Neon True C.
Beldia
Labor Relations
Module 3
I.
The instances where the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) exercises
exclusive original jurisdiction are:
The National Labor Relations exercises two kinds of jurisdiction as follows:
1. Exclusive Original jurisdiction.
a. Injunction in ordinary labor disputes to enjoin or restrain any actual or
threatened commission of any or all prohibited or unlawful acts or to require
the performance of a particular act in any labor dispute which, if not
restrained or performed forthwith, may cause grave or irreparable damage
to any party.
b. Injunction in strikes or lockouts under Article 264 of the Labor Code.
c. Certified labor disputes causing or likely to cause a strike or lockout in an
industry indispensable to the national interest, certified to it by the Secretary
of Labor and Employment for compulsory arbitration.
d. Contempt cases.
2. Exclusive appellate jurisdiction.
a. All cases decided by the Labor Arbiters including contempt cases.
b. Cases decided by the DOLE Regional Directors or his duly authorized
Hearing Officers (under Article 129) involving recovery of wages, simple
money claims and other benefits not exceeding P5,000 and not
accompanied by claim for reinstatement.
II.
The differences between the jurisdiction of the Labor Arbiter and that of the National
Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) are the following:
a. The NLRC exercises exclusive appellate jurisdiction on all cases decided by
the Labor Arbiters. The NLRC, however, does not have original jurisdiction on
the cases over which Labor Arbiters have original and exclusive jurisdiction.
Lastly, the NLRC cannot exercise its appellate jurisdiction if a claim does not
fall within the exclusive original jurisdiction of the Labor Arbiter.
III.
Enumerate the powers of the NLRC:
The powers of the NLRC are as follows:
1. The NLRC can promulgate its own rules and regulations regarding matters such
as Governing disposition of cases before any of its division/regional offices.
Rules pertaining to its internal functions and other rules that is necessary to
carry out the purposes of the Labor Code;
2. Power to issue compulsory processes
3. Power to investigate matters and hear disputes within its jurisdiction
4. Contempt power
5. Ocular Inspection; and
6. Power to issue injunctions and restraining orders.
Digest:
FROILAN M. BERGONIO, et al. v. SOUTH EAST ASIAN AIRLINES and IRENE
DORNIER
FACTS:
Petitioners filed before the Labor Arbitera complaint for illegal dismissal and
illegal suspension with prayer for reinstatement against respondents South East Asian
Airlines (SEAIR) and Irene Dornier as SEAIR’s President. The LA found the petitioners
illegally dismissed and ordered the respondents, among others, to immediately
reinstate the petitioners with full backwages.
Petitioners filed before the LA a Motion for issuance of Writ of Execution for
their immediate reinstatement. During the scheduled pre-execution conference, the
respondents manifested their option to reinstate the petitioners in the payroll. The
payroll reinstatement, however, did not materialize. Thus, the petitioners filed before
the LA a manifestation for their immediate reinstatement. The respondents filed an
opposition claiming that the relationship between them and the petitioners had already
been strained because of the petitioners’ threatening text messages, thus precluding
the latter’s reinstatement. LA granted the petitioners’ motion and issued a writ of
execution but was returned unsatisfied. In response, the petitioners filed a motion for
re-computation of accrued wages and a motion for execution of the re-computed
amount which was granted.
The respondents appealed with the NLRC. The NLRC dismissed the
respondents’ appeal for non-perfection. The NLRC likewise denied the respondents’
MR, prompting the respondents to file before the CA a petition for certiorari. The CA
rendered its decision (on the illegal dismissal ruling of the LA) partly granting the
respondents’ petition, declaring the dismissal valid and awarded the petitioners
P30,000.00 as nominal damages for the respondents’ failure to observe due process.
Accordingly, the CA reversed, for grave abuse of discretion, the NLRC’s July 16, 2008
decision that affirmed the LA’s order to release the garnished amount.
ISSUE: Whether or not the LA’s order for reinstatement of an illegally dismissed
employee immediately executory even during pendency of the employer’s appeal from
the decision.
HELD:
Yes. Under paragraph 3, Article 223 of the Labor Code, the LA’s order for the
reinstatement of an employee found illegally dismissed is immediately executory even
during pendency of the employer’s appeal from the decision. Under this provision, the
employer must reinstate the employee – either by physically admitting him under the
conditions prevailing prior to his dismissal, and paying his wages; or, at the employer’s
option, merely reinstating the employee in the payroll until the decision is reversed by
the higher court. Failure of the employer to comply with the reinstatement order, by
exercising the options in the alternative, renders him liable to pay the employee’s
salaries.
Otherwise stated, a dismissed employee whose case was favorably decided by
the LA is entitled to receive wages pending appeal upon reinstatement, which
reinstatement is immediately executory. Unless the appellate tribunal issues a
restraining order, the LA is duty bound to implement the order of reinstatement and
the employer has no option but to comply with it. Moreover, and equally worth
emphasizing, is that an order of reinstatement issued by the LA is self-executory, i.e.,
the dismissed employee need not even apply for and the LA need not even issue a
writ of execution to trigger the employer’s duty to reinstate the dismissed employee.
