippines. She then filed an application with the Ministry of Manpower of the
Government of Singapore for the issuance of an Employment Pass as an
employee of the PNB Singapore Branch. Her application was approved for a period
of two years. Ruben Tobias, the General Manager and Vice President of the
Singapore branch, offered Cabansag a temporary appointment on 7 December 1998
as Credit Officer and, upon her successful completion of her three-month probation,
she may be extended a permanent appointment. Cabansag accepted the position
and assumed office. In the meantime, the Philippine Embassy in Singapore
25 LABOR LAW REVIEW NOTES: 2011 NLRC RULES OF PROCEDURE
MACAPAGAL, STEPHANIE LUZETTE M. BSU COLLEGE OF LAW
processed her employment contract and on 8 March 1999, she was issued by the
POEA an Overseas Employment Certificate certifying that she was a bona fide
contract worker for Singapore.
Issue: W/N the arbitration of the NLRC in the National Capital Region is the most
convenient venue or forum to hear or decide the instant controversy.
Ruling: YES. Las have original and exclusive jurisdiction over claims arising
from employer-employee relations, including termination disputes involving all
workers, among whom are overseas Filipino workers.
Petition denied.
RULE IX CONTEMPT
LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES v. SEVERINO LISTANA, SR. (GR No. 152611, 5
August 2003) Ynares-Santiago
The PARAD then issued an order granting the Motion for Contempt and
subsequently ordered the issuance of an Alias Writ of Execution for the payment of
the adjudged amount of just compensation to Listana. When it was not complied
30 LABOR LAW REVIEW NOTES: 2011 NLRC RULES OF PROCEDURE
MACAPAGAL, STEPHANIE LUZETTE M. BSU COLLEGE OF LAW
with, an arrest order against the Land Bank manager was issued. A preliminary
injunction was prayed for by the Land Bank from the Sorsogon RTC, which was
granted. On appeal, the CA nullified the order of the RTC.
Issue: W/N the contempt order was validly issued against the Land Bank manager.
Ruling: NO. There are only two ways a person can be charged with indirect
contempt, namely, (1) through a verified petition; and (2) by order or formal charge
initiated by the court motu proprio. In the case at bar, neither of these modes was
adopted in charging the Land Bank manager with indirect contempt.
NOTE: This rule does not apply anymore. The NLRC does not need to go to the RTC
to issue indirect contempt orders, by virtue of the rule-making power of the
Commission found in Article 218 of the Labor Code.
RULE X INJUNCTION
Judgment nunc pro tunc: A judgment entered on a day after the time when it should
have been entered, as of the earlier date (Blacks Law Dictionary)
MANDAUE DINGHOW DIMSUM HOUSE v. NLRC (GR No. 161134, 3 March 2008)
Nachura
On appeal, the NLRC affirmed the LA decision with a few modifications. The
NLRC subsequently issued an entry of judgment certifying that its decision had
already become final and executory. A writ of execution was then issued by the LA.
However, the complainants averred that the writ could not be executed as Mandaue
Dinghow could no longer be found and had transferred elsewhere; that both
Mandaue Dinghow and Uytengsu were impleaded as respondents, although in the
NLRC decision, Uytengsus name was omitted; that Uytengsu is the President and
majority stockholder of Mandaue Dinghow; and that it would be a mockery of justice
if, despite the finality of the NLRC decision, the same could not be executed on a
mere technicality. Invoking the doctrine of piercing the veil of corporate fiction, the
complainants moved that the LA, in the exercise of his equity jurisdiction, issue an
alias writ of execution directing the Sheriff to execute the judgment against
Mandaue Dinghow and Uytengsu. The LA then issued an Order decreeing that a writ
of execution be issued against the properties of the officers/stockholders of
Mandaue Dinghow. On the basis of this Order, an Alias Writ of Execution was issued.
Mandaue Dinghow and Uytengsu filed a motion to quash the writ of execution.
When notices of garnishment were served on the banks, Uytengsus bank accounts
were frozen. The LA then denied Uytengsus motion to quash the writ of execution.
Uytengsu filed a motion for reconsideration, which was also denied on the ground
that Uytengsu is jointly and severally liable with Mandaue Dinghow on the ground
that he is the President/Chairman of Mandaue Dinghow and the latter is no longer
existing.
Issue 1: W/N the CA committed grave abuse of discretion and serious error in
dismissing the petition for certiorari purely on technical grounds and in not giving
due course to the same.
Issue 2: W/N the Alias Writ of Execution was validly issued despite the finality of
the NLRC decision.
Ruling: NO. The Order and Alias Writ of Execution issued by the LA are null and
void for lack of jurisdiction and for altering the tenor of the NLRC decision which
directed Mandaue Dinghow alone to pay the private respondents separation pay.
