Summary Notes in Labor Law II of Azucena

Title I
POLICY AND DEFINITION
1. EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE RELATIONSHIP ESSENTIAL
The existence of employer-employee relationship, as explained in Book III, is
determined by the presence of the following elements, namely:
i. Selection and engagement of the employee;
ii. Payment of wages;
iii. Power to dismiss; and
iv. Power to control the employee's conduct. The fourth is the most
important element.
2. WHO ARE EMPLOYEES
The term 'employee,' furthermore, is not limited to those of a particular
employer. The Court in the case Angat River Irrigation System, et al. vs. Angat
River Workers' Union (PLUM), et al, has defined the term 'employer' as "one
who employs the services of others; one for whom employees work and who
pays their wages or salaries." Correlatively, an employee must be one who is
engaged in the service of another; who performs services for another; who
works for salary or wages.
3. LABOR ORGANIZATION AS EMPLOYER
a labor organization which operates a stevedoring and arrastre business under
contracts with various shipping firms, with an organizational structure,
operational systems and facilities similar to those of independent contractors
engaged in the same line of business, is already a business entity, hence, an
"employer" of laborers under its hire.
A labor union – considered an employee
4. LABOR DISPUTE
The test of whether a labor controversy comes within the definition of a labor
dispute depends on whether it involves or concerns terms, conditions of
employment or representation.
Even the question of employer-employee relationship can be considered a
"labor dispute."
As the case is indisputably linked with a labor dispute, jurisdiction belongs to
the labor tribunals.
5. LABOR DISPUTES AND REMEDIES: A SUMMARY
"Labor Dispute" includes any controversy or matter concerning terms or
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 the
proximate relation of employer and employee.
Kinds of Labor Disputes
A. Labor Standards Disputes:
i. Compensation — Examples: Underpayment of minimum wage;
stringent output quota; illegal pay deduction.
ii. Benefits — Examples: nonpayment of holiday pay, overtime pay, or
other benefits.
iii. Working conditions — Example: unrectified work hazards.
B. Labor Relations Disputes:
i. Organizational Right Dispute/ULP - Examples: coercion, restraint or
interference in unionization efforts; reprisal or discrimination due to
union activities; company unionism; ULP strike or lockout; union
members' complaint against union officers.
ii. Representation Disputes - Examples: Uncertainty as to which is the
majority union; determination of appropriate collective bargaining unit;
contest for recognition by different sets of officers of same union.
iii. Bargaining Disputes - Examples: Refusal to bargain (ULP); bargaining
in bad faith; bargaining deadlock; economic strike or lockout.
 iv. Contract Administration or Personnel Policy Disputes - Examples:
Noncompliance with CBA provision (ULP if gross noncompliance with
economic provisions); disregard of grievance machinery; nonobservance
or unwarranted use of union security clause; illegal or unreasonable
personnel management policies; violation of no-strike/no-lockout
agreement.
v. Employment Tenure Disputes - Examples: Nonregularization of
employees; nonabsorption of labor-only contracting staff; illegal
termination; non-issuance of employment contract.
Remedies in Labor Disputes
a. Grievance Procedure— in-house adjustment of complaint, problem, or
dispute following the steps prescribed in CBA or company policy.
b. Conciliation (literally means "to draw together") — a process where a
disinterested third party meets with management and labor, at their request
or otherwise, during a labor dispute or in collective bargaining conferences,
and, by cooling tempers, aids in reaching an agreement.
c. Mediation (literally means "to be in the middle") — a third party studies
each side of the dispute then makes proposal for the disputants to consider.
But a mediator, like a conciliator, cannot render an award or render a decision;
they do not adjudicate. Conciliation and mediation, usually combined, are
done primarily by "Conciliators-Mediators" of the National Conciliation and
Mediation Board.
