JURISDICTION

AND RELIEFS
PREBAR LECTURE ON LABOR LAW

PROF. JM GOLANGCO
 Single Entry Approach (SEnA)
Labor Arbiter
National Labor Relations Commission
Judicial Review of Labor Rulings
Bureau of Labor Relations
Coverage National Conciliation and Mediation Board
DOLE Regional Directors
DOLE Secretary
Grievance Machinery
Voluntary Arbitration
 Prescription of Actions:
Money claims
Illegal dismissal
Coverage
Unfair Labor Practice
Offenses under the Labor Code
Illegal Recruitment
 SEnA

IRR of R.A. No. 10396

(Strengthening Conciliation –
Basis : DOLE Department
Mediation as a Voluntary
Order No. 151-16, Series of
Mode of Dispute Settlement
2016
for All Cases) amending
Article 228 of the LC
 Purpose of SEnA
To provide for a Speedy, Economical, and
Accessible mechanism to resolve labor problems
through Conciliation and Mediation.

The basic difference between mediation and

conciliation is based on the role played by the third
party who is selected by the parties seeking a
settlement, in consensus. In mediation, the
mediator acts as a facilitator who helps the parties
in agreeing. Conversely, in conciliation, the
conciliator is more like an interventionist who
provides probable solutions to the parties
concerned, to settle disputes.
 How does SEnA work?

Request
30 Day con- Settlement
for
med
Assistance

Referral to No
appropriate settlement
agency
 All issues arising from labor and employment shall be
subject of 30 day mandatory con-med. (Rule 1, Section
3)

EXCEPTIONS:
GENERAL
RULE:: • Notice of strikes/lockout or preventive
mediation cases with the NCMB;
• Issues arising from interpretation or
implementation of the CBA and those arising
from interpretation or enforcement of
company personnel policies which should be
processed through GM;
 3. Applications for exemptions from Wage Orders with the NWPC;

4. Issues involving violations of AEP, PEA authority, WCP,

NOT registration under D.O. No. 18-A, professional license issued by
PRC, TESDA accreditations;
COVERED BY
5. Violations of POEA rules involving serious offenses and offenses
SEnA: penalizing with cancellation of license, disciplinary actions,
complaints initiated by the POEA and against unlicensed agency;

6. Issues on occupational safety and health standards involving

imminent danger situations, dangerous occurrences/ disabling
injury; and absence of personal protective equipment.
Who may appear during SEnA
mandatory con-med?
All parties shall personally appear at all times (Rule IV,
Section 1).

SEnA being an administrative approach for a conciliated

settlement and not litigation, the parties shall represent
themselves and lawyers are discouraged from participating
in the conference except when they are requesting party or
employer.
 Is the rule absolute?

No, lawyers, agents or attorneys-in-fact appearing in behalf of any of the parties should
submit a SPA/ Board Resolution/ Secretary’s Certificate granting them authority to represent
and enter into a binding agreement for their principal in the following circumstances:
1. When the requesting/ responding party is already deployed abroad or out of the
country or employed/assigned/migrated to other region;
2. When the requesting/ responding party is a minor or physically incapacitated; or
3. When the requesting/ responding party died during the pendency of the RFA. (Rule IV.
Section 1).
 Can the 30 day con-med be pre-terminated?

Yes, the 30-day period may be pre-

terminated based on the following grounds:
Non-appearance of either the
requesting party or the responding
Request for referral to appropriate
Written withdrawal by the requesting party in two consecutive scheduled
DOLE office or agency by the
party which should be reflected in the conferences despite due notices
requesting party or both parties prior
minutes of the conference; subject to the provisions of Section 5
to the expiration of the 30 day period.
hereof, unless there is a reasonable
ground for their failure to appear; or
 What is a settlement of a show?

Where the settlement amount is reported to have been taken back or

confiscated by the responding party.

What happens when there is a settlement for a show?

Both parties shall be called for conference by the SEADO who

facilitated the settlement. The SEADO shall verify the report and
require the responding party to pay the requesting party the full
settlement amount with legal interest reckoned from the date of the
settlement should there be substantial proof that the settlement was
for a show.
 Remedy for non-compliance
with the settlement
agreement.
The SEADO shall exert best
effort to effect the agreement,
otherwise he/she will refer it
for enforcement. The
requesting party may file an
action for the enforcement
with the NLRC/POEA/ DOLE
Regional Office as the case
may be.
 Jurisdiction of the Labor Arbiter

Under Article 224 (formerly 217) of the Labor Code, the following
cases falls within the ORIGINAL AND EXCLUSIVE jurisdiction of the
Labor Arbiter:
1. UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE;
ULP refers to the acts enumerated under Articles 259 and 260 of the
Labor Code (formerly 248 and 249, respectively), e.g. interfering,
restraining an employees right to self organization, requiring an
employee to sign or comply with the terms of a yellow dog contract,
etc..
2. TERMINATION DISPUTES;
3. 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;
4. CLAIMS FOR ACTUAL, MORAL, EXEMPLARY AND OTHER FORMS OF
DAMAGES ARISING FROM EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE RELATIONS;
5. CASES ARISING FROM ANY VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 279 (formerly 264) OF
THIS CODE, INCLUDING QUESTIONS INVOLVING THE LEGALITY OF STRIKES
AND LOCKOUTS;
[Link] 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, INCLUDING AN AMOUNT EXCEEDING
PHP 5,000.00 REGARDLESS OF WHETHER ACCOMPANIED WITH CLAIM FOR
REINSTATEMENT;
 Additional cases which falls within the Labor Arbiter’s
Jurisdiction as provided by the NLRC Rules: Rule V Section 1

7. WAGE DISTORTION DISPUTES IN UNORGANIZED ESTABLISHMENTS NOT

VOLUNTARILY SETTLED BY THE PARTIES PURSUANT TO R.A. NO. 6727;
8. ENFORCEMENT OF COMPROMISE AGREEMENTS WHEN THERE IS NON-
COMPLIANCE BY ANY OF THE PARTIES PURSUANT TO ARTICLE 227 (NOW
233) OF THE LABOR CODE, AS AMENDED;
9. MONEY CLAIMS ARISING OUT OF EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE RELATIONSHIP
OR BY VIRTUE OF ANY LAW OR CONTRACT, INVOLVING OFWS, INCLUDING
CLAIMS FOR ACTUAL, MORAL, EXEMPLARY AND OTHER FORMS OF
DAMAGES AS PROVIDED BY SECTION 10 OF R.A. NO. 8042, AS AMENDED;
10. OTHER CASES AS MAY BE PROVIDED BY LAW.

E.G.

DIRECT AND INDIRECT CONTEMPT COMMITTED BEFORE THE LABOR

ARBITER (RULE IX, SECTIONS 1 AND 2 OF THE NLRC RULES)

The LA may summarily adjudge guilty of direct contempt any person committing any act of misbehavior
in the presence or so near the LA as to obstruct or interrupt the proceedings before the same including
disrespect toward said officials, offensive acts toward others, or refusal to be sworn or to answer as a
witness or to subscribe to an affidavit or deposition when lawfully required to do so.

Where such contempt has been committed against the LA, the charge may be filed with the RAB subject
to appeal before the Commission.
CASES IN JURISDICTION
 Indophil Textile Mills Inc. v. Adviento
G.R. No. 171212, August 4, 2014
Adviento worked as a civil engineer in Indophil. His job requires him to
perform, among other things, to conduct regular maintenance check on
Indophil’s facilities including its dye house area which is very hot and emits
foul chemical order. He recommended to the management to place roof
insulations to minimize the health hazards in the workplace and the
relocation of the engineering office because of its dent prone location but his
recommendation and complaints fell on deaf ears. Indophil likewise ignored
his and his co-workers health problems.
As a result his poor work environment, Adviento suffered recurring weakness
and dizziness and he was later on diagnosed to be suffering from Chronic
Poly Sinusitis and moderate, severe and persistent allergic rhinitis. He was
advised by his doctor to totally avoid house and textile dust as it will
transmute to health problems.
Aggrieved, Adviento filed two cases against Indophil.
First, he filed a complaint for illegal dismissal and for the payment of
backwages, separation pay, actual damages and attorney’s fees before
the LA.
Second, he filed an action for damages before the RTC on the ground
that he contracted such occupational disease by reason of the gross
negligence of Indophil to provide him with a safe, healthy and workable
environment.
 Issue:
Does the RTC have jurisdiction over the
complaint for damages?
 Ruling:

Yes, the SC ruled that the RTC has jurisdiction over the complaint for damages.

The SC applied the REASONABLE CAUSAL CONNECTION RULE, wherein if there is a

reasonable causal connection between the claim asserted and the E-E relations, then the
case is within the jurisdiction of the labor courts; and in the absence thereof, it is the
regular courts that have jurisdiction.
Such distinction is apt since it cannot be presumed that money claims of workers which do
not arise out of or in connection with their employer-employee relationship, and which
would therefore fall within the general jurisdiction of the regular courts of justice, were
intended by the legislative authority to be taken away from the jurisdiction of the courts
and lodged with Labor Arbiters on an exclusive basis.
True, the maintenance of a safe and healthy workplace is ordinarily a subject of labor cases.
More, the acts complained of appear to constitute matters involving employee-employer
relations since respondent used to be the Civil Engineer of petitioner. However, it should be
stressed that respondent’s claim for damages is specifically grounded on petitioner’s gross
negligence to provide a safe, healthy and workable environment for its employees −a case of
quasi-delict. This is easily ascertained from a plain and cursory reading of the Complaint, which
enumerates the acts and/or omissions of petitioner relative to the conditions in the workplace,
to wit:
1. Petitioner’s textile mills have excessive flying textile dust and waste in its operations and no
effort was exerted by petitioner to minimize or totally eradicate it;
2. Petitioner failed to provide adequate and sufficient dust suction facilities;
3. Textile machines are cleaned with air compressors aggravating the dusty work place;
4. Petitioner has no physician specializing in respiratory related illness considering it is a textile
company;
5. Petitioner has no device to detect the presence or density of dust which is airborne;
6. The chemical and color room are not equipped with proper safety chemical nose mask; and
7. The power and boiler plant emit too much smoke with solid particles blown to the air from the
smoke stack of the power plant emitting a brown rust color which engulfs the entire compound.
In addition, respondent alleged that despite his earnest efforts to suggest to management to
place roof insulation to minimize, if not, eradicate the health hazards attendant in the workplace,
the same was not heeded
Thus, to sustain a claim liability under quasi-delict, the following requisites must concur:
(a) damages suffered by the plaintiff; (b) fault or negligence of the defendant, or some
other person for whose acts he must respond; and (c) the connection of cause and effect
between the fault or negligence of the defendant and the damages incurred by the
plaintiff.
In the case at bar, respondent alleges that due to the continued and prolonged exposure
to textile dust seriously inimical to his health, he suffered work-contracted disease which
is now irreversible and incurable, and deprived him of job opportunities. Clearly, injury
and damages were allegedly suffered by respondent, an element of quasi-delict. Secondly,
the previous contract of employment between petitioner and respondent cannot be used
to counter the element of "no pre-existing contractual relation" since petitioner’s alleged
gross negligence in maintaining a hazardous work environment cannot be considered a
mere breach of such contract of employment, but falls squarely within the elements of
quasi-delict under Article 2176 of the Civil Code since the negligence is direct, substantive
and independent. Hence, when the cause of action is based on a quasi-delict or tort,
which has no reasonable causal connection with any of the claims provided for in Article
217, jurisdiction over the action is with the regular courts.
 Portillo v. Rudolf Leitz, Inc.
G.R. No. 196539, October 10, 2012

Portillo was employed by Rudolf Leitz, Inc. as a sales representative.