The private respondents did not assail this ruling. Thus, the same became final and
executory. Even granting that the NLRC committed a mistake in failing to indicate in
the dispositive portion that Uytengsu was solidarily liable with Mandaue Dinghow,
the correctionwhich is substantialcan no longer be allowed in this case because
the judgment has already become final and executory.
Once a decision or order becomes final and executory, it is removed from the
power or jurisdiction of the court which rendered it to further alter or amend it. It
therefore becomes immutable and unalterable and any amendment or alteration
which substantially affects a final and executory judgment is null and void for lack of
jurisdiction, including the entire proceedings for that purpose. An order of execution
which varies the tenor of the judgment or exceeds the terms thereof is a nullity.
(a) The Secretary of Labor and Employment or any Regional Director, the
Commission or any Labor Arbiter or Med-Arbiter, or the Voluntary Arbitrator
or panel of voluntary arbitrators may, motu proprio or on a motion of any
interested party, issue a writ of execution on a judgment within five years
from the date it becomes final and executory, requiring a sheriff or a duly
deputized officer to execute or enforce final decisions, orders or awards of
the Secretary of Labor and Employment or Regional Director, the
Commission, or the Labor Arbiter or Med-Arbiter or Voluntary Arbitrator or
panel of voluntary arbitrators. In any case, it shall be the duty of the
responsible officer to separately furnish immediately the counsels of record
and the parties with copies of said decisions, orders or awards. Failure to
comply with the duty prescribed herein shall subject such responsible officer
to appropriate administrative sanctions.
(b) The Secretary of Labor and Employment, and the Chairman of the
Commission may designate special sheriffs and take any measure under
existing laws to ensure compliance with their decisions, orders or awards and
those of Labor Arbiters and Voluntary Arbitrators or panel of voluntary
arbitrators, including the imposition of administrative fines which shall not be
less than five hundred pesos nor more than one thousand pesos.
PIONEER TEXTURIZING CORP. v. NLRC (GR No. 118651, 16 October 1997) Francisco
De Jesus then filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against Pioneer. The LA
noted that de Jesus was amply accorded procedural due process in her termination
from service; however, after observing that de Jesus made some further trimming
on P.O. No. 3853 and that her dismissal was not justified, the LA held Pioneer of
illegal dismissal and ordered Pioneer to reinstate de Jesus to her former position
with payment of full backwages. The NLRC ruled that de Jesus was negligent in
presuming that the ribs of P.O. No. 3853 should likewise be trimmed for having the
same style and design as P.O. No. 3824, thus Pioneer could not entirely be faulted
for dismissing de Jesus. The NLRC declared that the status quo between the parties
should be maintained and affirmed the LAs order of reinstatement, but without
Ruling: NO. Article 223 of the Labor Code expressly provides that insofar as
the reinstatement aspect is concerned, shall be immediately be executory, even
pending appeal The posting of a bond by the employer shall not stay the
execution for reinstatement provided. It must be construed to mean exactly what it
says. In declaring that a reinstatement order is not self-executory and needs a writ
of execution, the SC in a prior case adverted to the rule provided under Article 224.
A closer examination, however, shows that the necessity for a writ of execution
under Article 224 applies only to final and executory decisions which are not within
the coverage of Article 223. Article 224 states that the need for a writ of execution
applies only within five years from the date of a decision, an order or award
becomes final and executory. It cannot relate to an award or order of reinstatement
still to be appealed or pending appeal which Article 223 contemplates. The provision
of Article 223 is clear that an award for reinstatement shall be immediately
executory even pending appeal and the posting of a bond by the employer shall not
stay the execution for reinstatement. The legislative intent is quite obvious, i.e., to
make n award of reinstatement immediately enforceable, even pending appeal. To
require the application for and issuance of a writ of execution as prerequisites for
the execution of a reinstatement award would certainly betray and run counter to
the very object and intent of Article 223, i.e., the immediate execution of a
reinstatement order. The reason is simple. An application for a writ of execution and
its issuance could be delayed for numerous reasons. A mere continuance or
postponement of a scheduled hearing, for instance, or inaction on the part of the LA
or the NLRC could easily delay the issuance of the writ thereby setting at naught the
strict mandate and noble purpose envisioned by the said Article. In other words, if
the requirements of Article 224 were to govern, then the executory nature of a
reinstatement order or award contemplated in Article 223 will be unduly
circumscribed and rendered ineffectual. In enacting the law, the legislature is
presumed to have ordained a valid and sensible law, one which operates no further
than may be necessary to achieve its specific purpose.