d. Enforcement or compliance order — an act of the Secretary of Labor
(through Regional Director or other representatives) in the exercise of his
visitorial or administrative authority to enforce labor laws, policies, plans, or
programs, or rules and regulations.
e. Certification of bargaining representatives — determination of which
contending unions shall represent employees in collective bargaining. This is
handled by "Med-Arbiters" of DOLE Regional Offices after certification or
consent elections.
f. Arbitration — the submission of a dispute to an impartial person for
determination on the basis of evidence and arguments of the parties.
Arbitration, unlike conciliation or mediation, is adjudication and the
arbitrator's decision or award is enforcible upon the disputants. A dispute
pending in arbitration cannot be a ground for strike or lockout; to do so will be
a sabotage of the arbitration process.
"Voluntary" — if submission of the dispute is by agreement of the
parties and the arbitrators or panel of arbitrators is chosen by them.
Voluntary Arbitration is done, of course, by "voluntary arbitrators."
"Compulsory" — if submission of the dispute is by directive of law.
Unlike a conciliator or a mediator, an arbitrator is a judge; he makes
decisions and awards that the parties must accept. Compulsory
Arbitration is done primarily by "Labor Arbiters" of the NLRC.
NOTES:
In voluntary arbitration (VA), the award is final and unappealable,
except through certiorari.
In compulsory arbitration (CA), the decision is appealable to NLRC, then
to the Court of Appeals, thru special civil action of certiorari.
g. Assumption of jurisdiction — an authority vested by law to the Secretary of
Labor or the President to decide a dispute causing or likely to cause a strike or
lockout in an industry indispensable to national interest.
h. Certification to NLRC — an action of the Secretary of Labor empowering
NLRC to compulsorily arbitrate a dispute causing or likely to cause a strike or
lockout in an industry indispensable to the national interest.
i. Injunction — is an extraordinary remedy which is not favored in labor law. A
writ of injunction is issued to stop or restrain an actual or threatened
commission of prohibited or unlawful acts or to require the performance of an
act, which if not restrained or performed forthwith, may cause grave or
irreparable damage to any party or render ineffectual any decision in favor of
such party.
NOTE: The requirements or conditions to secure injunction are provided for in
Article 218(e) of the Labor Code.
j. Judicial Action — complaint filed with regular court in cases falling under its
jurisdiction. Examples: Offense against persons or property; criminal case of
ULP; illegal recruitment
k. Appeal—the process by which an order, decision, or award is elevated to a
higher authority, on specified grounds, so that the order, decision or award
may be modified or set aside and a new one issued. In instances where appeal
is allowed, the administrative remedies should be availed of, as a rule, before
the aggrieved party may go to court. This is the legal rule known as exhaustion
of administrative remedies.
Examples of appeal: an enforcement order of a Regional Director in labor
standard cases is appealable to the Secretary of Labor; a denial of union
registration in the Regional Office is appealable to the Bureau of Labor
Relations; a decision of a Labor Arbiter is appealable to the appropriate NLRC
division (but not to the Secretary of Labor).
l. Review by court — No law allows appeal from a decision of the Secretary of
Labor, or of the NLRC, or of a Voluntary Arbitrator. In these cases the petition
for certiorari, prohibition, or mandamus (Rule 65, Rules of Court) may be
lodged with the Supreme Court or the Court of Appeals. The grounds for
petition for certiorari and/or prohibition are abuse of discretion, or lack or
excess of jurisdiction.
m. Compromise agreement — in any stage of any of these settlement
processes, the labor dispute may be resolved by the parties through a
compromise agreement, provided that the agreement is freely entered into
and is not contrary to law, moral, or public policy. A compromise agreement is
also subject to approval of the authority before whom the case is pending.
Even a labor standards case can be settled through a compromise.