His contract of employment contained a GOODWILL CLAUSE which provides:
It remains understood and you agreed that, on the termination of your
employment by act of either of you or [Lietz Inc.], and for a period of 3 years
thereafter, you shall not engage directly or indirectly as employee, manager,
proprietor, or solicitor for yourself or others in a similar or competitive
business or the same character work which you were employed by [Lietz
Inc.] to do and perform. Should you breach this good will clause of this
contract, you shall pay [Lietz Inc.] as liquidated damages the amount of 100%
of your gross compensation over the last 12 months, it being agreed that the
this sum is a reasonable and just.
After 3 years, Portillo resigned from the company. She was reminded
of the goodwill clause. During her exit interview she declared that she
intends to engage in a rice dealership business.

Lietz later learned that Portillo had been hired by Lietz competitor, Ed
Keller Philippines. Meanwhile, when Portillo demanded the payment of
her last salary and commissions, Lietz gave her the run around, hence,
she filed a complaint for non-payment of salary, commissions, 13th
month pay, moral, exemplary and actual damages and attorney’s fees.
Lietz defense:
Portillos money claims should be offset against her liability to Leitz for
liquidated damages as she breached the ”Goodwill Clause” in the
employment contract when she became employed with Ed Keller
Philippines.
 Issue:
Did the NLRC have jurisdiction over Lietz claim for liquidated damages?
(did it err when it ruled to Portillo’s money claims may be offset against
respondents claim for liquidated damages? )
Ruling:
The SC ruled that the NLRC had no jurisdiction over the Lietz’s claim for
liquidated damages.

Applying the reasonable causal connection rule, the court explained

that while Portillos claim for unpaid salaries is a money claim that
arises out of or in connection with an employer-employee relationship,
Leitz Inc.’s claim against Portillo for violation of goodwill clause is a
money claim BASED ON AN ACT DONE AFTER THE CESSATION OF THE
EMPLOYMENT RELATIONSHIP.
As it is, petitioner does not ask for any relief under the Labor Code. It
merely seeks to recover damages based on the parties’ contract of
employment as redress for respondent’s breach thereof. Such cause of
action is within the realm of Civil Law, and jurisdiction over the
controversy belongs to the regular courts. More so must this be in the
present case, what with the reality that the stipulation refers to the
post employment relations of the parties.
The Court continued that the difference in the nature of the credits
that one has against the other, conversely, the nature of the debt one
owes another, which difference in turn results in the difference of the
forum where the different credits can be enforced, prevents the
application of compensation. Simply, the labor tribunal in an
employees claim for unpaid wages is without authority to allow the
compensation of such claims against the post employment claim of the
former employer for breach of a post employment condition. The labor
tribunal does not have jurisdiction over the civil case for breach of
contract.
 Okol v. Slimmers World International
G.R. No. 160146, December 11, 2009
Okol is the Vice President of Slimmers World. On July 28, 1999, she was
preventively suspended by Slimmers World. The suspension arose from
the seizure by the BOC of 7 elliptical machines and 7 treadmills
belonging to or consigned to Slimmers World. The shipment of the
equipment was placed under the names of Okol and 2 customs brokers
for a value of less than US$500, and they were seized for being
undervalued. Okol was eventually dismissed from employment.
Aggrieved, she filed a complaint for illegal suspension and dismissal,
unpaid commission, damages and attorney’s fee.
 Issue
Does the LA have jurisdiction over the complaint?

Ruling

The LA has no jurisdiction over the complaint. Okol was a corporate

officer of Slimmers World. Okol was not only the company’s vice
president, but also, a member of the board of directors. A corporate
officer’s dismissal is always a corporate act or intra-corporate controversy
which arises between a stockholder and a corporation. The question of
renumeration involving a stockholder and officer, not a mere employee,
is not a simple labor problem but a matter that comes within the area of
corporate affairs and management and is a corporate controversy.
 Problem:
X, Y and Z are employees of A Co. They availed of the company’s
retrenchment program. After their inclusion in the retrenchment
program, they were given their respective termination letters and
separation pay. In return, they executed ”receipt and release”
documents in favor of the company. Subsequently, they learned that
the company was never in financial distress and was engaged in hiring
new employees. Aggrieved, they filed a complaint for the declaration
of nullity of the retrenchment program and prayed for their
reinstatement and payment of backwages. They also filed an action for
damages before the RTC alleging the deception employed by the
company which led to their separation from the company. They also
sought the declaration of nullity of their collective termination and
recovery of actual, moral and exemplary damages and attorney’s fee.
 Issue:
Does the RTC have any jurisdiction on the action for damages filed by
X,Y and Z against A Co?

Answer:

No. X,Y and Z’s claim for damages was intertwined with their having
been separated from their employment without just cause and
consequently, had a reasonable causal connection with their employer-
employee relations with A Co.
 Problem
X was scolded by her employer in front of the store’s clients because
she was caught playing mobile legend while at work. She was later on
dismissed for willful disobedience. Aggrieved, she filed a complaint for
illegal dismissal against her employer before the LA and a separate
complaint for moral and exemplary damages against her employer
before the MeTC.

Does the MeTC have jurisdiction over the complaint for damages?
 Answer:
No, In the instant case, the NLRC has jurisdiction over private
respondent’s complaint for illegal dismissal and damages arising
therefrom. She cannot be allowed to file a separate or independent
civil action for damages where the alleged injury has a reasonable
connection to her termination from employment. Consequently, the
action for damages filed before the MeTC must be dismissed.
 Saudi Arabian Airlines v. Rebensencio
January 14, 2015
FACTS

Three flight attendants got pregnant and as a result they were forced to
resign from the airline company.

Aggrieved, the flight attendants filed a complaint for illegal dismissal

against Saudia, but the later moved to dismiss the complaint on the
ground of forum non-conveniens.
Does the LA have jurisdiction over the case?
Yes. The LA has jurisdiction over the case. The doctrine of forum non-
conveniens is not a ground for a motion to dismiss.
Contractual choice of law is not determinative of jurisdiction. It merely
determine what law is applicable in the case. The Court only applies
the doctrine in conflicts of law cases, where the court may refuse
imposition on its jurisdiction where it is not the most convenient, or
available forum and the parties are not precluded from seeking
remedies elsewhere
In this case, all the requisites for the exercise of jurisdiction are
present:
1. All the parties are based on the Philippines and all material
incidents transpired in its jurisdiction.
2. The Phil. Tribunals are in the position to make an intelligent
decision as to the law and facts; and
3. The Phil Tribunals can enforce its decision.
 Problem

Does the LA have any jurisdiction over the

validity of tax deductions imposed upon the
retirement benefit claimed by an employee?
 Answer
Yes. The issue of deduction for tax purposes is
intertwined with the main issue of whether the
benefits have been fully paid. It is, therefore, a
money claim arising from employer-employee
relationship, which falls within the jurisdiction of
the Labor Arbiter.
 Problem
S is an employee of X Co. X Co. allowed S to use the
company motorcycle to make deliveries to the company’s
clients. When X Co decided to close its business, it required
S to surrender the motorcycle in exchange for the release of
his separation pay. S refused and filed a complaint for non-
payment of separation pay before the Labor Arbiter. He
claims that X Co. has no right to withhold the payment of his
separation pay and that if X Co. wants to get his motorcycle
back it should file a separate action before the regular
courts. Rule on S’s contention.
 Answer
S is incorrect. The employer’s right to withhold benefits of an employee who
fails to pay for their accountabilities is supported by law.

The LA has jurisdiction over the issue on whether S lawfully withheld the return
of X Co’s property. Claims arising from an employer-employee relationship are
not limited to claims by an employee. Employers may also have claims against the
employee, which arise from the same relationship. As a general rule, therefore, a
claim only needs to be sufficiently connected to the labor issue raised and must
arise from an employer-employee relationship for the labor tribunals to have
jurisdiction.

In this case, the return of its properties in S’ possession by virtue of their status as
employees is an issue that must be resolved to determine whether benefits can be
released immediately. It is interwined with the parties’ E-E relationship, thus, it is
properly within the labor tribunals’ jurisdiction.
Mendoza v. Officers of the Manila Water
Employees Union et. al.
G.R. No. 201595, January 25, 2016

45
 FACTS
Mendoza is a member of MWEU. He was meted the penalty of
expulsion from the union for non payment of union dues.

Aggrieved, he filed a complaint for illegal termination from MWEU in

connection with the events relative to his non-payment of union dues,
that is, he was suspended and expelled from MWEU illegally as a result
of the denial of his right to appeal his case to the general membership
assembly in accordance with the union by laws; and unfair labor
practice in connection with the proposed CBA submitted by MWEU
leadership which contained provisions that discriminated against non-
MWEU members before the LA.

46
 FACTS
MWEU claims that the complaint should be dismissed for lack of
jurisdiction because it is an intra-union dispute which falls within the
jurisdiction of the BLR.

ISSUE

Who has jurisdiction over the complaint?