AIR PHILIPPINE CORPORATION v. ENRICO ZAMORA (GR No. 148247, 7 August 2006)
Austria-Martinez
Facts: Zamora was employed with AirPhil as a B-737 Flight Deck Crew. He applied
for promotion to the position of airplane captain and underwent the requisite
training program. After completing training, he inquired about his promotion but
AirPhil did not act on it; instead, it continued to give him assignments as flight deck
crew. Zamora then filed a complaint with the LA for constructive dismissal, arguing
that AirPhils act of withholding his promotion rendered his continued employment
with it oppressive and unjust. AirPhil denied that it dismissed Zamora, and stated
that when the complaint was filed, Zamora was still in its employ. It was only
subsequently that Zamora stopped reporting for work, not because he was forced to
resign, but because he had joined a rival airline, Grand Air.
The LA held AirPhil liable for constructive dismissal and ordered it to reinstate
Zamora as a B-737 captain without loss of seniority rights, and to pay full
backwages, moral and exemplary damages, and attorneys fees. Zamora
immediately filed a motion for execution of the order of reinstatement, which the LA
granted and issued a writ of execution. AirPhil, on the other hand, filed with the
NLRC an appeal assailing the LAs finding. The NLRC held that no dismissal,
constructive or otherwise, took place for it was Zamora himself who voluntarily
terminated his employment by not reporting for work and by joining a competitor.
Upon motion for reconsideration, the NLRC ordered AirPhil to pay Zamora his unpaid
salaries from the date AirPhil received the copy of the LA directing the
reinstatement of Zamora, until the time the NLRC reversed the same. AirPhil moved
for reconsideration, but it was denied.
Issue 1: W/N the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion in holding AirPhil
liable for unpaid salaries.
Ruling: NO. The premise of the award of unpaid salary to Zamora is that prior
to the reversal by the NLRC of the LAs decision, the order of reinstatement
embodied therein was already the subject of an alias writ of execution even pending
appeal. Although AirPhil did not comply with this writ of execution, its intransigence
made it liable nonetheless to the salaries of Zamora pending appeal.
Ruling: YES. It appears that the CA in this case was overzealous in its
enforcement of the rules. To begin with, the pleadings and other documents it
required of AirPhil were not at all relevant to the petition. It is noted that the only
issue raised by AirPhil was whether the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion
in granting Zamora unpaid salaries while declaring him guilty of abandonment of
employment. Certainly, copies of the resolutions of the NLRC would have sufficed as
basis for the CA to resolve this issue. After all, it is in these resolutions that the
NLRC purportedly made contrary findings. There was no need at all for copies of the
position papers and other pleadings of the parties; these would have only cluttered
the docket. Besides, a summary of the material allegations in the position papers
can be found in the decision of the LA and the resolution of the NLRC. Quick
reference to copies of the decision and resolution would have already satisfied any
question the court may have had regarding the pleadings of the parties. The
attachments of AirPhil to its petition for certiorari were already sufficient even
without the pleadings and portions of the case record. It was therefore unreasonable
of the CA to have dismissed it. More so that AirPhil later corrected the purported
deficiency by submitting copies of the pleadings and other documents.
Paragraph 2, Section 1 of Rule 65, and Section 3, Rule 46 of the Rules of Court
speak of two sets of documents to be attached to the petition. The first set consists
of certified true copies of the judgment, order, or resolution subject of the petition.
Duplicate originals or certified true copies thereof must be appended to enable the
reviewing court to determine whether the court, body or tribunal, which rendered
the same committed grave abuse of discretion. The second set consists of the
pleadings, portions of the case record and other documents which are material and
pertinent to the petition. Mere photocopies thereof may be attached to the petition.
AM No. 07-7-12,4 December 2007: AMENDMENTS TO RULES 41, 45, 58, AND 65 0F
THE RULES OF COURT
RULE 65, Section 7. Expediting proceedings; injunctive relief. The court in which the
petition is filed may issue orders expediting the proceedings, and it may also grant
a temporary restraining order or a writ of preliminary injunction for the preservation
of the rights of the parties pending such proceedings. The petition shall not
interrupt the course of the principal case, unless a temporary restraining order or a
writ of preliminary injunction has been issued, enjoining the public respondent from
further proceeding with the case.
The public respondent shall proceed with the principal case within ten days
from the filing of a petition for certiorari with a higher court or tribunal, absent a
temporary restraining order or a preliminary injunction, or upon its expiration.
Failure of the public respondent to proceed with the principal case may be a ground
for an administrative charge.