Title II
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION
1. NLRC: NATURE AND ORGANIZATION
Republic Act No. 6715 (March 21, 1989) introduced a number of amendments,
one of which declared that, "There shall be a National Labor Relations
Commission which shall be attached to the Department of Labor and
Employment for program coordination only.
Administrative Supervision Delegated to the DOLE Secretary
The limiting phrase "for program coordination only" in the first paragraph of
Article 213 did not hinder the issuance of Executive Order No. 204, dated May
5, 2005, by President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo. Premised on the presidential
power to "have control of all the executive departments, bureaus and offices"
under the constitution, the Executive Order delegated to the Secretary of
Labor "administrative supervision over the NLRC, its regional branches and all
its personnel.
R.A. No. 9347 is incorporated in Articles 213 through 216 as here worded. It
reiterates that the NLRC is attached to DOLE "solely" (repeated in the word
"only") for program and policy coordination. It likewise elevates to the Court-
of-Appeals level the qualifications, pay, perquisites, and rank of the NLRC
commissioners whose number is increased from 15 to 24 in eight divisions
instead of five.
REQUIRING CONFIRMATION BY COMMISSION ON APPOINTMENTS,
UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
The third paragraph of Article 215 states that the presidential appointment of
the NLRC commissioners is "subject to confirmation by the Commission on
Appointments." The requirement, ruled the Supreme Court, has no
constitutional basis. That portion of Article 215 is therefore null and void.
The Labor Arbiters shall have original and exclusive jurisdiction to hear and
decide.
i. Unfair labor practice cases;
ii. Termination disputes;
iii. 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;
iv. Claims for actual, moral, exemplary and other forms of damages arising
from the employer-employee relations;
v. Cases arising from any violation of Article 264 of this Code, including
questions involving the legality of strikes and lockouts;
vi. Except claims for Employees Compensation, Social Security, Medicare and
maternity benefits, all other claims, arising from employer-employee relations,
including those of persons in domestic or household service, involving an
amount exceeding five thousand pesos (P5,000.00) regardless of whether
accompanied with a claim for reinstatement.
vii. 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
well as employment termination of OFWs.
viii. Wage distortion disputes in unorganized establishments not voluntarily
settled by the parties pursuant to Republic Act No. 6727, as reflected in Article
124;
ix. Enforcement of compromise agreements when there is non-compliance by
any of the parties pursuant to Article 227 of the Labor Code, as amended; and
x. Other cases as may be provided by law.
2. COMPULSORY ARBITRATION BY LABOR ARBITERS
When the consent of one of the parties is enforced by statutory provisions, the
proceeding is referred to as compulsory arbitration. In labor cases, compulsory
arbitration is the process of settlement of labor disputes by a government
agency which has the authority to investigate and to make an award which is
binding on all the parties.
NLRC Appellate Proceedings Not Part of Arbitration
Under the Labor Code, it is the Labor Arbiter who is clothed with the authority
to conduct compulsory arbitration on cases involving termination disputes and
other cases under Article 217.
Proceedings on appeal before the National Labor Relations Commission cannot
be considered as part of the arbitration proceedings.
When the Labor Arbiter renders his decision, compulsory arbitration is deemed
terminated because by then the hearing and determination of the controversy
has ended.
Any appeal raised by an aggrieved party from the Labor Arbiter's decision is
already beyond the scope of arbitration since in the appeal stage, the National
Labor Relations Commission en banc merely reviews the Labor Arbiter's
decision for errors of fact or law and no longer duplicates the proceedings
before the Labor Arbiter.
Thus, the clause "pending final resolution of the case by arbitration" should be
understood to be limited only to the proceedings before the Labor Arbiter,
such that when the latter rendered his decision, the case was finally resolved
by arbitration.
Article 217 in relation to Articles 261 and 262
A voluntary arbitrator, under Article 261, has "original and exclusive
"jurisdiction over disputes concerning CBA implementation or personnel policy
enforcement.
In addition, under Article 262, the parties may submit to a voluntary arbitrator
(or panel) "all other disputes including unfair labor practices and bargaining
deadlocks.
In other words, a case under Article 217 may be lodged instead with a
voluntary arbitrator despite the seemingly "exclusive" jurisdiction of the labor
arbiter. This is because the law prefers, or gives primacy to, voluntary
arbitration (see Article 211) instead of compulsory arbitration. And this, in
turn, is the reason why the law (Article 261, last paragraph, and Article 217[c])
forbids a compulsory arbitrator from entertaining a dispute properly belonging
to the jurisdiction of a voluntary arbitrator.
3. LABOR ARBITER'S JURISDICTION, IN GENERAL
The cases a labor arbiter can hear and decide are employment-related.
Employment is the one element that runs through all the cases and disputes
enumerated in Article 217.
“In the case at bar, it is clear that there is no employer-employee relationship
between petitioner milling company and respondent union and/or its member
workers. Absent the jurisdictional requisite of an employer-employee
relationship between the company and the farm workers, the inevitable
conclusion is that die NLRC is without jurisdiction to hear and decide the case.”
(Hawaiian-Philippine Company vs. Gulmatico, et al., G.R. No. 106231,
November 16, 1994)
It is well settled in law and jurisprudence that where no employee-employer
relationship exists between the parties and no issue is involved which may be
resolved by reference to the Labor Code, other labor statutes, or any collective
bargaining agreement, it is the Regional Trial Court that has jurisdiction.
4. VENUE
All cases which Labor Arbiters have authority to hear and decide may be filed
in the Regional Arbitration Branch having jurisdiction over the workplace of the
complainant or petitioner.
Worker's Option
Suppose the workplace is in Cebu and the employer's place of business is also
in Cebu. But the laborers, who have complaints against their employer, reside
in Manila. Should they file their complaint in Cebu? or in Manila? READ CASE:
Dayag, et al. vs. Canizares, NLRC, and Young Construction, G.R. No. 124193,
March 6, 1998.
Even in cases where venue has been stipulated by the parties, the Court has
not hesitated to set aside the same if it would lead to a situation so grossly
inconvenient to one party as to virtually negate his claim. (Suplicio Lines, Inc.
vs. NRC, 254 SCRA 506 [1996].)