47
 RULING
The Labor Arbiter has jurisdiction over charges for ULP.
The Court held that as members of the governing board of
MWEU, respondents are presumed to know, observe, and
apply the union’s constitution and by- laws. Thus, their
repeated violations and disregard of Mendoza’s right to as a
union member – their inaction on his two appeals which
resulted in his suspension, disqualification from running as
MWEU Officer and subsequent expulsion without being
accorded the full benefits of due process- connote willfulness
and bad faith, a gross disregard of his rights. Xxx
48
Philippine Airlines, Inc. v. Airline Pilots
Association of the Philippines
(February 26, 2018)

49
 FACTS
• On 9 December 1997, ALPAP filed with the Department of
Labor and Employment (DOLE) a notice of strike alleging that
PAL committed unfair labor practice. On 23 December 1997,
the Secretary of DOLE (SOLE) assumed jurisdiction over the
dispute and thereafter prohibited ALPAP from staging a strike
and committing any act that could exacerbate the dispute.
Despite the prohibition by the SOLE, ALPAP staged a strike on
5 June 1998. A return-to-work order was issued by the SOLE
on 7 June 1998, but ALPAP defied the same and went on with
their strike. Consequently, on 1 June 1999, the SOLE issued a
resolution which declared the illegality of the strike staged by
ALPAP and the loss of employment status of the officers who
participated in the strike. The CA affirmed the SOLE’s
resolution. Thereafter, PAL filed before the LA a complaint for
damages against ALPAP, as well as some its officer and
members. 50
• PAL alleged, among others, that on 6 June 1998, the second day of the
illegal strike conducted by ALPAP, its striking pilots abandoned three (3)
PAL aircraft, as follows: (i) PR 730 bound for Paris, France, at Bangkok,
Thailand; (ii) PR 741 bound for Manila, at Bangkok, Thailand; and (iii) PR
104 bound for Manila, at San Francisco, California, U.S.A. Because of the
deliberate and malicious abandonment of the said flights, its passengers
were stranded, and rendered PAL liable for violation of its contract of
carriage. Thus, PAL was compelled to incur expenses by way of hotel
accommodations, meals for the stranded passengers, airport parking
fees, and other operational expenses. PAL further alleged that its
operation was crippled by the illegal strike resulting in several losses
from ticket refunds, extraordinary expenses to cope with the shutdown
situation, and lost income from the cancelled domestic and international
flights. PAL claimed that, as a result of the illegal strike, it suffered actual
damages in the amount of P731,078,988.59. PAL further prayed that it
be awarded P300,000,000.00 and P3,000,000.00 as exemplary damages
and attorney's fees, respectively.
51
Does the LA have jurisdiction over the
complaint?

52
 RULING
• Yes, labor tribunals have jurisdiction over actions for damages arising from a
labor strike.

• To determine whether a claim for damages under paragraph 4 of Article 217 is

properly cognizable by the labor arbiter, jurisprudence has evolved the
"reasonable connection rule" which essentially states that the claim for damages
must have reasonable causal connection with any of the claims provided for in
that article. A money claim by a worker against the employer or vice-versa is
within the exclusive jurisdiction of the labor arbiter only if there is a "reasonable
causal connection" between the claim asserted and employee-employer
relations. Only if there is such a connection with the other claims can the claim
for damages be considered as arising from employer-employee relations. Absent
such a link, the complaint will be cognizable by the regular courts.

53
 RULING
• In this case, PAL’s claim is not grounded on mere acts of quasi-delict.
The claimed damages arose from the illegal strike and acts committed
during the same which were in turn closely related and intertwined
with the respondents' allegations of unfair labor practices against PAL.
Since the loss and injury from which PAL seeks compensation have
reasonable causal connection with the alleged acts of unfair labor
practice, a claim provided for in Article 217 of the Labor Code, the
question of damages becomes a labor controversy and is therefore an
employment relationship dispute.

54
 Question
X was elected as the Executive Vice President/Chief Executive Officer of
U Corp by the latter’s board of directors in accordance with the
company’s by laws. Sometime in 2012, she was placed on preventive
suspension for anomalies in the corporation’s transactions pursuant to a
Board Resolution passed by the Board of Directors. She was barred from
reporting to the corporation during her preventive suspension, hence,
she filed a complaint for constructive dismissal against U Corp before the
LA. U Corp. moved for the dismissal of the complaint on the ground of
lack of jurisdiction since the complaint involves an intra-corporate
dispute.

Is the contention of U Corp correct?

55
 RULING
Yes. The LA has no jurisdiction over the complaint
because it involves an intra-corporate controversy
which falls within the jurisdiction of the regular
courts.

56
To determine if a case involves an intra-corporate controversy, the two tier test
should be applied: (a) relationship test and (b) the nature of controversy test.

A dispute is considered an intra-corporate controversy under the relationship test

when the relationship between or among the disagreeing parties is any one of the
following: (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, permits or license to operate is
concerned; and (d) among the stockholders, partners, or associates themselves.

One is considered a corporate officer only if two conditions are met: (1) the position
occupied was created by charter/by law, and (2) the officer was elected or
appointed by the corporation’s board of directors to occupy said position.

In this case, the position of executive vice president is one of the positions created
by U Corp.’s by laws, and he was also appointed by U Corp.’s board of directors.

57
Under the nature of the controversy test, the disagreement must not only be rooted
in the existence of an intra-corporate relationship, but must as well pertain to the
enforcement of the parties’ correlative rights and obligations under the corporation
code and the internal and intra-corporate regulatory rules of the corporation. If the
relationship and its incidents are merely incidental to the controversy or if there will
still be conflict even if the relationship does not exists, then no intra-corporate
controversy exists. In other words, the dismissal must relate to any of the
circumstances and incidents surrounding the parties’ intra-corporate relationship. To
be considered an intra-corporate controversy, the dismissal of a corporate officer must
have something to do with the duties and responsibilities attached to his/her
corporate office or performed in his/her official capacity.

Here, the dispute involved is intimately related to X’s role as Executive Vice President,
viz: she misappropriate company funds in her capacity as Executive Vice President,
and said act breached the trust and confidence reposed in her as VP.
58
Cacho v. Balagtas (Feb 7, 2018)
 Problem
Does the LA have any jurisdiction over an action
for collection of sum of money and damages filed
by an employer against its former employee for
the employee’s failure to reimburse his share in
the SSS contributions the employer remitted to
the SSS?
 Answer
Yes, claims for actual, moral, exemplary and other forms of
damages arising from employer-employee relationship are
under the jurisdiction of the Labor Arbiters or the National
Labor Relations Commission (NLRC); that since petitioners and
respondent were in an employer-employee relationship at the
time, the matter of SSS contributions was thus an integral part
of that relationship; and as a result, petitioners’ cause of
action for recovery of damages from respondent falls under
the jurisdiction of the Labor Arbiters, pursuant to Article 224
(formerly 217) (a)(4) of the Labor Code.
 Guillermo v. Uson
March 7, 2016
• Uson was deployed by Royal Class Venture, where Guillermo was President.
• Uson was illegal dismissed, aggrieved, he filed a complaint for illegal
dismissal before the LA
• Royal Class Ventures did not participate in the proceedings of the case
despite receipt of summons.
• The LA ruled in favor of Uson and ordered Royal Class to reinstatement him
and pay him backwages.
• Royal Class did not appeal
• When the writ returned unsatisfied, Uson filed a Motion for Alias Writ of
Execution and to Hold Directors and Guillermo liable for Satisfaction of
Judgment.
 Guillermo v. Uson
• The LA granted Uson’s Motion and ordered that the officers of
the corporation are jointly and solidarily liable for the
obligations of Uson.
• Guillermo filed, by way of special appearance, a Motion for
Reconsideration, contending, among other things, that the
decision sought to be enforced is already final and executory,
hence, it is immutable and unalterable.
Was the LA correct in piercing the
corporate veil even if the Decision has
already become final and executory?

63
Yes, the veil of corporate fiction can be pierced, and
responsible corporate directors and officers or even a
separate but related corporation, may be impleaded and held
answerable solidarily in a labor case, even after final
judgment and on execution, so long as it is established that
such persons have deliberately used the corporate vehicle to
unjustly evade the judgment obligation, or have resorted to
fraud, bad faith, or malice in doing so.
Who has jurisdiction over a third party claim?

Generally, the LA exercises jurisdiction over

the same except in certified case.
 Requirement for a Third Party Claim
If the property levied is claimed by any person other than the losing party, such
person may file a third party claim not later than five (5) days from the last day of
posting or publication of the notice of execution sale, otherwise the claim shall be
forever barred. Such third party claim must comply with the following
requirements:

1. An affidavit stating title to property or right to the possession thereof with

supporting evidence;
2. Payment of prevailing fee; and
3. In case the subject matter of the third party claim is a real property, posting a
refundable cash deposit of PhP20,000.00 for the payment of republication of
notice of auction sale.

66
Yupangco Cotton Mills Case

67
Yupangco is the owner of properties found in the compound and buildings of
Artex Development Corporation, which was allegedly erroneously levied by the
sheriff of the NLRC in a case where Yupangco is not a party.

As a consequence of said act, Yupangco filed a notice of third-party claim with

the Labor Arbiter on May 4, 1995.

It filed an Affidavit of Adverse Claim with the National Labor Relations

Commission (NLRC) on July 4, 1995, which was dismissed on August 30, 1995,
by the Labor Arbiter.

It filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition with the Regional Trial Court of
Manila, Branch 49, docketed as Civil Case No. 95-75628 on October 6, 1995. The
Regional Trial Court dismissed the case on October 11, 1995 for lack of merit.

It appealed to the NLRC the order of the Labor Arbiter dated August 13, 1995
which dismissed the appeal for lack of merit on December 8, 1995. 68
 It filed an original petition for mandatory injunction with
the NLRC on November 16, 1995. This was docketed as Case
No. NLRC-NCR-IC. 0000602-95. This case is still pending with
that Commission.

It filed an accion reinvindicatoria before the Regional Trial

Court

69
Thus, a third party may avail himself of the
following alternative remedies:
a) File a third party claim with the sheriff of the
Labor Arbiter, and
b) If the third party claim is denied, the third
party may appeal the denial to the NLRC.
Even if a third party claim was denied, a third party
may still file a proper action with a competent court
to recover ownership of the property illegally
seized by the sheriff.
70
 Ando v. Campo
-A complaint for illegal dismissal was filed against Premier Allied
and Contracting Services, where Pacquito Ando is the president.