ALEJANDRO ROQUERO v. PHILIPPINE AIRLINES (GR No. 152329, 22 April 2003) Puno
Facts: Alejandro Roquero and Rene Pabayo were ground equipment mechanics of
Philippine Airlines. They were caught red-handed possessing and using shabu in a
raid conducted by PAL security officers and NARCOM personnel. The two alleged
that they did not voluntarily indulge in the said act but were instigated by a certain
42 LABOR LAW REVIEW NOTES: 2011 NLRC RULES OF PROCEDURE
MACAPAGAL, STEPHANIE LUZETTE M. BSU COLLEGE OF LAW
Jojie Alipato who was introduced to them by the Manager of PALs Airport
Maintenance Division, who gave them the drugs immediately prior to the entrance
of the security and NARCOM personnel. Roquero and Pabayo were subjected to a
physical examination where the results showed that they were positive of drugs.
They were also brought to PALs security office where they executed written
confessions without the benefit of counsel.
The LA upheld the dismissal of both employees, finding both parties at fault
PAL for applying means to entice both employees into committing the infraction and
the two employees for giving in to the temptation and eventually indulging in the
prohibited activity. Nonetheless, the LA awarded separation pay and attorneys fees
to the complainants. While the case was on appeal with the NLRC, the complainants
were acquitted by the RTC in the criminal case which charged them with
conspiracy for possession and use of a regulated drug on the ground of
instigation.
The CA later reversed the decision of the NLRC and reinstated the decision of
the LA insofar as it upheld the dismissal of Roquero. However, it denied the award of
separation pay and attorneys fees to Roquero on the ground that one who has been
validly dismissed is not entitled to those benefits.
Issue 1: Can the executory nature of the decision, more so the reinstatement
aspect of a labor tribunals order, be halted by a petition having been filed in higher
courts without any restraining order or preliminary injunction having been ordered
in the meantime?
JUANITO GARCIA & ALBERTO DUMAGO v. PHILIPPINE AIRLINES (GR No. 164856, 20
January 2009) Carpio Morales
Facts: Juanito Garcia and Alberto Dumago were administratively charged by PAL
after they were allegedly caught in the act of sniffing shabu when a team of
44 LABOR LAW REVIEW NOTES: 2011 NLRC RULES OF PROCEDURE
MACAPAGAL, STEPHANIE LUZETTE M. BSU COLLEGE OF LAW
company security personnel and law enforcers raided the PAL Technical Centers
Toolroom Section. After due notice, PAL dismissed the two for transgressing the PAL
Code of Discipline, prompting the latter to file a complaint for illegal damages. The
LA ruled against PAL, ordering the same to immediately comply with the
reinstatement aspect of the decision.
Prior to the promulgation of the LAs decision, the SEC placed PAL, which was
suffering from severe financial losses, under an Interim Rehabilitation Receiver, who
was subsequently replaced by a Permanent Rehabilitation Receiver. From the LAs
decision, PAL appealed to the NLRC. NLRC reversed the LA decision and dismissed
Garcia and Dumagos complaint for lack of merit. Their motion for reconsideration
was denied and an entry of judgment was issued.
Issue 1: W/N Garcia and Dumago may collect their wages during the period
between the LAs order of reinstatement pending appeal and the NLRC decision
overturning that of the LA, now that PAL has exited from rehabilitation proceedings.
In the case at bar, Garcia and Dumago exerted efforts to execute the LAs
order of reinstatement until they were able to secure a writ of execution, albeit
issued after the reversal by the NLRC of the LAs decision. Technically, there was still
actual delay which brings to the question of whether the delay was due to PALs
unjustified act or omission. It is apparent that there was inaction on the part of PAL
to reinstate them, but whether such omission was justified depends on the onset of
the exigency of corporate rehabilitation.
The social justice principles of labor law outweigh or render inapplicable the
civil law doctrine of unjust enrichment.
Judgment: A courts final determination of the rights and obligations of the parties in
a case. Includes an equitable decree and any order from which an appeal lies
(Blacks Law Dictionary); A formal decision or determination on a matter or case by
a court (Merriam-Websters Dictionary of Law)
1. Present Property Articles 152, 155, and 205 of the Family Code; Section 13,
Rule 39 of the Rules of Court; Section 118 of CA 141
Art. 152. The family home, constituted jointly by the husband and the
wife or by an unmarried head of a family, is the dwelling house where
they and their family reside, and the land on which it is situated.
Art. 155. The family home shall be exempt from execution, forced sale,
or attachment except:
(1) For nonpayment of taxes;
(2) For debts incurred prior to the constitution of the family home;
(3) For debts secured by mortgages on the premises before or after
such constitution; and
(4) For debts due to laborers, mechanics, architects, builders,
materialmen and others who have rendered service or furnished
material for the construction of the building.
Art. 205. The right to receive support under this Title as well as any
money or property obtained as such support shall not be levied upon
on attachment or execution.