5. LABOR ARBITER'S JURISDICTION: U.L.P. CASES

Unfair labor practice, when committed by an employer, carries the effect of
anti-unionism. Every such case is within the original jurisdiction of a labor
arbiter, unless the parties agree to submit it to voluntary arbitration, pursuant
to Article 262.
The case is an unfair labor practice controversy within the original and
exclusive jurisdiction of the labor arbiters and the exclusive appellate
jurisdiction of the National Labor Relations Commission. The claim against the
BPI for allegedly inducing the CBTC to violate the existing collective bargaining
agreement in the process of renegotiation consists mainly of the civil aspect of
the unfair labor practice charge referred to under Article 247 of the Labor
Code.
Under Article 247 of the Code, "the civil aspects of all cases involving unfair
labor practices, which may include claims for damages and other affirmative
relief, shall be under the jurisdiction of the labor arbiters. (National Union of
Bank Employees vs. Judge Alfredo Lazaro, et al, G.R. No. 56431, January 19,
1988)
6. CBA VIOLATION AMOUNTING TO ULP
Violations of the collective bargaining agreement would be unfair labor
practice which falls under the jurisdiction of the Labor Arbiters and the
National Labor Relations Commission.
The preceding ruling is affected by changes made by R.A. 6715 in 1989. Only
gross violations of a collective bargaining agreement are considered unfair
labor practice, hence, within the jurisdiction of a labor arbiter.

7. LABOR ARBITER'S JURISDICTION: TERMINATION DISPUTES

Termination disputes or illegal dismissal complaints fall within the jurisdiction
of a labor arbiter, as stated in Article 217(2).
Is the dismissal of an employee an enforcement of personnel policy and,
therefore, should be brought to a voluntary arbitrator instead of a labor
arbiter?
No, not necessarily, thus ruled the Supreme Court in San Miguel Corp. vs. NLRC
(G.R. No. 108001, March 15, 1996):
“Consistent with the general rule under Article 217(a) of the Labor Code, the
Labor Arbiter properly has jurisdiction over the complaint filed by the
respondent union on February 25, 1991, for illegal dismissal and unfair labor
practice.”
Does a labor arbiter have jurisdiction over an illegal dismissal complaint filed
by a church minister? Is the principle of separation of church and state
applicable?
It does not matter that the employer here is a religious sect and that it was
organized not for profit because the Labor Code applies to all establishments
whether for profit or not.
The principle of separation of Church and State finds no application in the case
at bench. For the rationale of the principle is to delineate or demarcate the
boundaries between the two (2) institutions (church and state) to avoid
encroachments by one against the other.
Read Cases: GR No. 124382
Termination of Corporate Officer; Jurisdiction over Intra-Corporate Disputes
Transferred From SEC to RTC
The dismissal of a corporate officer by a corporate board is a corporate dispute
that should be brought to the regular courts. The jurisdiction of the Securities
and Exchange Commission over such case has been transferred to the courts
by the Securities Regulation Code (R.A. No. 8799), passed on July 19, 2000.
The controversy is intra-corporate. It revolves around the election of directors,
officers or managers of the bank, the relation between and among
stockholders, and between them and the corporation. These matters fall
within the jurisdiction of the Securities and Exchange Commission. (Dy, et al.
vs. NLRC, G.R. No. 68544, October 27, 1986)
A corporate officer's dismissal is always a corporate act, or an extracorporate
controversy and the nature is not altered by the reason or wisdom with which
the Board of Directors may have in taking such action.
Effect of Claim for Backwages, Benefits, or Damages
The fact that petitioner sought payment of his backwages, other benefits, as
well as moral and exemplary damages and attorney's fees in his complaint for
illegal dismissal will not operate to prevent the SEC from exercising its
jurisdiction under PD 902-A. While the affirmative reliefs and monetary claims
sought by petitioner in his complaint may, at first glance, mislead one into
placing the case under the jurisdiction of the Labor Arbiter, a closer
examination reveals that they are actually part of the perquisites of his elective
position; hence, intimately linked with his relations with the corporation.
Therefore, still SEC (now RTC) has jurisdiction of the case.
BETTER POLICY (Mainland Construction Co., etc. vs. Movilla, et al., G.R. No.
118088, November 23, 1995)
In order that the SEC (now RTC) can take cognizance of a case, the controversy
must pertain to any of the following relationships:
a) Between the corporation, partnership or association and the public.
b) Between the corporation, partnership or association and its stockholders,
partners, members or officers.
c) Between the corporation, partnership or association and the State as far as
its franchise, permit or license to operate is concerned.
d) Among the stockholders, partners or associates themselves.
Mainland case v. Tabang case
In Mainland, the complainant is a stockholder-employee while in Tabang he is
a stockholder-corporate officer. Both in Mainland and Tabang the complaints
include claims for unpaid wages and 13th month pay. In Mainland the Court
views it as a labor dispute, hence under NLRC jurisdiction. But in Tabang the
Court calls it an intra-corporate controversy, hence under SEC [now RTC]
jurisdiction; then the Court concludes: "The provision is broad and covers all
kinds of controversies between stockholders and corporation.”
When Bank Officer May be a Regular Employee (Prudential Bank and Trust Co.
vs. Reyes, G.R. No. 141093, February 20, 2001)