-During the execution, the Sheriff levied a property registered in

the name of Pacquito Ando married to Erlinda Ando.

-Pacquito then filed a petition for prohibition with prayer for the
issuance of a TRO before the RTC.

-RTC denied the Petition on the ground of lack of jurisdiction.

 RULING
The RTC was correct, the proper remedy is a Third Party Claim before
the NLRC.

A property which belongs to the conjugal partnership and not the

corporation belongs to a Third Party. At the very least, the Court can
consider Pacquito’s wife as a third party. Hence, the correct remedy is
a Third Party Claim.

Further, Article 254 prohibits the issuance of a Permanent/Temporary

Injunction in any case growing out of a labor dispute.
 Problem
X was illegally dismissed from employment. He filed a complaint
before the LA who ruled in his favor and ordered the payment of his
backwages in the amount of PhP100,000.00. His employer no longer
appealed hence, the LA’s decision became final and executory.

1. When does the decision of the LA become final and executory?

2. When can the LA issue a Writ of Execution?
3. Can the Sheriff immediately levy the car of X’s employer?
4. What is the remedy of X if the employer refuses to let the sheriff go
inside its property to levy the latter’s properties to satisfy the judgment
award?
 Answers:
1. The Decision becomes final and executory 10 days from receipt of the
decision.
2. After the conduct of pre-execution conference.
3. No, a writ may be enforced in the following order:
a. Cash bond
b. Bank deposit
c. Surety bond
d. Personal property
e. Real property
4. He can file a motion for the issuance of a break open order before the
LA.
 Cases which falls within the Original and
Exclusive Jurisdiction of the NLRC

1. CERTIFIED CASES;
2. INJUNCTION CASES;
3. CONTEMPT CASES COMMITTED BEFORE THE
COMMISSION; AND
4. VERIFIED PETITION UNDER RULE XII OF THE NLRC RULES.
 CERTIFIED CASES
Basis: Article 278 (formerly 263) (g) of the LC which provides:

When, in his opinion, there exists a labor dispute causing or likely to cause a strike or
lockout in an industry indispensable to the national interest, the Secretary of Labor
and Employment may assume jurisdiction over the dispute and decide it or certify
the same to the Commission for compulsory arbitration. Such assumption or
certification shall have the effect of automatically enjoining the intended or
impending strike or lockout as specified in the assumption or certification order. If
one has already taken place at the time of assumption or certification, all striking or
locked out employees shall immediately return-to-work and the employer shall
immediately resume operations and readmit all workers under the same terms and
conditions prevailing before the strike or lockout. The Secretary of Labor and
Employment or the Commission may seek the assistance of law enforcement
agencies to ensure compliance with this provision as well as with such orders as he
may issue to enforce the same.
The SOLE can assume or certify a case provided
that the following conditions are present:
1. The labor dispute causes or is likely to cause a strike or lockout in an
INDUSTRY indispensable to the national interest;
2. If any of the conditions are present:
a. Both parties have requested the Secretary to assume jurisdiction
over the labor dispute OR
b. After a conference called by the Office of the Secretary on the
propriety of its issue issuance, motu proprio or upon a request or
petition by either parties to the labor dispute.
Effect of Assumption or Certification Order
• It shall automatically enjoin an impending strike or
lockout. If a strike or a lockout has already taken
place at the time of assumption, all striking or locked
out employees and other employees subject of the
notice of strike shall immediately return to work and
the employer shall immediately assume operations
and readmit all employees under the same terms and
conditions prevailing before the strike or lockout.
 Effect of Defiance on a Certification Order

Non-compliance with the certification order of the

Secretary of Labor and Employment shall be considered as an
illegal act committed in the course of the strike or lockout,
and shall authorize the Commission to enforce the same
under pain of immediate disciplinary action, including
dismissal or loss of employment status or payment by the
locking-out employer of backwages, damages and/or other
affirmative relief, even criminal prosecution against the liable
parties.

79
 INJUNCTION CASES
Injunction is defined as "a judicial writ, process or proceeding whereby a party is
ordered to do or refrain from doing a certain act.

The main action for injunction is distinct from the provisional or ancillary remedy of
preliminary injunction which cannot exist except only as part or an incident of an
independent action or proceeding. As a matter of course, in an action for
injunction, the auxiliary remedy of preliminary injunction, whether prohibitory or
mandatory, may issue. Under the law, the main action for injunction seeks a
judgment embodying a final injunction which is distinct from, and should not be
confused with, the provisional remedy of preliminary injunction, the sole object of
which is to preserve the status quo until the merits can be heard. A preliminary
injunction is granted at any stage of an action or proceeding prior to the judgment
or final order. It persists until it is dissolved or until the termination of the action
without the court issuing a final injunction
 PAL v. NLRC
March 20, 1998

Can the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), even

without a complaint for illegal dismissal tiled before the labor
arbiter, entertain an action for injunction and issue such writ
enjoining petitioner Philippine Airlines, Inc. from enforcing its
Orders of dismissal against private respondents, and ordering
petitioner to reinstate the private respondents to their
previous positions?
 Answer
NO. Generally, injunction is a preservative remedy for the protection of one's
substantive rights or interest. It is not a cause of action in itself but merely a
provisional remedy, an adjunct to a main suit. It is resorted to only when there
is a pressing necessity to avoid injurious consequences which cannot be
remedied under any standard of compensation. The application of the
injunctive writ rests upon the existence of an emergency or of a special reason
before the main case be regularly heard. The essential conditions for granting
such temporary injunctive relief are that the complaint alleges facts which
appear to be sufficient to constitute a proper basis for injunction and that on
the entire showing from the contending parties, the injunction is reasonably
necessary to protect the legal rights of the plaintiff pending the litigation.
Injunction is also a special equitable relief granted only in cases where there is
no plain, adequate and complete remedy at law
 It is an essential requirement that there must first be a labor dispute
between the contending parties before the labor arbiter. In the present
case, there is no labor dispute between the petitioner and private
respondents as there has yet been no complaint for illegal dismissal
filed with the labor arbiter by the private respondents against the
petitioner.
The petition for injunction directly filed before the NLRC is in reality an
action for illegal dismissal. This is clear from the allegations in the
petition which prays for; reinstatement of private respondents; award
of full backwages, moral and exemplary damages; and attorney's fees.
As such, the petition should have been filed with the labor arbiter
 Requisites for the issuance of an Injunction

(a) That prohibited or unlawful acts have been threatened and will be committed and
will be continued unless restrained, but no injunction or temporary restraining order
shall be issued on account of any threat, prohibited or unlawful act, except against the
person or persons, association or organization making the threat or committing the
prohibited or unlawful act or actually authorizing or ratifying the same after actual
knowledge thereof;
(b) That substantial and irreparable injury to petitioner's property will follow;
(c) That as to each item of relief to be granted, greater injury will be inflicted upon
the petitioner by the denial of relief than will be inflicted upon respondents by the
granting of relief;
(d) That petitioner has no adequate remedy at law; and
(e) That the public officers charged with the duty to protect petitioner's property
are unable or unwilling to furnish adequate protection.
84
 Additional Requisites for the Issuance of a
Temporary Restraining Order
If the petitioner shall also allege that, unless a
temporary restraining order shall be issued without
notice, a substantial and irreparable injury to
petitioner’s property will be unavoidable, such TRO
may be issued upon testimony under oath or by
affidavits of the petitioner’s witness, sufficient, if
sustained to justified the Commission.
 DIRECT AND INDIRECT CONTEMPT
DIRECT AND INDIRECT CONTEMPT COMMITTED
BEFORE THE COMMISSION (RULE IX, SECTIONS 1 AND
2 OF THE NLRC RULES)

You can no longer appeal the decision of the

commission.
Direct Contempt
Any disrespectful act or misbehavior committed near or in the
presence of the Chairman, or any member of the Commission or the LA
as to OBSTRUCT or INTERRUPT the proceedings before the same, which
includes the following acts:
1. Use of intemperate language during the proceedings before the
officials;
2. Offensive acts committed before the officials;
3. Refusal to be sworn or to answer as a witness; and other analogous
circumstances
Punishment for Direct Contempt
FINE OR IMPRISONMENT, OR BOTH.

If the offense is committed against the LA, the fine shall not
exceed PhP100 and the imprisonment shall not exceed 1 day.

If the offense is committed against the Commission, the fine

shall not exceed PhP500 and the imprisonment shall not
exceed 5 days.
Indirect Contempt
• Same grounds as in the ROC, but the NLRC added a few special provisions,
some of which are as follows:
1. Misbehavior of any NLRC officer or employee in the performance of his/her
official duties or in his/her official transactions;
2. Disobedience of, or resistance to, a lawful writ, order or decision issued by
the Commission or LA and other processes issued pursuant to said writ,
order or decision;
3. Assuming to be an attorney or representative of party without authority;
4. Use of derogatory, offensive, malicious or false statements in pleadings
submitted before the Commission or its RABs where the proceedings are
pending; xxx
Punishment for Indirect Contempt
If committed against the LA, PhP500 per every act of indirect contempt.

If committed against the omission, PhP 1k per every act of indirect

contempt.

If the contemptuous act constitutes a series of acts or continued

refusal/defiance to a lawful order, a writ or decision, the fine shall be
imposed for every contemptuous act or per day of continued refusal
 VERIFIED PETITION UNDER RULE XII OF THE
NLRC RULES
A party aggrieved by any order or resolution of the Labor
Arbiter including those issued during execution proceedings
may file a verified petition to annul or modify such order or
resolution. The petition may be accompanied by an
application for the issuance of a temporary restraining order
and/or writ of preliminary or permanent injunction to enjoin
the Labor Arbiter, or any person acting under his/her
authority, to desist from enforcing said resolution or order.
 Effect of the Filing of a Verified Petition

Upon filing of the petition, the proceedings before the Labor

Arbiter shall continue unless restrained. In case of execution, the
proceedings in accordance with Rule XI of these Rules shall not be
suspended, but no money collected or credit garnished may be
released or personal properties levied upon be sold by public auction
within fifteen (15) calendar days from the filing of the petition. If no
temporary restraining order or writ of preliminary injunction is issued
within the said period, the money collected or credit garnished shall
be released and/or the properties levied upon sold by public auction
and the proceeds of the sale applied, to satisfy the judgment.