WENPHIL v. ABING
FACTS:
Private respondent Mallare had an altercation with a co-employee. The following day,
the Operations Manager served them memorandum of suspension and in the
afternoon of that same day, Mallare was dismissed from work. Labor Arbiter dismissed
Mallare’s petition for unfair labor practice for lack of merit. NLRC reversed the decision
and ordered the reinstatement of Mallare with full backwages of one year without
qualification and deduction.
ISSUE:
Whether or not an employee dismissed for just cause but without due process be
reinstated to work.
RULING:
Yes.
An order of reinstatement is immediately executory even pending appeal. The
employer has the obligation to reinstate and pay the wages of the dismissed employee
during the period of appeal until reversal by the higher court.
Under Article 223 of the Labor Code, the decision of the Labor Arbiter reinstating a
dismissed or separated employee, insofar as the reinstatement aspect is concerned,
shall immediately be executory, even pending appeal. The employee shall either be
admitted back to work under the same terms and conditions prevailing prior to his
dismissal or separation, or at the option of the employer, merely reinstated in the
payroll. The posting of a bond by the employer shall not stay the execution for
reinstatement.
The basic requirement of due proves is that which hears before it condemns, proceeds
upon inquiry and renders judgment only after trial. The dismissal of an employee must
be for a just cause and after due process. Petitioner committed an infraction of the
second requirement thus it must be imposed a sanction for its failure to give a formal
notice and conduct an investigation as required by law before dismissing Mallare from
employment. Petitioner must indemnify the dismissed employee which depends on
the facts of each case and the gravity of the omission committed by the employer.
Where the private respondent appears to be of violent temper, caused trouble during
office hours and even defied his supervisors as they tried to pacify him, he should not
be rewarded with re-employment and backwages. The dismissal of the respondent
should be maintained.
ST. MARTIN FUNERAL HOMES vs.NLRC
FACTS:
Private respondent alleges that he started working as Operations Manager of
petitioner St. Martin Funeral Home on February 6, 1995. However, there was no
contract of employment executed between him and petitioner nor was his name
included in the semi-monthly payroll. On January 22, 1996, he was dismissed from his
employment for allegedly misappropriating P38,000.00. Petitioner on the other hand
claims that private respondent was not its employee but only the uncle of
AmelitaMalabed, the owner of petitioner St.Martin’s Funeral Home and in January
1996, the mother of Amelita passed away, so the latter took over the management of
the business. Amelita made some changes in the business operation and private
respondent and his wife were no longer allowed to participate in the management
thereof. As a consequence, the latter filed a complaint charging that petitioner had
illegally terminated his employment. The labor arbiter rendered a decision in favor of
petitioner declaring that no employer-employee relationship existed between the
parties and therefore his office had no jurisdiction over the case.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the decision of the NLRC are appealable to the Court of
Appeals.
HELD:
The Court is of the considered opinion that ever since appeals from the NLRC
to the SC were eliminated, the legislative intendment was that the special civil action
for certiorari was and still is the proper vehicle for judicial review of decisions of the
NLRC. The use of the word appeal in relation thereto and in the instances we have
noted could have been a lapsus plumae because appeals by certiorari and the original
action for certiorari are both modes of judicial review addressed to the appellate courts.
The important distinction between them, however, and with which the Court is
particularly concerned here is that the special civil action for certiorari is within the
concurrent original jurisdiction of this Court and the Court of Appeals; whereas to
indulge in the assumption that appeals by certiorari to the SC are allowed would not
subserve, but would subvert, the intention of the Congress as expressed in the
sponsorship speech on Senate Bill No. 1495.
Therefore, all references in the amended Section 9 of B.P No. 129 to supposed
appeals from the NLRC to the Supreme Court are interpreted and hereby declared to
mean and refer to petitions for certiorari under Rule65. Consequently, all such petitions
should henceforth be initially filed in the Court of Appeals in strict observance of the
doctrine on the hierarchy of courts as the appropriate forum for the relief desired.
IV.
Provide at least three (3) examples each of inter and intra union disputes.
Inter- Union disputes includes:
1. Conduct or nullification of election of union and workers’ association officers
2. Deregistration of Collective Bargaining Agreements;
3. Validity/invalidity of union affiliation or disaffiliation;
Intra – Union disputes include:
1. Violations of or disagreements over any provision of the constitution and by-
laws of union or workers’ association;
2. Disagreements over chartering or registration of labor organizations or the
registration of Collective Bargaining Agreements;
3. Violations of the rights and conditions of membership in a union or workers’
association;
V.
Distinguish conciliation, mediation and arbitration.
In Mediation, Conciliation and Arbitration the disputes are submitted to a third
party neutral for the latter to come up with a decision.
In conciliation the conciliator relies on his persuasive expertise and takes an
active role in assisting parties in a calm manner and facilitating such with much lesser
tension on both parties. It is the process where a disinterested 3rd 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.