8. LABOR ARBITER'S JURISDICTION: MONEY CLAIMS

A money claim arising from employer-employee relations, excepting SSS /
ECC/Medicare claims, is within the jurisdiction of a labor arbiter:
a. If the claim, regardless of amount, is accompanied with a claim for
reinstatement.
b. If the claim, whether or not accompanied with a claim for reinstatement,
exceeds five thousand pesos (P5,000) per claimant. (If less than 5k and no
claim for reinstatement – Regional Director has Jurisdiction of the case)
NOTE:
1. Only Money Claims Not Arising from CBA - The Voluntary Arbitrator or
Panel of Voluntary Arbitrators will have original and exclusive jurisdiction over
money claims "arising from the interpretation or implementation of the
Collective Bargaining Agreement, and those arising from the interpretation or
enforcement of company personnel policies," under Article 261.
2. Money Claims Must Have Arisen From Employment - If an employee is
claiming a prize under an incentive program in his company, where should he
file his claim?
Pepsi-Cola case decided in 1982 vs. San Miguel case, decided in 1988
Pepsi-cola Bottling Co. vs. Martinez, G.R. No. Lr58877, March 15, 1982
The claim for said prize unquestionably arose from an employer-employee
relation and, therefore, falls within the coverage of Article 217 of the Labor
Code, as amended by PD 1691 which speaks of "all the claims arising from
employer-employee relations, unless expressly excluded by this Code.
Indeed, Tumala would not have qualified for the contest, much less won the
prize, if he was not an employee of the company at the time of the holding of
the contest.
San Miguel Corp. vs. NLRC, G.R. No. 80774, May 31, 1988
Here, SMC's innovation program was an invitation from SMC to its employees
to submit innovation proposals, and the SMC undertook to grant awards to
employees who accept such invitation and whose suggestions satisfied SMC's
standards and requirements of the Innovation Program, and which therefore
could be translated into substantial benefit to the corporation. Such
undertaking, though unilateral in origin, could nonetheless ripen into an
enforceable contractual (facio ut des) obligation on the part of SMC under
certain circumstances. Thus, whether or not an enforceable contract, albeit
implied and innonimate, had arisen between SMC and Rustico in this case, and
if so, whether or not it had been reached, are preeminently legal questions,
questions not to be resolved by referring to labor legislation and having
nothing to do with wages or their terms and conditions of employment, but
rather by having recourse to our law on contracts. Therefore, Jurisdiction of
Regular Court.
3. Money Claims of Coop Employees.
Section 8 of R.A. 6939 or the Cooperative Development Authority Law, the said
provisions apply to members, officers and directors of the cooperative involved
in disputes within a cooperative or between cooperatives. However, if not
member of the said cooperative, only an employee, therefore still the Labor
arbiter has jurisdiction of the money claims.
Jurisdiction over Claims for Damages
Money claims of workers over which the labor arbiter has original and
exclusive jurisdiction are comprehensive enough to include claims for moral
damages of a dismissed employee against his employer.
In such a case, die Labor Arbiter has jurisdiction to award to the dismissed
employee not only the reliefs specifically provided by labor laws, but also
moral and other forms of damages governed by the Civil Code.
Moral damages would be recoverable, for example, where the dismissal of the
employee was not only effected without authorized cause or due process for
which relief is granted by the Labor Code — but was attended by bad faith or
fraud or constituted an act oppressive to labor or was done in a manner
contrary to morals, good customs or public policy — for which the obtainable
relief is determined by the Civil Code.
Splitting of Actions Not Allowed
A contrary rule would result in the splitting of actions and the consequent
multiplication of suits. The damages suffered by the employee only form part
of the civil component of the injury arising from the unfair labor practice.
Under Article 247 of the Labor Code, the civil aspect of all cases which include
claims for damages and other affirmative relief shall be under the jurisdiction
of labor arbiters
9. LABOR ARBITER'S JURISDICTION: STRIKES AND LOCKOUTS
Questions relating to strikes or lockouts or any form of work stoppage
including incidents thereof under Article 264 fall within the labor arbiter's
jurisdiction.
But the power to issue injunction is lodged with an NLRC division, not a labor
arbiter. Moreover, "national interest" cases are handled differently. Article
263(g) empowers the DOLE Secretary or the President of the Republic to
assume jurisdiction or refer the case to the NLRC if the labor dispute or
impending strike or lockout involves an industry indispensable to national
interest.
Still another limit to the arbiter's jurisdiction is the jurisdiction of the regular
courts to hear and decide actions filed by third parties being affected by a
strike of people who are not their employees.
10. LABOR ARBITER'S JURISDICTION: OFW'S MONEY CLAIMS OR DISMISSAL
Section 10 of R.A. 8042, approved on June 7,1995, known as the Migrant
Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995, transfers from the POEA to Labor
Arbiters the original and exclusive jurisdiction to hear and decide claims arising
out of an 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.
11. LABOR ARBITER'S JURISDICTION: WAGE DISTORTION
A salary distortion case, referred to in Article 124, is resolved either through
the CBA mechanism or, in unorganized establishments, through the NCMB. If
the NCMB fails to resolve the dispute in ten days of conciliation conferences, it
shall be referred to the appropriate branch of the NLRC.
12. LABOR ARBITER'S JURISDICTION: DISPUTES OVER COMPROMISE
SETTLEMENTS
Because labor law policy encourages voluntary resolution of disputes,
compromise settlements are ordinarily final and binding upon the parties. But
a compromise settlement may itself become the subject of a dispute. If there is
noncompliance with the compromise agreement or if there is prima facie
evidence that the settlement was obtained through fraud misrepresentation,
or coercion, then, according to Article 227, the NLRC through the labor arbiter
may assume jurisdiction over such dispute.