92
 Cases which falls within the Appellate
Jurisdiction of the NLRC

1. ALL CASES DECIDED BY THE LABOR ARBITER

2. ALL CASES DECIDED BY THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR
PURSUANT TO ARTICLE 129 OF THE LABOR CODE
 Period to Appeal
From the Decision of the LA – 10 days
from receipt of the Decision

From the RD – 5 days from the receipt of

the Decision
 Requisites for perfection of an appeal
The appeal shall be:

(1) filed within the reglementary period provided in Section 1 of this Rule;
(2) verified by the appellant himself/herself in accordance with Section 4, Rule 7
of the Rules of Court, as amended;
(3) in the form of a memorandum of appeal which shall state the grounds relied
upon and the arguments in support thereof, the relief prayed for, and with a
statement of the date the appellant received the appealed decision, award or order;
(4) in three (3) legibly typewritten or printed copies; and
(5) accompanied by:
proof of payment of the required appeal fee and legal research fee,
posting of a cash or surety bond as provided in Section 6 of this Rule, and
proof of service upon the other parties.
(b) A mere notice of appeal without complying with the other requisites aforestated
shall not stop the running of the period for perfecting an appeal.
95
 Motion to Reduce Bond
No motion to reduce bond shall be entertained except on
meritorious grounds, and only upon the posting of a bond in a
reasonable amount in relation to the monetary award.

The mere filing of a motion to reduce bond without complying

with the requisites in the preceding paragraphs shall not stop the
running of the period to perfect an appeal.

96
 Perfection of an Appeal/
Motion to Reduce Bond

Quantum Foods Inc. v Esloyo and Magsila

December 9, 2015

97
 FACTS
- Esloyo and Magsila (complainants) filed a complaint for illegal dismissal
against Quantum Foods Inc. (QFI)

- LA ruled in favor of complainants a rendered a judgment award in the

amount of PhP1,817,856.71.

- QFI filed an appeal with Motion to Reduce Bond and cash bond in the
amount of PhP400,000.00.

- Complainant’s moved to dismiss the appeal for failure to attach a

Verification and Certification against forum shopping and post a bond
equivalent to the judgment award. 98
 FACTS
-QFIthereafter submitted its verification / Certification for Non-
Forum Shopping and a surety bond fully covering the monetary
judgment.

ISSUE
Did QFI perfect its appeal?

99
 RULING
- Verification of a pleading is a formal and not a
jurisdictional requirement intended to secure the
assurance that the matters alleged in a pleading are
true and correct. Thus, the court or tribunal may
simply order the correction of unverified pleadings
or act on them and waive strict compliance with the
rules.

100
Guidelines in considering
a Motion to Reduce Bond

101
The bond requirement on appeals involving monetary awards
has been and may be relaxed in meritorious cases. These cases
include instances which:
1. There was substantial compliance with the Rules;
2. Surrounding facts and circumstances constitute meritorious
grounds to reduce bond;
3. A liberal objective of resolving controversies on the merits;
or
4. The appellants at the very least, exhibited their willingness
and/or good faith by posting a partial bond during the
reglementary period.
102
 Grounds that would justify reduction of the
appeal bond
The merit may pertain to
1. The appellant’s lack of financial capacity to pay the full amount of
the bond; or
2. The merits of the main appeal (such as when there is a valid clam
that there was no illegal dismissal to justify the award, the
absence of an employer-employee relationship, prescription of
claims and other similarly valid issues that are raised on appeal.)

103
 What constitutes reasonable amount
in a motion to reduce bond?
Cash or surety bond equivalent to 10% of
the monetary award, shall provisionally
be deemed the reasonable amount of the
bond in the meantime that an appellant’s
motion is pending resolution by the
Commission.
104
Manila Mining Corporation v. Amor, April
20, 2015

105
Respondents are employees of Manila Mining
Corporation (MMC). Sometime on July 2001, MMC
was forced to temporarily suspend its operations for
six months. On December 2001, MMC extended the
temporary suspension of its operations. Adversely
affected by the suspension of MMC’s operations,
respondents filed a complaint for constructive
dismissal against MMC. The Labor Arbiter ruled in
favor of respondents ordering MMC to pay them
separation pay in the aggregate amount of
PhP2,138,190.02 and 10% attorney’s fee.
106
MMC appealed the decision to the NLRC,
posted a bond in the amount of PhP100,000.00
and a motion to reduce bond assailing financial
losses for their failure to post a bond
equivalent to the judgment award. The bond
(check ) was dishonored by the bank upon
presentment for payment and MMC only
replaced it 24 days before the resolution of the
appeal or 116 days when the decision of LA
became final and executory.

107
 GUIDELINES
(1) The motion to reduce bond should be based on
meritorious grounds and (2) a reasonable amount in
relation to the monetary award is posted by the
appellant, otherwise the filing of the motion to reduce
bond shall not stop the running of the period to perfect
the appeal.
(2) For purposes of compliance with condition no.2 , a
motion shall be accompanied by the posting of
provisional cash or surety bond equivalent to ten percent
of the monetary award subject to appeal, exclusive of
damages and attorney’s fees.
108
 GUIDELINES
(3) Compliance with the foregoing conditions shall suffice to suspend
the running of the 10 day reglementary period to perfect the appeal
from the LA’s decision.
(4) The NLRC retains the authority and duty resolve the motion to
reduce bond and determine the final amount of bond that shall be
posted by the appellant, still in accordance with the standards of
meritorious grounds and reasonable amount.
(5) In the event that NLRC denies the motion to reduce bond, or
requires a bond that exceeds the amount of the provisional bond, the
appellant shall be given a fresh period of ten days from notice of the
NLRC order within which to perfect the appeal by posting the
required appeal bond.
109
Quirante v. Oroport Cargo
Handling Services
December 2, 2015

110
 FACTS
Quirante was dismissed by Oroport Cargo Handling Services (Oroport)
for serious misconduct as she disposed without authority 5 trays of
eggs under her custody and unjustifiably withholding collections
related thereto. Aggrieved, she filed a complaint for illegal dismissal
against Oroport.

The Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of Quirante and awarded her full
backwages in the amount of PhP97,941.87.

111
Oroport appealed. However, in lieu of a cash
or surety bond, it submitted a Bank
Certification from Metrobank stating that
Oroport has a cash deposit of PhP97,941.28 in
a regular savings account and the said deposit
would be held by Metrobank pending the final
disposition of Quirante’s case.

112
 Did Oroport perfect its appeal?

RULING
No, the posting of a bond is indispensable to the
perfection of an appeal in cases involving
monetary awards from the decision of the LA. It is
mandatory and jurisdictional. Non-compliance
therewith renders the decision of the LA final and
executory
113
Smart Communications Inc. v.
Solidum
December 7, 2015

114
Solidum was the Department Head of Smart
Prepaid/ Buddy Activations under the Product
Marketing Group. In September 2005, he was
charged for dishonesty and placed in a 30 day
preventive suspension for having falsified Invoice
No. 2921 and other related documents.

In the course of its investigation, Smart found out

that Solidum falsified other documents, thus, it
extended Solidum’s preventive suspension for
another 20 days. 115
Aggrieved, Solidum filed a complaint for illegal
dismissal. The LA ruled in favor of Solidum.

Smart appealed to the NLRC, but its appeal

bond was not accompanied by a security
deposit or collateral.

116
 Did Smart perfect its appeal?
Yes, there was substantial compliance with the NLRC
rules. Substantial compliance may be allowed by the
NLRC especially in this case where the party which
submitted the bond is a multibillion company which
can easily pay whatever monetary award may be
adjudged against it. Even if there is no proof of
security deposit or collateral, the surety bond issued
by an accredited bonding company is adequate to
answer for the liability if any to be incurred by Smart.
117
Lepanto Consolidated Mining v. Icao
G.R. No. 196047, January 15, 2014

118
Icao was dismissed by Lepanto for Highgrading.

Aggrieved, he filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against

Lepanto. The LA ruled in his favor and ordered Lepanto to pay
Icao the amount of PhP345,879.45.

Lepanto appealed but instead of posting the required appeal

bond in the form of a cash or surety bond, it filed a
Consolidated Motion For Release of Cash Bond and to Apply
Bond Subject for Release as Payment for Appeal Bond. (
release of the bond posted in a separate case which decision
became final and executory)
119
 Did Lepanto perfect its appeal?
Yes, the Court ruled that Lepanto substantially complied with
the requirements of the rules.
1. Lepanto has an unencumbered amount of money in the
form of cash bond of PhP401,610.84 in the custody of the
NLRC. (which was filed in a separate case)
2. The cash bond is more than enough to cover the appeal
bond in the amount of PhP345,879.45 required in the
present case.

120
Did Lepanto perfect its appeal?

3. The ruling of the Court remains faithful to the spirit

behind the appeal bond requirement which is to ensure that
workers will receive the money awarded in their favor when
he employer’s appeal eventually fails. There was no
showing at all of any attempt on the part of petitioner to
evade the posting of the appeal bond. On the contrary,
petitioner’s move showed a willingness to comply with the
requirement. Hence, the welfare of Icao is adequately
protected.