On the other hand, a meditation happens when a 3rd party studies each side
of the dispute then makes proposals for the disputants to consider. However, a
mediator cannot make an award nor render a decision. As the mediator would only
give an advise to the parties or offer a solution or alternative to the dispute in order for
the parties to settle.
Arbitration, on the other hand, is the submission of a dispute to an impartial
person for determination, based on evidence and arguments of the parties. The
arbiter’s decision or award is enforceable upon the disputants. It may be voluntary, by
agreement, or compulsory which is required by statutory provision.
VI.
Enumerate the cases within the appellate jurisdiction of the Secretary of Labor
and Employment.
The following cases are within the appellate jurisdiction of the Secretary of
Labor and Employment:
1. Appeal from and adverse decision of the POEA;
2. Appeal the order or results of a certification election on the ground that the
Rules and Regulations or parts thereof established by the Secretary of Labor
and Employment for the conduct of election have been violated;
3. A review of cancellation proceedings decided by the Bureau of Labor Relations
in the exercise of its exclusive and original jurisdiction.
VII.
Enumerate the cases within the original and exclusive jurisdiction of the
Voluntary Arbitrators to the exclusion of the NLRC and DOLE.
The following cases are within the original and exclusive jurisdiction of the voluntary
arbitrators to the exclusion of the NLRC and the DOLE:
1. All unresolved grievances arising from the implementation or interpretation of
the Collective Bargaining Agreement and interpretation or enforcement of
company personnel policies.
2. Wage distortion issues arising from the application of any wage orders in
organized establishments
3. Those arising from interpretation and implementation of productivity incentive
programs under R.A. 6971
4. Violations of CBA provisions which are not gross in character are no longer
treated as Unfair Labor Practice and shall be resolved as grievances under the
CBA.
5. Any other labor disputes upon agreement by the parties including Unfair Labor
Practice and bargaining deadlock.
VIII.
Distinguish voluntary arbitration from compulsory arbitration.
In a voluntary arbitration the parties here referes the dispute to the arbitrators,
on the other hand, in compulsory arbitration the process of settlement of labor disputes
are done by a government agency. In voluntary arbitration, there is appointment of the
Arbitrator by the parties, while in compulsory arbitration, the arbitrator is the Labor
Arbiter or NLRC.
IX.
The following are the prescriptive period for the following actions:
a. For Criminal Offenses penalized under the Labor Code and its IRR, 3years from
the date of commission or discovery thereof;
b. For Unfair Labor Practice, 1 year from accrual of such ULP; otherwise forever
barred;
c. For Money Claims, as a general rule it has 3 years from the time the cause of
action accrued; otherwise forever barred. Except only in cases of Promissory
Estoppel.
d. For all money claims accruing prior to the effectivity of the Labor Code, within
1 year from the date of effectivity, in accordance with IRR; otherwise, they shall
forever be barred;
e. For Illegal Dismissal, 4 years. It commences to run from the date of formal
dismissal;
f. For Claim for Backwages, 4 years – Since an award of backwages is merely
consequent to a declaration of illegal dismissal;
g. For Workmen’s Compensation claims accruing prior to the effectivity of the LC
and between Nov. 1, 1974-Dec. 31, 1974, Dec. 31, 1974 shall be filed not later
than Mar. 31, 1975 before the appropriate regional offices of the DOLE;
h. For Reinstatement, 4 years;
i. For Simple Illegal Recruitment, 5 years;
j. For Syndicated or Large-scale Illegal Recruitment, 20 years;
k. For Union Funds, after 3 years from the date of submission of the annual
financial report to the DOLE or from the date the same should have been
submitted as required by law, whichever comes earlier;
l. For SSS Violations, 20 years from the time of delinquency is known or the
assessment is made or the benefit accrues as the case may be.;
m. For GSIS Benefits, As a general rule, 4 years. If the benefit involves Life and
retirement benefits, it is Imprescriptible;
n. For Employee’s Compensation Claims, 3 years from accrual of cause of action.
X.
The National Labor Relations Commission exercises two (2) kinds of
jurisdiction:
1. Exclusive original jurisdiction; and
2. exclusive appellate jurisdiction.
1. Exclusive Original jurisdiction.
a. Injunction in ordinary labor disputes to enjoin or restrain any actual or
threatened commission of any or all prohibited or unlawful acts or to
require the performance of a particular act in any labor dispute which,
if not restrained or performed forthwith, may cause grave or irreparable
damage to any party.
b. Injunction in strikes or lockouts under Article 264 of the Labor Code.
c. Certified labor disputes causing or likely to cause a strike or lockout in
an industry indispensable to the national interest, certified to it by the
Secretary of Labor and Employment for compulsory arbitration.
d. Contempt cases.
2. Exclusive appellate jurisdiction.
a. All cases decided by the Labor Arbiters including contempt cases.
b. Cases decided by the DOLE Regional Directors or his duly authorized
Hearing Officers (under Article 129) involving recovery of wages,
simple money claims and other benefits not exceeding P5,000 and not
accompanied by claim for reinstatement.
c.