13. SUBMISSION TO JURISDICTION

Soco vs. Mercantile Corp., G.R. No. 53364, March 16, 1987
14. IMMUNITY OF FOREIGN GOVERNMENTS
Immunity of the UN and Its Specialized Agencies
The United Nations Revolving Fund for Natural Resources Exploration
(UNRFNRE), which is a special fund and subsidiary organ of the United Nations,
enjoys diplomatic immunity and is beyond the jurisdiction of alabor arbiter.
"Our courts can only assume jurisdiction over private respondent if it expressly
waived its immunity which is not so in the case at bench.
15. EXECUTING MONEY CLAIMS AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT
Department of Agriculture vs. The National Labor Relations Commission, et al.,
G.R. No. 104269, November 11, 1993
16. LOCAL WATER DISTRICT
Hagonoy Water District vs. NLRC, G.R. No. 81490, August 31, 1988
17. REPUBLIC ACT NO. 6715 — RETROACTIVE?
In Inciong vs. NLRC (May 21, 1990), the Court refused to apply R.A. 6715
retroactively as regards immediate execution of an order to reinstate an
employee. Similarly, the Court did not give retroactive application to R.A. 6715
in the case of Lantion vs. NLRC and Araneta University on the question of full
backwages.

Chapter II
POWERS AND DUTIES
1. POWERS OF THE COMMISSION
a. Rule-Making Power
b. Power to Issue Compulsory Processes
c. Power to Investigate and Hear Disputes within Its Jurisdiction.
d. Contempt Power
e. Power to Conduct Ocular Inspection
f. Adjudicatory Power: Original - Each of the NLRC divisions has original
jurisdiction over petitions for injunction or temporary restraining order under
Article 218(e).
g. Adjudicatory Power: Appellate
The NLRC (i.e., a division) has exclusive appellate jurisdiction over all cases
decided by
(1) Labor arbiters and the
(2) DOLE regional director or hearing officers under Article 129.
The NLRC has no appellate jurisdiction over decisions rendered by
(1) Voluntary arbitrator, or
(2) Secretary of labor, or
(3) Bureau of labor relations director on cases appealed from the DOLE
regional offices.
The decisions of these three offices are appealable rather to the Court of
Appeals.
2. POWER TO ISSUE INJUNCTION OR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER
a. Injunction by Labor Arbiter
May a labor arbiter issue an injunction or a restraining order?
Under the Guidelines Governing Labor Relations (October 1987), this power
was reserved specifically to the Commission proper. The Rules of Procedure
(1990) of the NLRC, on the other hand, provided that the ancillary power of
issuing preliminary injunction or a restraining order "may be exercised by the
Labor Arbiters only as an incident to the cases pending before them in order
to preserve the rights of the parties during the pendency of the cases but
excluding labor disputes involving strike or lockout.
b. Requisites for Issuance of Restraining Order or Injunction
c. Conditions for Issuance Ex Parte of a Temporary Restraining Order
d. No Adequate Remedy
e. Cash Bond

f. scope of an injunction issued under the Act

g. Reception of Evidence
i. Twenty-day Life of TRO
j. Illustrative Case: Issuance of TRO
Ilaw at Buklod Ng Mangggawa vs. NLRC and San Miguel Corporation, G.R. No.
91980, June 27, 1991
H. Injunction from NLRC Not the Proper Remedy Against Employee's
Dismissal
Philippine Airlines, Inc. vs. NLRC, et al, G.R. No. 120567, March 20, 1998