121
 No Appeal from the Order of the Labor Arbiter
Arising from Execution Proceedings or other
incidents

Except by way of a petition filed in accordance with

this Rule, no appeal from the order or resolution issued
by the Labor Arbiter during the execution proceedings
or in relation to incidents other than a decision or
disposition of the case on the merits, shall be allowed
or acted upon by the Commission.
122
REINSTATEMENT PENDING APPEAL
BASIS
Paragraph 3 of Art. 229 (formerly 223) of the LC which provides that:
In any event, the decision of the LA 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
optional of the employer, merely reinstatement in the payroll. The
posting of the bond by the employer shall not stay the execution for
reinstatement provided herein.
REMEDY IF THE EMPLOYER REFUSES TO
REINSTATE
The LA shall immediately issue a writ of execution, even
pending appeal, directing the employer to immediately
reinstate the dismissed employee either physically or in
the payroll, and to pay the accrued salaries as a
consequence of such reinstatement at the rate
specified in the decision.
PROBLEM
X was dismissed by his employer for gross negligence. Aggrieved, X
filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against his employer. The LA
found that X was illegally dismissed and ordered his reinstatement and
the payment of his backwages in the amount of PhP500,000.00. X’s
employer appealed the LA’s decision and said Decision was reversed by
the NLRC.
Assuming that X was reinstated through payroll by his employer
pending its appeal before the NLRC, should X reimburse the salaries he
received pending appeal upon the reversal of the LA’s decision?
Answer
No,
Even if the order of reinstatement of the Labor Arbiter is reversed on
appeal, it is obligatory on the part of the employer to reinstate and pay the
wages of the dismissed employee during the period of appeal until reversal
by the higher court. On the other hand, if the employee has been reinstated
during the appeal period and such reinstatement order is reversed with
finality, the employee is not required to reimburse whatever salary he
received for he is entitled to such, more so if he actually rendered services
during the period.
In other words, a dismissed employee whose case was favorably decided by
the Labor Arbiter is entitled to receive wages pending appeal upon
reinstatement, which is immediately executory. Unless there is a restraining
order, it is ministerial upon the Labor Arbiter to implement the order of
reinstatement and it is mandatory on the employer to comply therewith
Problem
What if X’s employer failed to reinstate him because
the company temporarily ceased its operations as the
company’s premises was gutted by fire? Can it be held
liable to pay X’s accrued backwages?
Answer:
No. the employer’s failure to reinstate X was not due to the employer’s fault.
The SC in Garcia v. PAL teaches, that:
After the labor arbiter’s decision is reversed by a higher tribunal, the
employee may be barred from collecting the accrued wages, if it is shown
that the delay in enforcing the reinstatement pending appeal was without
fault on the part of the employer.
The test is two-fold: (1) there must be actual delay or the fact that the order
of reinstatement pending appeal was not executed prior to its reversal; and
(2) the delay must not be due to the employer’s unjustified act or omission.
If the delay is due to the employer’s unjustified refusal, the employer may
still be required to pay the salaries notwithstanding the reversal of the Labor
Arbiter’s decision.
 Problem
What is the effect of the reversal of the
NLRC’S decision finding an employee illegally
dismissed and ordering the payment of his
backwages on the execution proceedings of
the same case before the Labor Arbiter?
Answer
In case of total or partial reversal of judgment by the CA, the
execution proceedings shall be suspended in so far as the
reversal is concerned notwithstanding the pendency of a
motion for reconsideration on such judgment.

However, where the judgment of the CA is reversed by the SC,

the execution proceedings shall commence upon presentation
of certified true copy of the decision and entry of judgment.
Problem
What is the remedy of the employer if the executed
judgment ordering him to reinstate the employee and
pay the latter backwages was totally reversed by the SC
with finality, can he still recover the payments he made
to the employee?
Answer
Yes, Section 18 Rule XI of the NLRC rules provides that
where the executed judgement is totally or partially
reversed or annulled by the CA or SC with finality and
restitution is ordered, the LA shall, ON MOTION, issue
such order of restitution of the executed award, except
reinstatement wages paid pending appeal.
Case Flow in the NLRC
NLRC Issuance of
complaint Summons
section

Mandatory
Filing of conference
Decision of position
LA No
paper settlement
and reply Settlement is
reached
Appeal to the
Commission Case
dismissed

Decision of the Order Case is

Commission MR on MR final
133
Case Flow in the NLRC
Decision that has LA of
Pre -execution Judgment
become final and origin
Conference not satisfied
executory

Petition for Certiorari LA issues a Writ

will not stop the of Execution
proceedings

Any Orders during the execution

proceedings are not subject an
appeal. If aggrieved, avail Rule XII.

134
Where should the aggrieved party elevate his
case after the NLRC?
The aggrieved party may file a special civil action of certiorari
under Rule 65 of the ROC to the CA.

Period – file not later than 60 days from notice of judgment,

order or resolution. If a MR is timely filed, whether it is
required or not, the 60 day period shall be counted from
denial of such motion.
What is the proper remedy to appeal an
order or resolution of the CA?
The appeal from a final disposition of the CA is a
petition for review under Rule 45 of the ROC. The
reglementary period to appeal is 15 days from notice of
judgment or denial of MR.
CASES WHICH FALLS WITHIN THE ORIGINAL AND
EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION OF THE BUREAU OF
LABOR RELATIONS
1. INTRA – UNION DISPUTES
2. INTER-UNION DISPUTES
3. OTHER RELATED LABOR RELATIONS DISPUTES
INTER-UNION DISPUTE
• Refers to any conflict between and among legitimate
labor unions involving representation questions for
purpose of collective bargaining or to any other
conflict or dispute between legitimate labor unions.
INTRA-UNION DISPUTE
Refers to any conflict between and among union
members, including grievances arising from any
violation of the rights and conditions of membership,
violation of or disagreement over any provision of the
union’s constitution and by-laws, or disputes arising
from chartering or affiliation of union.
OTHER RELATED LABOR RELATIONS DISPUTES
This includes any conflict between a labor organization and
the employer or any individual, entity, or group that is not a
labor organization or worker’s association, including:
1. Cancellation of registration of unions and worker’s
association; and
2. Petition for interpleader
RULE ON VENUE
FOR UNIONS WITH INDEPENDENT REGISTRATION, LOCAL CHAPTERS,
WORKERS ASSOCIATION – DOLE RO WHICH ISSUED THEIR CERT OF
REGISTRATION

FOR FEDERATIONS, NATIONAL UNIONS, INDUSTRY UNIONS, TRADE

UNION CENTERS, CHARTERED LOCALS – RO OR BLR
RULE ON APPEAL
IF THE DECISION IS RENDERED BY THE MED-ARB OR RD, IT MAY BE
APPEALED TO THE BLR (10 DAYS)

IF THE DECISION IS RENDERED BY THE BLR, IT MAY APPEALED TO THE

OSEC (10 DAYS)
Problem
X won E’s union election as the union treasurer. W, a
member for the union protested the results of the
election contending that X is disqualified to become a
union officer because X has been previously convicted
of the crime of estafa. The union’s Comelec ignored
his protest. Aggrieved, W sought your legal advise.
What advise will you give X?
Answer
I will advise him to lodge a petition to nullify the election of X. He
should file his petition before the RO that issued the certificate of
registration of the union.
Problem
Does the Med-Arbiter have any jurisdiction to
determine the existence of employer-employee
relationship?
 Answer
Yes, From the foregoing, the BLR has the original and exclusive jurisdiction
to inter alia, decide all disputes, grievances or problems arising from or affecting
labor-management relations in all workplaces whether agricultural or non-
agricultural. Necessarily, in the exercise of this jurisdiction over labor-
management relations, the med-arbiter has the authority, original and
exclusive, to determine the existence of an employer-employee relationship
between the parties.
Apropos to the present case, once there is a determination as to the existence
of such a relationship, the med-arbiter can then decide the certification election
case.9 As the authority to determine the employer-employee relationship is
necessary and indispensable in the exercise of jurisdiction by the med-arbiter,
his finding thereon may only be reviewed and reversed by the Secretary of
Labor who exercises appellate jurisdiction under Article 259 of the Labor Code,
Art. 259. Appeal from certification election orders. — Any party to an election may appeal
the order or results of the election as determined by the Med-Arbiter directly to the
Secretary of Labor and Employment on the ground that the rules and regulations or parts
thereof established by the Secretary of Labor and Employment for the conduct of the
election have been violated. Such appeal shall be decided within fifteen (15) calendar days.
When as in this case Secretary Drilon of DOLE rendered a resolution dated December 15,
1989 reversing the order of the med-arbiter dated August 25, 1989 by declaring the
existence of an employer-employee relationship between the parties, such finding cannot
be rendered nugatory by a contrary finding of the labor arbiter in a separate dispute for
money claims between same parties.
It is absurd to suggest that the med-arbiter and Secretary of Labor cannot make their own
independent finding as to the sentence of such relationship and must have to rely and wait
for such a determination by the labor arbiter or NLRC in a separate proceeding. For then,
given a situation where there is no separate complaint filed with the labor arbiter, the
med-arbiter and/or the Secretary of Labor can never decide a certification election case or
any labor-management dispute properly brought before them as they have no authority to
determine the existence of an employer-employee relationship. Such a proposition is, to
say the least, anomalous.
 NATIONAL CONCILIATION AND MEDIATION
BOARD
THE NCMB is tasked to conciliate and mediate issues involving
notice of strikes and lockout. It can convert a notice of strike
or lockout to a preventive mediation case. BUT IT CANNOT
ADJUDICATE ANY LABOR DISPUTE.

NCMB’s other functions are as follows:

1. Formulate policies, programs, standards, procedures,
manuals of operation and guidelines pertaining to effective
mediation and conciliation of labor dispute;
2. Perform preventive mediation and conciliation functions;
3. Coordinate and maintain linkages with other sectors or institutions, and
other government authorities concerned with matters relative to the
prevention and settlement of labor disputes;
4. Formulate policies, plan, programs, standards, procedures manuals of
operation and guidelines pertaining to the promotion of cooperative and
non-adversarial schemes, grievance handling, voluntary arbitration and
other voluntary modes of dispute settlement;
5. Administer the voluntary arbitration program; maintain/update a list of
voluntary arbitrations; compile arbitration awards and decisions;
6. Provide counseling and preventive mediation assistance particularly in
the administration of collective agreements;
7. Monitor and exercise technical supervision over the Board programs
being implemented in the regional office.
What is covered by preventive mediation?
It covers potential labor cases which are the subject of formal or
informal request for conciliation and mediation assistance sought by
either or both parties or upon the initiative of the NCMB to avoid the
occurrence of actual labor disputes. The issues may either be
strikeable or non-strikeable.
CASES WHICH FALLS WITHIN THE ORIGINAL AND
EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION OF DOLE REGIONAL
DIRECTORS
1. Labor Standards enforcement cases (Art. 128 LC)
2. Small money claims arising from labor standard violations in the amount not
exceeding P5k and not accompanied by a claim for reinstatement (Art. 129);
3. Occupational safety and health violations;
4. Registration of unions and cancellation thereof, including cases filed against
union and other labor relations cases;
5. Complaints against private recruitment and placement agencies (PRPAs) for
local employment;
6. Cases submitted to them for voluntary arbitration in their capacity as Ex-
Officio Voluntary Arbitrators (EVAs) under DO No. 83-07 Series of 2007
7. Labor disputes involving kasambahays.
 DOLE Regional Office having
jurisdiction over the
workplace and undergoes 30
days SENA to settle dispute

No settlement is reached
Complaint
dismissed / case is
settled DOLE Regional/ Field Office will
conduct mandatory conference
for 30 days

DOLE RD issues a
compliance order
Decision of the Sec of Labor is Not satisfied with the
final and executory but in order order
to file a petition for certiorari
File an MR within 10 days
under rule 65, you should file an
MR
Appeal to the Sec of Labor
with 10 days 152
Where do you appeal the decision of the
Regional Director?
The Secretary of Labor and Employment
within 10 days from receipt of the order.
 DOLE SECRETARY’S VISITORIAL AND
ENFORCEMENT POWER
• The Secretary of Labor and Employment or his duly authorized representatives, including labor
regulation officers, shall have access to employer’s records and premises at any time of the day or
night whenever work is being undertaken therein, and the right to copy therefrom, to question
any employee and investigate any fact, condition or matter which may be necessary to determine
violations or which may aid in the enforcement of this Code and of any labor law, wage order or
rules and regulations issued pursuant thereto.

• Notwithstanding the provisions of Articles 129 and 217 of this Code to the contrary, and in cases
where the relationship of employer-employee still exists, the Secretary of Labor and Employment
or his duly authorized representatives shall have the power to issue compliance orders to give
effect to the labor standards provisions of this Code and other labor legislation based on the
findings of labor employment and enforcement officers or industrial safety engineers made in the
course of inspection. The Secretary or his duly authorized representatives shall issue writs of
execution to the appropriate authority for the enforcement of their orders, except in cases where
the employer contests the findings of the labor employment and enforcement officer and raises
issues supported by documentary proofs which were not considered in the course of inspection.
(As amended by Republic Act No. 7730, June 2, 1994).
The Secretary of Labor and Employment may likewise order stoppage of work
or suspension of operations of any unit or department of an establishment
when non-compliance with the law or implementing rules and regulations
poses grave and imminent danger to the health and safety of workers in the
workplace. Within twenty-four hours, a hearing shall be conducted to
determine whether an order for the stoppage of work or suspension of
operations shall be lifted or not. In case the violation is attributable to the
fault of the employer, he shall pay the employees concerned their salaries or
wages during the period of such stoppage of work or suspension of
operation.
OTHER VISITORIAL POWERS OF THE SEC OF
LABOR
ART 37 – VISITORIAL AND ENFORCEMENT POWER OVER RECRUITMENT AND
PLACEMENT OF WORKERS

ART 289- TO INQUIRE INTO THE FINANCIAL ACTIVITIES OF LEGITIMATE

LABOR ORGANIZATIONS AND EXAMINE THEIR BOOKS OR ACCOUNTS TO
DETERMINE COMPLIANCE WITH THE LAW.

(a complaint should be filed under oath duly supported by 20% of the total
membership of the LLO; it cannot be conducted during the 30 day freedom
period nor within 30 days immediately preceeding the date of the election of
union officials)
Cases which falls under the appellate
jurisdiction of the Secretary of Labor
1. Order issued by the Sec of Labor’s authorized representatives in the
exercise of its Visitorial and Enforcement power;
2. Denial of application for union registration or cancellation of union
registration originally rendered by the BLR;
3. Decisions of the Med-Arbiter in certification election cases;
4. Occupational Safety and Health Standards violations;
5. Decisions of the POEA on recruitment violations and other related cases,
and disciplinary actions;
6. Denial of the application for the issuance of a license, authority to
recruit, and authority to operate a branch office, or AEP issued by the RD
and orders for suspension/ cancellation of license of recruitment
agencies
 ARTICLE 128 ARTICLE 129
WHO EXERCISES POWER Sec of Labor or his authorized RD or any duly authorized DOLE
representative who may or may not hearing officer
be the RD
NATURE OF POWER Administrative; Vistiorial and Adjudicatory power on matters
Enforcement power exercise involving recovery of wages
through routine inspections of
establishments
EXISTENCE OF EE RELATIONSHIP Requires the existence of EE EE relationship not necessary since
relationship it should not include a claim for
reinstatement
HOW INITIATED Enforcement power is an offshoot Sworn complaint filed by interested
of visitorial power party
LIMITATION AS TO AMOUNT OF No limit Aggregate claim of each
CLAIM complainant does not exceed P5k
APPEAL The Sec of Labor within 10 days NLRC within 5 days
GRIEVANCE MACHINERY
WHAT IS A GRIEVANCE?

IT IS A DISPUTE OR CONTROVERSY BETWEEN THE EMPLOYER AND THE

COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGENT ARISING FROM THE INTERPRETATION
OR IMPLEMENTATION OF THEIR CBA AND/OR THOSE ARISING FROM
THE INTERPRETATION OR ENFORCEMENT OF COMPANY POLICIES.
GRIEVANCE MACHINERY
It is the mechanism for the adjustment of controversies or disputes
arising from the interpretation or enforcement of company personnel
policies.

ON THE OTHER HAND, GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE refers to the series of

formal steps that parties to a CBA agreed to take for the adjustment of
grievances or questions arising out of the interpretation of the CBA or
company personnel policies.
GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE
Grievances arising from interpretation or implementation of their CBA
and those arising from interpretation or enforcement of company
personnel policies, shall be submitted to the GM. The GM shall resolve
or settle the same with 7 cd from the date of its submission. Failure to
resolve the grievance within 7 days will result to the referral to the VA.
 WHAT REMEDY IS AVAILABLE TO A PARTY IF THE
OTHER REFUSES TO ATTEND OR APPEAR IN THE
GRIVEANCE HEARING?
A party guilty of non-attendance may be charged of ULP under Art 248 (g)
(old numbering) or Article 249 (C) of the LC.

• Art. 252. Meaning of duty to bargain collectively. The duty to bargain

collectively means the performance of a mutual obligation to meet and
convene promptly and expeditiously in good faith for the purpose of
negotiating an agreement with respect to wages, hours of work and all
other terms and conditions of employment including proposals for
adjusting any grievances or questions arising under such agreement and
executing a contract incorporating such agreements if requested by either
party but such duty does not compel any party to agree to a proposal or to
make any concession.
•
• The other party may, as a matter of choice, file a request for
preventive mediation or a notice of strike with the NCMB, or file a
ULP charge with the NLRC but not simultaneously. Art. 264 enjoins a
strike or lockout over dispute that has been certified or submitted to
compulsory or voluntary arbitration or during the pendency of cases
involving the same grounds for the strike or lockout.

Or the party may elevate the case to voluntary arbitration because it is

an unresolved grievance.
CASES WHICH FALLS WITH THE ORIGINAL AND
EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION OF THE VOLUNTARY
ARBITRATOR
1. All grievances arising from the implementation or interpretation of
the CBA;
2. Interpretation and enforcement of company personnel policies
which remains unresolved after exhaustion of the grievance procedure;
3. Wage distortion in an organized establishment;
4. Unresolved grievances arising from the interpretation and
implementation of the Productivity Incentive Programs under R.A. No.
6971;
5. Violation of CBA which are not gross in character
THE VA CAN ALSO HEAR THE FOLLOWING
CASES:
1. All other cases labor dispute upon agreement of the parties;
2. National interest cases.
CAN YOU FILE A MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION BEFORE THE VA?
Yes. In Teng v. Pahagac, the SC held that while Article 276 (formerly
275) makes the voluntary arbitration award final and executory after 10
days from receipt of the copy of the award or decision of the parties, a
motion for reconsideration may still be resorted to within the 10-day
period in line with the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative
remedies.
CAN YOU APPEAL THE DECISION OF THE VA?
YES.
The Decision of the VA may be appealed to the CA via a Petition for
Review under Rule 43 of the ROC.
But the period to appeal is only 10 days and not 15 days.
The Court explained that:
• Despite Rule 43 providing for a 15-day period to appeal, we rule that the Voluntary
Arbitrator's decision must be appealed before the Court of Appeals within 10 calendar
days from receipt of the decision as provided in the Labor Code.
• Appeal is a "statutory privilege," which may be exercised "only in the manner and in
accordance with the provisions of the law." "Perfection of an appeal within the
reglementary period is not only mandatory but also jurisdictional so that failure to do so
rendered the decision final and executory, and deprives the appellate court of
jurisdiction to alter the final judgment much less to entertain the appeal."
• We ruled that Article 262-A of the Labor Code allows the appeal of decisions rendered
by Voluntary Arbitrators. Statute provides that the Voluntary Arbitrator's decision
"shall be final and executory after ten (10) calendar days from receipt of the copy of
the award or decision by the parties." Being provided in the statute, this 10-day period
must be complied with; otherwise, no appellate court will have jurisdiction over the
appeal. This absurd situation occurs when the decision is appealed on the 11th to 15th
day from receipt as allowed under the Rules, but which decision, under the law, has
already become final and executory.
In Leyte IV Electric Cooperative Inc. v. LEYECO
IV Employees Union case
The CT also provides that a party may file a Petition for Certiorari under
Rule 65 of the ROC only in exceptional cases such as:
1. When public welfare and the advancement of public policy dictate
2. When the broader interest of justice so requires;
3. When the wits issued are null; or
4. When the questioned order amounts to an oppressive exercise of
judicial authority.
Problem
X, a union member, was dismissed from employment for violation of a
company personnel policy. More particularly,
Section 4 of the company’s personnel policy reads:
“Employees are prohibited from using their mobile phones while at
work.”
X contests his dismissal on the ground that the act he committed was
not covered by the prohibition in the company personnel policy
because he used his mobile phone after his work shift. On the other
hand, the company contends that the prohibition contemplates all the
time an employee is found in the workplace.
Problem
X’s grievance was unresolved by the GM, hence, the grievance was
referred to the VA. The VA ruled in favor of X and ordered his
reinstatement and payment of backwages. Aggrieved, the company
filed a MR to the VA. In the meantime, X filed a motion for the
issuance of a writ of execution for his immediate reinstatement,
pending the company’s MR on the ground that the company failed to
immediately reinstate him.
Was X correct?
 IS THE VA’S ORDER OF REINSTATEMENT
IMMEDIATELY EXECUTORY?
YES.
We answer the query in the affirmative. Although the timely filing of a motion for reconsideration or
of an appeal forestalls the finality of the decision or award of the Voluntary Arbitrator,3the
reinstatement aspect of the Voluntary Arbitrator's decision or award remains executory regardless
of the filing of such motion for reconsideration or appeal.

Art. 223. Appeal. -

xxxx

In any event, the decision of the Labor Arbiter reinstating a dismissed or separated employee, in
so far 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
provided herein, (bold underscoring supplied for emphasis)
• In authorizing execution pending appeal of the reinstatement aspect of a decision of a Labor Arbiter
reinstating a dismissed or separated employee, the law itself has laid down a compassionate policy
which, once more, vivifies and enhances the provisions of the 1987 Constitution on labor and the
working-man.
These duties and responsibilities of the State are imposed not so much to express sympathy for the
workingman as to forcefully and meaningfully underscore labor as a primary social and economic force,
which the Constitution also expressly affirms with equal intensity. Labor is an indispensable partner for
the nation's progress and stability.
If in ordinary civil actions execution of judgment pending appeal is authorized for reasons the
determination of which is merely left to the discretion of the judge, We find no plausible reason to
withhold it in cases of decisions reinstating dismissed or separated employees. In such cases, the poor
employees had been deprived of their only source of livelihood, their only means of support for their
family their lifeblood. To Us, this special circumstance is far better than any other which a judge, in his
sound discretion, may determine. In short, with respect to decisions reinstating employees, the law
itself has determined sufficiently overwhelming reason for its execution pending appeal. XXX
We also see no reason to obstruct the reinstatement decreed by the Voluntary Arbitrator, or to treat it
any less than the reinstatement that is ordered by the Labor Arbiter. Voluntary arbitration really takes
precedence over other dispute settlement devices. Such primacy of voluntary arbitration is mandated
by no less than the Philippine Constitution,37 and is ingrained as a policy objective of our labor
relations law. The reinstatement order by the Voluntary Arbitrator should have the same authority,
force and effect as that of the reinstatement order by the Labor Arbiter not only to encourage parties
to settle their disputes through this mode, but also, and more importantly, to enforce the
constitutional mandate to protect labor, to provide security of tenure, and to enhance social justice.
PROBLEM
X co and X union entered into a CBA. One of the provisions of the CBA reads:
“X co will grant the employees of X co hospital benefits in the amount of
PhP20,000.00 per employee per year, provided that, X co can reduce 5 to
10% of the benefit based on the sales performance of the company.”

During the 1st year of the CBA’s implementation, X co manifested that it

intends to reduce the hospital benefit because the company failed to meet
the sales target. It also manifested to the union that it was willing to discuss
the amount of benefits that it will be able to give to the employees.
Unsatisfied with the explanation of the company, X union filed a
complaint for ULP for non payment of hospital benefits before the LA.
X co. filed a motion to dismiss on the ground that LA has no jurisdiction
over the complaint.

Who has jurisdiction over the complaint?

Ruling
The VA has jurisdiction over the complaint because it involves the
interpretation and implementation of the CBA. There was no ULP
because there was no blatant refusal on the part of the company to
comply with the CBA, on the contrary, it intends to comply with its
provisions. And the dispute arose from the union’s interpretation of its
provision.
PRESCRIPTION OF ACTIONS
1. MONEY CLAIMS – 3 YEARS FROM THE TIME THE CAUSE OF ACTION
ACCRUED.
2. ILLEGAL DISMISSAL – 4 YEARS (BASED ON ARTICLE 1146 F THE CC)
3. ULP – 1 YEAR FROM ACCRUAL OF ULP
4. OFFENSES UNDER THE LC – 3 YEARS
5. ILLEGAL RECRUITMENT – SIMPLE ILLEGAL RECRUITMENT 5 YEARS,
ECONOMIC SABOTAGE – 20 YEARS
INTERRUPTION OF PRESCRIPTION OF ACTION
1. FILING OF AN ACTION;
2. WRITTEN EXTRAJUDICIAL DEMAND BY THE CREDITOR; OR
3. A WRITTEN ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF DEBT BY THE DEBTOR. IN IBC
V. PANGANIBAN THE SC RULED THAT ALTHOUGH THE
COMMENCEMENT OF A CIVIL ACTION STOPS THE RUNNING OF THE
STATUTE OF PRESCRIPTION OR LIMITATIONS, ITS DISMISSAL OR
VOLUNTARY ABANDONMENT BY PLAINTIFF LEAVES THE PARTIES IN
EXACTLY THE SAME POSITION AS THOUGH NO ACTION HAD BEEN
COMMENCED AT ALL.
 NLRC En Banc Resolution
No. 08-17
• While the dispute is under mandatory conciliation-
mediation, the prescriptive period for filing of the
complaint for compulsory arbitration shall be
interrupted upon the filing of the request for
assistance (RFA) under SENA. The prescriptive period
shall resume upon receipt by the requesting party of
the referral issued by the SEADO.

179
PROBLEM
X is a seafarer. He asked his manning agency to remit his salary for June
and July 1978 to his family, the latter, however, failed to remit the
same. Upon his repatriation in August 1979, he followed up the status
of his remittance to the company which assured him of its timely
remittance. On September 1979, he was redeployed again for a a three
year contract. Upon his repatriation in 1981, he then made another
follow up with the manning agency, again who reassured him that ir
will send the money to his family. After one month, X was redeployed
again for a two year contract of employment. In 1983, he finally wrote
the company a written demand for the remittance of his salary to his
family.
The company denied the claim on the ground of prescription.
Aggrieved, X filed a complaint for non-payment of wages before the LA.
Has the action prescribed?
Answer
No. X’s cause of action only accrued on the denial of his claim.

It is settled jurisprudence that a cause of action has three elements, to

wit, (1) a right in favor of the plaintiff by whatever means and under
whatever law it arises or is created; (2) an obligation on the part of the
named defendant to respect or not to violate such right; and (3) an act
or omission on the part of such defendant violative of the right of the
plaintiff or constituting a breach of the obligation of the defendant to
the plaintiff .
The facts in the case at bar are similar to the Baliwag case. Petitioner
repeatedly demanded payment from respondent Maersk but similar to
the actuations of Baliwag Transit in the above cited case, respondent
Maersk warded off these demands by saying that it would look into the
matter until years passed by. In October 1993, Serrano finally demanded
in writing payment of the unsent money orders. Then and only then was
the claim categorically denied by respondent A.P. Moller in its letter
dated November 22, 1993. Following the Baliwag Transit ruling,
petitioner's cause of action accrued only upon respondent A.P. Moller's
definite denial of his claim in November 1993. Having filed his action
five (5) months thereafter or in April 1994, we hold that it was filed
within the three-year (3) prescriptive period provided in Article 291 of
the Labor Code.
PROBLEM
X is an employee of R Co. In February 1991, he was forced to
resign from the company because of certain anomalies
imputed against him. Prior to his resignation, the company
failed to pay him his salary for five months or from September
–December 1990 and January 1991, thus, on the day of his
resignation, he demanded from R Co. the payment of his
unpaid salaries. R Co. promised him that it will pay his salary
after it has satisfied the claims of the rank-and-file employees
of the company. Thus, he waited for the release of his unpaid
salaries, and made several follow ups.
It was only in 1996 that he made a formal demand to
the company which in turn denied this claim on the
ground of prescription.

Has the action prescribed?

 ANSWER: NO
The doctrine of PROMISSORY ESTOPPEL IS APPLICABLE TO THE CASE.
which is a recognized exception to the three-year prescriptive period
enunciated in Article 291 of the Labor Code.
Promissory estoppel may arise from the making of a promise, even
though without consideration, if it was intended that the promise should
be relied upon, as in fact it was relied upon, and if a refusal to enforce it
would virtually sanction the perpetration of fraud or would result in
other injustice. Promissory estoppel presupposes the existence of a
promise on the part of one against whom estoppel is claimed. The
promise must be plain and unambiguous and sufficiently specific so that
the court can understand the obligation assumed and enforce the
promise according to its terms.
In order to make out a claim of promissory estoppel, a party bears the burden of
establishing the following elements: (1) a promise was reasonably expected to
induce action or forbearance; (2) such promise did, in fact, induce such action or
forbearance; and (3) the party suffered detriment as a result.

All the requisites of promissory estoppel are present in this case. Jones relied on
the promise of ASI that he would be paid as soon as the claims of all the rank-
and-file employees had been paid. If not for this promise that he had held on to
until the time of his death, we see no reason why he would delay filing the
complaint before the LA. Thus, we find ample justification not to follow the
prescriptive period imposed under Article 291 of the Labor Code. Great injustice
will be committed if we will brush aside the employee’s claims on a mere
technicality, especially when it was petitioner’s own action that prevented
respondent from interposing the claims within the required period.
PROBLEM
In 1995, X was dismissed by Y Co. Aggrieved, in 1996, he filed a
complaint for illegal dismissal against the latter before the LA. During
the mandatory conference before the LA, X withdrew his complaint on
the basis of the promise of Y Co. to admit him back to work and
increase his salary. Unfortunately, Y Co. never made good its promise.
In 1997, X was able to secure another gainful employment. In 2000, X
again filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against Y. Co. Y Co. moved
for the dismissal of the complaint on the ground of prescription.
Has the action prescribed?
ANSWER
YES.
The petitioners contend that the period when they filed a labor case on May 14, 1998
but withdrawn on March 22, 1999 should be excluded from the computation of the
four-year prescriptive period for illegal dismissal cases. However, the Court had
already ruled that the prescriptive period continues even after the withdrawal of the
case as though no action has been filed at all. The applicability of Article 1155 of the
Civil Code in labor cases was upheld in the case of Intercontinental Broadcasting
Corporation v. Panganiban38 where the Court held that “although the commencement
of a civil action stops the running of the statute of prescription or limitations, its
dismissal or voluntary abandonment by plaintiff leaves the parties in exactly the same
position as though no action had been commenced at all.
In like manner, while the filing of the complaint for illegal dismissal before the LA
interrupted the running of the prescriptive period, its voluntary withdrawal left
the petitioners in exactly the same position as though no complaint had been
filed at all. The withdrawal of their complaint effectively erased the tolling of the
reglementary period.
 Thank you!!!

THE END GOOD LUCK!