Name of Presiding Labor Arbiter: Marcial Galahad T.

Makasiar

Branch:

Day/Time of Visit: September 4, 2019/

Observations:

Our group met at the NLRC main branch near Quezon Avenue at 8:00 A.M. on September 4, 2019. Upon
confirmation of the administration officer of the availability of a Labor Arbiter, we were immediately
accommodated at 8:15 and went to Labor Arbiter Makasiar’s office. Upon entry, we noted that the
office space was minimal owing to the fact that there were numerous case files scattered everywhere.

We were then invited into the Labor Arbiter’s chambers in order to be briefed about the proper
decorum in the conduct of our observation and for us to explain our purpose in our visit. He then
showed us a sample complaint in order for us to view the document and emphasized that it was a pro-
forma document purposely crafted in such a manner to make it easier for a party to indicate his cause
for litigation making lawyers optional in the conduct of the proceedings.

He emphasized the utmost importance of the speedy disposition of cases and his advocacy of settling
disputes among the parties amicably. He then gave us an instance derived from experience where a
party, usually the laborer, would, for example request for P100,000 and management would offer to pay
it in installments. He stated that he put such agreements in the minutes of the meeting and its salient
points such as: a. The amount involved; b. Any initial payment; and c. Mode of how to pay the remaining
balance. He then stated that he would advise the parties that they have now entered into a compromise
agreement and he would issue a judgment for such, properly disposing the case.

He then explained the process in the conduct of the labor dispute and its differences with a normal
court proceeding. Upon filing of the complaint, summons would be issued, and the Labor Arbiter would
attempt to devise ways to help the parties settle amicably, otherwise, he would schedule the submission
of the position papers accompanied by the presentation of evidence in chief.

In case the complainant fails to present his position paper, the complaint would be dismissed for failure
to prosecute. And if it is the respondents who fails to present his position paper, the dispute would be
resolved on the basis of the position paper of the complainant alone. As explained by Labor Arbiter
Makasia, no open court trial is conducted and only paper trial was implemented.

He also explain that a reply is only required by him when there is simultaneous submission and
exchange of the parties’ position paper. Upon which the case is submitted for decision and he would
have 30 days to decide from such time. Appeal can be obtained within 10 days from receipt of the
decision by either party after payment of docket fees and a memorandum of appeal. He also stated that
in case of multiple plaintiffs or defendants, the reglementary period for filing the appeal starts from the
last day when the last person involved in the case on either side received the decision.
And in case of an appeal of a decision by the respondent-employer involving monetary awards, said
respondent should also file an appeal bond. The latter may also subsequently file a motion to reduce
said bond provided he deposits 10% of the required bond. The Labor Arbiter also stated that a motion
for reconsideration is a prohibited pleading and would not toll the reglementary period to file an appeal.
However, when such motion qualifies as a memorandum of appeal, it may be considered as such and
the records could then be elevated to the National Labor Relations Commission after which the Court of
Appeals may review the case by a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 and the Supreme Court may then
review the case under a Rule 45 petition.

The Labor Arbiter also stated that the technical rules of evidence are not binding in labor dispute and
that he even allows position papers handwritten on yellow pads of paper.

We also asked him if he noted any issues in the conduct of cases where such would be a hindrance to
the orderly administration of justice. He noted one of which was the prerogative of the complainant to
amend the complaint subsequent to its submission or even at the date set for the submission of the
position paper since the latter is not properly represented by counsel. This would possibly cause delays
because some complainants could request for amendment of the complaint as a remedy, albeit a foul
one, effectively prolonging the proceedings even though the non-preparation or non-presentation of
the position papers was due to his own fault.

We then observed the actual conduct of cases. There were 7 cases set for hearing that morning. The
atmosphere set by the Labor Arbiter was non-adversarial and informal. In cases where only one of the
parties appeared for the hearing, the setup looked as if the Labor Arbiter was a medical practitioner
advising a patient on his illness which is, in this case, characterized as a legal one. He speaks in a mixture
of Filipino and English unlike in court proceedings were almost the entire litigation is spoken in English.
The conduct of cases was swift and direct to the point. After our actual observation, the Labor Arbiter
debriefed us and asked about our experience and consequently, after giving thanks, we exited his
chambers

Problems:

1. One possible issue we noted upon entering the room was that since the office space was so
minimal and a lot of cases were being handled, case folders were piled up and scattered around
the area. This could cause loss or theft of case files.

2. In the acceptance of the complaint, we noticed that only the pro-forma document is being
required to be submitted. This could prompt persons to file complaints without a cause of action
to file complaints improperly increasing the court dockets.

3. As stated by the Labor Arbiter, the complainant may amend the complaint subsequent to its
submission or even at the date set for the submission of the position paper. This process could
be abused because some complainants could request for amendment of the complaint as a
 remedy, albeit a foul one, effectively prolonging the proceedings even though the non-
preparation or non-presentation of the position papers was due to his own fault.

Possible Solution:

1. Proper organization of the cases could be made by requesting for proper filing cabinets to avoid
possible loss or theft of case files.

2. Preliminary proof of a cause of action should also accompany the complaint in order to
determine whether a case could possibly prosper or not and to avoid complainants filing
without a cause of action.

3. The Labor Arbiter could view the complaint upon submission and make a proper determination
if amendment could be made immediately prior to its submission or implement personnel
within the office to assist complainants in drafting their complaints.