Chapter II
POWERS AND DUTIES
1. PROCEEDINGS BEFORE LABOR ARBITER OR THE COMMISSION; TECHNICAL
RULES NOT APPLICABLE
a. Modicum of Admissibility; Substantial Evidence
b. Cardinal Rights in Quasi-Judicial Proceedings
Ang Tibay vs. CIR, 69 Phil. 335, February 27, 1940
There are cardinal primary rights which must be respected even in proceedings
of this character:
1) right to a hearing;
2) tribunal must consider the evidence presented;
3) decision must be supported by something (evidence);
4) supporting evidence must be substantial;
5) decision must be rendered on the evidence presented or at least
contained in the record and disclosed to the parties affected;
6) the body or CIR or any of its judges must act on his own independent
consideration of the law and facts, and not simply accept the views of
the subordinate in arriving at a decision; and
7) decide in such manner that parties can know the various issues
involved and the reason for the decision.
c. Verification
d. Party Respondent
e. Prohibited Pleadings and Motions
2. MANDATORY CONCILIATION AND MEDIATION CONFERENCE;
COMPROMISE ENCOURAGED
a. Nature of Proceedings.
b. Mandatory Conciliation and Mediation Conference
c. Effect of failure of conciliation and mediation
e. Non-appearance of parties
Binding Effect of Compromise Agreement (General Rubber and Footwear
Corporation vs. Drilon, G.R. No. 76988, January 31, 1989)
Quitclaim and Waivers (Olacao, et al. vs. NLRC, et al, G.R. No. 81390, August
29, 1989)
Final and Executory Judgment Cannot be Negotiated (Alba Patio de Makati vs.
NLRC, G.R No. 85393, September 5, 1991, quoting Philippine Apparel Workers
Union vs. NLRC, 125 SCRA 393 [1983].)
3. MOTION TO DISMISS
a. Motu Propio Dismissal of Complaint Based on Prescription
b. Res Judicata as Reason to Dismiss Complaint
c. No Dismissal of Complaint Despite Death
d. Revival or Refiling of Dismissed Case
4. SUBMISSION OF POSITION PAPERS AND REPLY
a. Determination of Necessity of Hearing or Clarificatory Conference
b. Role of the Labor Arbiter in Hearing and Clarificatory Conference
c. Non-appearance of Parties; Postponement of Hearing and Clarificatory
Conferences.
5. SUBMISSION OF THE CASE FOR DECISION
a. Position Papers as Basis of Decision
b. Lack of Verification, Not Fatal
c. Due Process: Opportunity To Be Heard
d. Inhibition
e. Due Process Includes Impartiality of the Appeal Body
6. SUSPENSION OF PROCEEDINGS
Rubberworld (Phil) Inc. vs. NLRC, et al., G.R. No. 126773, April 14, 1999
7. FILING AND SERVICE OF PLEADINGS AND DECISIONS
a. Service of Notice and Resolutions
b. Proof and Completeness of Service
8. RESOLUTION OF DOUBT IN LAW OR EVIDENCE
Nicario vs. NLRC, Mancao Supermarket, Inc., et al., G.R. No. 125340,
September 17, 1998
9. DECISION OF LABOR ARBITER
a. Contents of Decisions
b. No Motions for Reconsideration and Petitions for Relief from Judgment

APPEARANCES AND FEES

1. APPEARANCE OF NON-LAWYERS
2. CHANGE OF LAWYER
3. AUTHORITY TO BIND PARTY
4. ATTORNEY'S FEE
a. Negotiation Fee (Cebu Institute of Technology (CIT) vs. Ople, 160 SCRA
503, April 15, 1988)
b. For Services Rendered by Union Officers
c. Attorney's Fee Collectible Only from Union Funds

Chapter III
APPEAL
1. NO MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF LABOR ARBITER'S DECISION
If any of the grounds mentioned in this Article exists, the losing party may
appeal the Labor Arbiter's decision to the NLRC within ten (10) days from
receipt of the decision. No motion for reconsideration need be filed; in fact,
the NLRC Rules of 2005 does not allow a motion for reconsideration of a labor
arbiter's decision.
Final Decisions Cannot Be Amended
If not appealed on time, the Labor Arbiter's decision becomes final and cannot
be amended.
2. PERIOD TO APPEAL FROM LABOR ARBITER
a. Ten Calendar Days - A period of ten (10) days from receipt of any order is
granted to either or to both parties involved to appeal to the National Labor
Relations Commission.
b. Under the 2005 NLRC Rules of Procedure
Decisions, resolutions or orders of the Labor Arbiter shall be final and
executory unless appealed to the Commission by any or both parties within ten
(10) calendar days from receipt thereof; and in case of decisions, resolutions or
orders of the Regional Director of the Department of Labor and Employment
pursuant to Article 129 of the Labor Code, within five (5) calendar days from
receipt thereof. If the 10th or 5th day, as the case may be, falls on a Saturday,
Sunday or holiday, the last day to perfect the appeal shall be the first working
day following such Saturday, Sunday or holiday.
c. Date of Receipt by Mail
d. The failure to give copy of appeal to the appellee within ten (10) days is
not fatal if the appellee was not prejudiced by the delay in the service of said
copy of the appeal.
e. No motion or request for extension of the period within which to perfect
an appeal shall be allowed.
f. Periods Generally Mandatory

3. GROUNDS OF APPEAL
The appeal may be entertained only on any of the following grounds:
a) If there is prima facie evidence of abuse of discretion on the part of the
Labor Arbiter or Regional Director;
b) If the decision, resolution or order was secured through fraud or coercion,
including graft and corruption;
c) If made purely on questions of law; and/or
d) If serious errors in the findings of facts are raised which, if not corrected,
would cause grave or irreparable damage or injury to the appellant.
4. WHERE TO FILE APPEAL
The appeal shall be filed with the Regional Arbitration Branch or Regional
Office where the case was heard and decided.
5. REQUISITES FOR PERFECTION OF APPEAL
6. FRIVOLOUS APPEAL
Unverified Letter Not Proper Appeal (Garcia vs. NLRC, et al, G.R. No. 110494,
November 18, 1996)
7. PAYMENT OF APPEAL FEES
8. APPEAL BOND; FILING ON TIME; EXCEPTIONS
In case the decision of the Labor Arbiter or the Regional Director involves a
monetary award, an appeal by the employer may be perfected only upon the
posting of a bond, which shall either be in the form of cash deposit or surety
bond equivalent in amount to the monetary award, exclusive of damages and
attorney's fees.
a. A motion to reduce the amount of the bond may be entertained, but,
meantime, a bond in reasonable amount must be filed anyway.
b. No Bond, No Appeal Perfected (Borja Estate, et al vs. Spouses R.
Ballad and R. Ballad, G.R. No. 152550, June 8, 2005)
c. No Distinction Between "Filing" and "Perfection" of Appeal; Star Angel
Decision, Not "Venerable". (Computer Innovations Center, et al vs. NLRC,
G.R. No. 152410, June 29, 2005)
d. Amount of Appeal Bond Excludes Damages
e. Is Property Bond Acceptable?
Yes. In the case of UERM-Memorial Medical Center vs. NLRC, et al, G.R.
No. 110419, March 3, 1997.
f. Bond Accepted Conditionally
g. Supersedeas Bond
9. RECORDS AND TRANSMITTAL
10. EFFECT OF APPEAL OF ARBITER'S DECISION
a. Execution or Reinstatement Pending Appeal
b. Effect of Perfection of Appeal on Execution
11. FRIVOLOUS OR DILATORY APPEALS
12. APPEALS FROM DECISION OF OTHER AGENCIES
13. PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION
a. Issues on Appeal
b. Technical Rules not Binding
c. Evidence Submitted on Appeal to NLRC (Philippine Telegraph And
Telephone Corporation vs. National Labor Relations Commission, et al.,
G.R. No. 80600, March 21, 1990)
d. Conciliation/Mediation - Even when the case is elevated on appeal to
the NLRC, the Commission (i.e., the division handling the case) shall
exert all efforts towards the amicable settlement of a labor dispute. The
settlement of cases on appeal, to be valid and binding between the
parties, shall be made before the Commissioner or his authorized
representative.
e. Consultation
f. Dissenting Opinion
g. Inhibition

14. FORM OF DECISION, RESOLUTION AND ORDER

a. Reasoned Reversal
b. Extended Meaning of "Appeal" under Article 223; NLRC May Issue
Writ of Certiorari (Triad Security & Allied Services, Inc. et al. vs. Ortega,
et al, G.R. No. 160871, February 6, 2006)
15. FINALITY OF DECISION OF THE COMMISSION AND ENTRY OF JUDGMENT
16. MOTIONS FOR RECONSIDERATION
Motion for reconsideration of any decision, resolution or order of the
Commission shall not be entertained except when based on palpable or patent
errors; provided that the motion is under oath and filed within ten (10)
calendar days from receipt of decision, resolution or order, with proof of
service that a copy of the same has been furnished, within the reglementary
period, the adverse party, and provided further, that only one such motion
from the same party shall be entertained.
a. Party Who Failed to Appeal on Time From Decision of Labor Arbiter May Still
File Motion for Reconsideration of NLRC Decision (Sadol vs. Filipinos Kao, Inc.,
et al., G.R. No. 87530, June 13, 1990)
17. CERTIFIED CASES
18. APPEAL FROM THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION