PRELIMINARY CONSIDERATIONS ON PROCEDURE AND JUSRISDICTION

Existence of ER-EE Relationship Existence of ER-EE relationship between the party-litigants, or a reasonable causal connection to

such relationship is a jurisdictional prerequisite for the exercise of jurisdiction over a labor dispute by the Labor Arbiters or any other labor tribunals.

The cause of action must arise from the ER-EE relationship – Even if there is ER-EE relationship if the cause of action did not arise or was not incurred in connection with ER-EE relationship, Labor Arbiters have no jurisdiction thereover. Actions between ERs and EEs where the ER-EE relationship is merely incidental is within the original jurisdiction of the regular courts.

Reasonable Causal Connection Rule Under this rule, if there is a reasonable causal connection between the claim asserted and the ER-EE

relations, then the case is within the jurisdiction of the labor courts. In the absence of such nexus, it is the regular courts that have jurisdiction

Power to determine existence of ER-EE relationship1) Labor Arbiters and the NLRC2) DOLE Secretary and the DOLE Regional Directors - in the exercise of their visitorial and

enforcement power under Art. 128(b) of the LC to the exclusion of the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC (People’s Broadcasting Service vs The Secretary of DOLE)

3) Med-Arbiter – necessary and indispensable in the exercise of his jurisdiction (MY San Biscuits, Inc. vs Laguesma)

4) Social Security Commission – involving issues of coverage of owners-members of respondent Cooperative under the SSS (RP vs Asiapro Cooperative)

In cases filed by OFWs, Labor Arbiters may exercise jurisdiction even absent the ER-EE relationship (Santiago vs CF Sharp Management, Inc.)

A seafarer who has already signed a POEA-approved employment contract but was not deployed overseas and, therefore, there is no ER-EE relationship, may file his monetary claims case with the Labor Arbiter

Absent ER-EE relationship, Labor Arbiters have jurisdiction even if the case is filed by the heirs of the OFW (Medline Management, Inc. vs Roslinda)

As heirs, the wife and son of Juliano Roslinda, the deceased OFW, have the personality to file the claim for death compensation, reimbursement of medical expenses, damages and attorney’s fees before the Labor Arbiter of the NLRC

Labor disputes not subject to Barangay Conciliation Requiring conciliation of labor disputes before the barangay courts would defeat the very

salutary purposes of the law. Instead of simplifying labor proceedings designed at expeditious settlement or referral to the proper courts or offices to decide them finally, the conciliation of the issues before the Barangay Lupong Tagapayapa would only duplicate the conciliation proceedings and unduly delay the disposition of labor cases

A. LABOR ARBITER

1. JURISDICTION

a) Original and exclusive (to hear and decide cases involving all workers, whether agricultural or non-agricultural):

1

1) Art. 124 of the Labor Code, as amended by RA 6727: disputes involving legislated wage increases and wage distortion in unorganized establishments not voluntarily settled by the parties

2) Art. 128(b) of the Labor Code, as amended by RA 7730: contested cases under the exception clause

The Secretary or his duly authorized representatives shall issue writs of execution to the appropriate authority for the enforcement of their orders, except in case where the ER 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

3) Art. 217 of the Labor Code: i. Unfair labor practice cases (administrative and civil aspects)

- Arts. 247, 248, 249, 261, 263(c)ii. Termination disputes

iii. Those cases that workers may file involving wages, rates of pay, hours of work and other terms and conditions of employment, if accompanied with a claim for reinstatement

iv. Claims for actual, moral, exemplary and other forms of damages arising from ER-EE relations

v. Cases arising from any violation of Art. 279 (264) of the Labor Code, as amended, including questions involving the legality of strikes and lockouts

vi. Authority to conduct compulsory arbitrationvii. All other claims arising from ER-EE relations, including those of persons in

domestic or household service, involving an amount exceeding P5,000, whether or not accompanied with a claim for reinstatement (except claims for employees compensation, social security, PhilHealth and maternity benefits

4) Art. 227 (Labor Code): Enforcement of compromise agreement when there is non-compliance by any parties thereto and To nullify it if there is prima facie evidence that the settlement was obtained through fraud, misrepresentation, or coercion

5) Art. 262-A (Labor Code): Issuance of writ of execution to enforce decisions of Voluntary Arbitrators or panel of Voluntary Arbitrators, in case of their absence or incapacity, for any reason

6) Section 10, RA 8042, as amended by RA 10022: Money claims arising out of ER-EE relationship or by virtue of any law or contract, involving Filipino workers for overseas deployment, including claims, death and disability benefits and for actual, moral, exemplary and other forms of damages

7) Other cases as may be provided by law

b) Exceptions:

1) When the DOLE Secretary or the President exercises his power under Art. 263(g) to assume jurisdiction over national interest cases and decide them himself

2) When the NLRC exercises its power of compulsory arbitration over similar national interest cases that are verified to it by the DOLE Secretary pursuant to the exercise by the latter of his certification power under Art. 263(g)

3) When cases arise from the interpretation or implementation of CBA and from interpretation or enforcement of company personnel policies which shall be disposed of the Labor Arbitrator by referring the same to the grievance machinery and voluntary arbitration

2

4) When the parties agree to submit the cease to voluntary arbitration before a Voluntary Arbitrator or panel of Voluntary Arbitrators who, under Arts. 261 and 262 of the Labor Code, are also possessed of original and exclusive jurisdiction to hear and decide cases mutually submitted to them by the parties for arbitration and adjudication

a. Issues and cases over which Labor Arbiters HAVE Jurisdiction

Illegal Dismissal / Termination Cases (for just cause or authorized cause) In case of conflict of jurisdiction between Labor Arbiter and the Voluntary

Arbitrator over termination cases, the former’s jurisdiction shall prevail. The Voluntary Arbitrator will only have jurisdiction over illegal dismissal

cases when there is express agreement of the parties to the CBA, i.e. the ER and the bargaining agent, to submit the termination case to voluntary termination. Absent the mutual agreement of the parties, Voluntary Arbitrator cannot acquire jurisdiction over termination cases.

The SC has categorically declared that termination cases fall under the original and exclusive jurisdiction of Labor Arbiters and not of Voluntary Arbitrators.

Jurisdiction over Money Claims Original and exclusive (limited only to those arising from statutes or contracts other than CBA

1. Any money claim accompanied with a claim for reinstatement (regardless of amount) – presupposes that it proceeds from a termination case

2. Any money claim exceeding the amount of P5,000 per claimant (regardless of whether accompanied with a claim for reinstatement) – does not necessary arise from termination case but because the amount exceeds P5,000, it falls within the jurisdiction of the Labor Arbiter

Money claims must arise from ER-EE relationship, otherwise, jurisdiction is with the regular courts

Award of statutory benefits even if not prayed for is valid The money claims lodged by an EE are not to be properly offset by his unpaid

subscription of stocks Claim for notarial fees by a lawyer employed by a company is within the

jurisdiction of the Labor Arbiter

Jurisdiction over Claims for Damages Claims for damages as well as attorney’s fees in labor cases are cognizable by the

Labor Arbiters, to the exclusion of all other courts Claims for actual, moral, exemplary and other forms of damages that may be

lodged by OFWs are cognizable by the Labor Arbiters

Jurisdiction over Legality of Strikes and Lockouts - not affecting national interest

Jurisdiction over Cases involving Legislated Wage Increases and Wage Distortion In establishments where there are no certified collective bargaining unions or

existing CBA, the Labor Arbiters have jurisdiction to hear and decide wage distortion cases after the parties and the National Conciliation and Mediation Board (NCMB) failed to correct the distortion

3

Disputes arising from wage distortion resulting from wage orders issued by the Regional Tripartite Wages and Productivity Board (RTWPB) which are alleged in the notice of strike or notice of lockout, should be referred to the Labor Arbiter if not settled within ten (10) calendar days of conciliation by the NCMB

Jurisdiction over Execution and Enforcement of Decisions of Voluntary Arbitrators Art. 262-A of the Labor Code prescribes the procedures that Voluntary

Arbitrators or panel of Voluntary Arbitrators should follow in adjudicating cases filed before them. Once a decision has been rendered in a case and subsequently becomes final and executory, it may be enforced through the writ of execution issued by the same Voluntary Arbitrator or panel of Voluntary Arbitrators who rendered it, addressed to and requiring certain public officers to execute the final decision, order or award.

However, where the Voluntary Arbitrator or the panel of Voluntary Arbitrators who rendered the decision is absent or incapacitated for any reason, Art. 262-A grants jurisdiction to any Labor Arbiter in the region where the winning party resides, to take cognizance of a motion for the issuance of writ of execution filed by such party and accordingly issue such writ addressed to and requiring the public officers mentioned above to execute the final decision, order or award of the Voluntary Arbitrator or panel of Voluntary Arbitrators.

Jurisdiction over Cases of OFWs RA 8042 conferred original and exclusive jurisdiction upon Labor Arbiters to hear

and decide all claims arising from ER-EE relationship or by virtue of any law or contract involving Filipino workers for overseas deployment, including claims for actual, moral, exemplary and other forms of damages.

Other Issues over which Labor Arbiters have Jurisdiction Jurisdiction over Cases involving EEs in Government-owned and/or controlled

corporations (GOCCs)- Hiring and firing of EEs of GOCCs without originals charters

Jurisdiction over Disputes involving Alien Parties- When Philippine law prevails:

The relationship is much affected with public interest and that the otherwise applicable Philippine laws and regulations cannot be rendered illusory by the parties agreeing upon some other law to govern their relationship. When the contract was not only executed in the Philippines, it was also performed here, at least, primarily. Private respondents are Philippine citizens and residents, while petitioner, although a foreign corporation, is licensed to do business (and is actually doing business in the Philippines) and hence, is a resident in the Philippines. Lastly, private respondents were based in the Philippines in between their assigned flights to the Middle East and Europe. (Pakistan International Airlines Corporation vs Ople)

Jurisdiction over Labor Cases involving Priests and Ministers- Labor Arbiters have jurisdiction: If what is involved is a labor case,

say illegal dismissal, the relationship of the church, as employer, and the priest or minister, as employee is a Purely Secular matter not related to the practice of faith, worship or doctrines of the church.

4

- Ecclesiastical Affair : one that concerns doctrine, creed, or form of worship of the church, or the adoption and enforcement within a religious association of needful laws and regulations for the government of its membership, and the power of excluding from such association those deemed unworthy of membership. Based on this definition, it involves the relationship between the church and its members and relates to matters of faith, religious doctrines, worship and governance of the congregation; activities with attached religious significance.

Jurisdiction over Cases of Domestic Workers or Kasambahay- Labor Arbiters have jurisdiction: If the amount of the claim exceeds

P5,000 Jurisdiction over Cases of Employees of Cooperatives

- Labor Arbiters have jurisdiction: Only over monetary claims and illegal dismissal/termination cases involving employees of cooperatives, but not claims or termination of membership of members thereof

Jurisdiction over Counterclaims of Employers against Employees- Can the ER assert counter-claims against EEs before the Labor

Arbiters? SC answered in the affirmative. - The jurisdiction of Labor Arbiters and the NLRC is comprehensive

enough to include claims for all forms of damages “arising from the ER-EE relations.” By this clause, Art. 217 should apply with equal force to the claim of employer for actual damages against its dismissed employee, where the basis for the claim arises from or is necessarily connected with the fact of termination, and should be entered as a counter-claim in the illegal dismissal case. (Banez vs Hon. Valdeviila). But such counter-claim, being a factual issue, must be asserted before the Labor Arbiter; otherwise, it cannot be passed upon by a reviewing court.

b. Issues and Cases over which Labor Arbiters HAVE NO Jurisdiction Claims for damages arising from breach of a non-compete clause and other post-

employment prohibitions – jurisdiction is lodged with the regular courts Claims for payment of cash advances, car loans, appliance loans, loans from

retirement fund, and other loans availed of by employees from their employers which are in the nature of simple collection of a sum of money brought by the employer, as creditor, against the employee, as debtor – jurisdiction is lodged with the regular courts which requires the application of the general civil law

Dismissal of corporate officers and their monetary claims – cognizable by the RTCMatling Doctrine:

Under this doctrine, the following rules shall be observed: The dismissal of regular EEs falls under the jurisdiction of

Labor Arbiters; while that of corporate officers fall within the jurisdiction of the regular courts

The term “corporate officers” refers only to those expressly mentioned in the Corporation Code (to wit, President, secretary and Treasurer) and such other officers as may be provided for in the By-Laws; all other officers not mentioned therein are deemed employees

5

Corporate officers are elected or appointed by the Directors or Stockholders, and those who are given that character either by the Corporation Code or by the corporation’s By-Laws; employee occupies no office and generally is employed not by the action of the Directors or Stockholders but by the managing officers of the corporation who also determines the compensation to be paid to such employee.

The BOD can no longer create corporate offices because the power of the BOD to create a corporate office cannot be delegated

Because o the Matling Doctrine, the rulings in Tabang and Nacpil are no longer controlling because they are “too sweeping and do not accord with reason, justice and fair play.”

The status of an employee as Director and Stockholder does not atomically convert his dismissal into an intra-corporate dispute – hence, Labor Arbiter, not regular courts, has jurisdiction over the case

2 elements to determine whether a dispute is intra corporate or not: 1) the status of relationship of the parties; and 2) the nature of the question that is the subject of their controversy (Nature of controversy test). In the absence of any one of these factors, the RTC will not have jurisdiction.

The criteria do not depend on the services performed but on the manner of creation of office

Issues involving suspension of payment of debts (rehabilitation receivership) – lodged with RTC

Cases involving entities immune from suitIn this jurisdiction, the generally accepted principles of international law are recognized and adopted as part of the law of the land. Immunity of a State and international organizations from suit is one of these universally recognized principles. It is no this basis that Labor Arbiters or other labor tribunals have no jurisdiction over immune entities.

Cases: - Department of Foreign Affairs vs NLRC – ADB enjoys immunity; - Lasco vs UN Revolving Fund for Natural Resources Exploration – specialized agency of UN enjoys immunity- Jusmag Philippines vs NLRC – Jusmag, an entity performing a governmental function on behalf of US, enjoys immunity- Larkins vs NLRC – lack of jurisdiction; suit was against US government

Exception: - United States vs Hon. Rodrigo -- When the function of the

foreign entity otherwise immune from suit partakes of the nature of a proprietary activity, such as the restaurant services offered at John Hay Air Station undertaken by the US government as a commercial activity for profit and not in its governmental capacity, the case for illegal dismissal filed by a Filipino cook working therein is well within the jurisdiction of Philippine courts.

6

- Estoppel does not confer jurisdiction over an immunity suit – an entity immune from suit cannot be estopped from claiming such diplomatic immunity since estoppel does not operate to confer jurisdiction to a tribunal that has none over a cause of action

Cases falling under the doctrine of forum non conveniensRequisites for applicability:

a. that the Philippine court is one to which the parties may conveniently resort;

b. that the Philippine court is in a position to make an intelligent decision as to the law and the facts; and

c. that the Philippine court has or is likely to have power to enforce its decision

Case where doctrine was applied: The Manila Hotel Corp and Manila Hotel International Limited vs NLRC – This is not to say that Philippine courts and agencies have no power to solve controversies involving foreign employers. Neither could it be said that the SC does not have power over an employment contract executed in a foreign country. If the respondent employee were an “overseas contract worker”, a Philippine forum, specifically the POEA, not the NLRC, would protect him. He is not an “overseas contract worker”, a fact which he admits with conviction

Case where doctrine was rejected: Pacific Consultants International Asia vs Schonfeld –Doctrine does not apply for the ff reasons:

a. the Labor Code does not include forum non conveniens as a ground for the dismissal of the complaint

b. the propriety of dismissing a case based on this principle requires a factual determination; hence it is properly considered a s a defense

Quasi delict or tort casesTolosa case: Labor Arbiter has no jurisdiction over the case because it was established that the same was in the nature of an action based on quasi delict; recovery of damages based on quasi delict; the death of the husband was due to gross negligence of Captain Tolosa’s shipmates

Criminal and civil liabilities arising from violations of certain provisions (penal provisions) of the Labor Code – regular courts have jurisdiction

Art. 241: criminal and civil liabilities arising from violations of rights and conditions of union membership

Art. 247: jurisdiction over criminal aspect of unfair labor practice Art. 272: criminal violation f its provision Art. 288: criminal offense; under the concurrent jurisdiction of

MTC/MCTC and the RTC Constitutionality of CBA provisions/labor contract stipulations

Halaguena Doctrine – Pal and FASAP; compulsory retirement for female flight attendant sis 55; 60 for male counterpart; RTC has jurisdiction

The case is an ordinary civil action, hence beyond the jurisdiction of the labor tribunals

The issue cannot be resolved solely by applying the Labor Code. Rather it requires the application of the Constitution, law on

7

contracts and the Convention on the elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW). The power to apply and interpret the Constitution and the CEDAW is within the jurisdiction of the trial courts.

Actions between EEs and ER where the ER-EE relationship is merely incidental and the cause of action proceeds from a different source of obligation are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the regular courts

2. REINSTATEMENT PENDING APPEAL Pioneer Texturing Doctrine: an order of reinstatement issued by the Labor Arbiter under Art.

223 of the Labor Code is immediately executory even pending appeal, no writ of execution required. As a consequence of this doctrine, the rulings in earlier cases, that the reinstatement aspect of the Labor Arbiter’s decision needs a writ of execution as it is not self-executory, are deemed abandoned.

If the reinstatement order is issued by the NLRC on appeal, or by the Court of Appeals, or by the Supreme Court, there is a need to secure a writ of execution from the Labor Arbiter of origin to enforce the reinstatement of the employee whose dismissal is declared illegal.

Two (2) options of the employer for implementation:1) Actual reinstatement: the EE be reinstated to his position which he occupies

prior to his illegal dismissal under the same terms and conditions prevailing prior to his dismissal or separation or, if no longer available, to a substantially-equivalent position; or

2) Payroll reinstatement: the EE be reinstated in the payroll of the company without requiring him to report back to work

Writ of Execution NOT required: In case the decision of the labor Arbiter includes an order of reinstatement, it should

contain: 1) A statement that the reinstatement aspect is immediately executory; and2) A directive for the employer to submit a report of compliance within ten (10)

calendar days from receipt of the said decision. Disobedience of this directive clearly denotes a refusal to reinstate. The employee need not file a motion for the issuance of writ of execution

since the Labor Arbiter is mandated thereafter to motu propio issue the writ. Liabilities of Employer for Disobeying the Order:

1) to pay the accrued salaries of the reinstated employee as a consequence of such reinstatement in the amount specified in the decision; and

2) be cited for contempt, in accordance with the 2011 NLRC Rules of Procedure, for his refusal to comply with the writ of execution ordering the reinstatementIn No.1 above, the entitlement of the dismissed employee to his salaries

occasioned by the unjustified refusal of the employer to reinstate him becomes effective from the time the employer failed to reinstate him despite the issuance of a writ of execution.

In No. 2 above, the remedy available to the employee whose reinstatement ordered by the labor Arbiter was not implemented by the employer is to file for contempt against the latter and certainly not the institution of a separate action in the regular court or with the Labor Arbiter. Such recourse will violate the well-settled principle of re judicata. It would give rise to multiplicity of actions which the law abhors and exerts every effort to eschew.

8

Instances when writ of execution of Labor Arbiter’s Reinstatement Order (even pending appeal) still required (under 2011 NLRC Rules of Procedure):1) when the employer disobeys the prescribed directive to submit a report of compliance

within ten (10) calendar days from receipt of the decision; or2) when the employer refuses to reinstate the dismissed employee.

N.B. The Labor Arbiter shall motu propio issue a corresponding writ to satisfy the reinstatement wages as they accrue until actual reinstatement or reversal of the order of reinstatement.

Some Principles of Reinstatement Pending Appeal:1) Employer has no way of staying execution of immediate reinstatement. He cannot post

bond to prevent its execution.2) Reinstatement pending appeal applies to all kinds of illegal dismissal cases, regardless

of the grounds thereof.3) Reinstatement pending appeal does not apply when the dismissal is legal but

reinstatement is ordered for some reasons like equity and compassionate justice.4) The failure of employee ordered reinstated pending appeal to report back to work as

directed by the employer does not give the employer the right to remove him, especially when there is a reasonable explanation for his failure.

5) When former position is already filled up, the employee should be reinstated to a substantially equivalent position

6) Reinstatement to a position lower in rank is not proper.7) In case of two successive dismissals, the order of reinstatement pending appeal under

Art 223 issued in the first case shall apply only to the first case and should not affect the second dismissal.

8) Reinstatement pending appeal is not affected by the reinstated employee’s employment elsewhere.

9) The issuance of TRO by the CA of by the SC, as the case may be, merely suspends the implementation and the enforcement of the reinstatement order but it does not have the effect of nullifying the right of the employee to his reinstatement and to be paid his reinstatement wages.

3. REQUIREMENTS TO PERFECT APPEAL TO NLRC

Some Principles on Appeal: Appeals under Art 223 apply only to appeals from the Labor Arbiter’s decisions,

awards or orders to the Commission (NLRC). There is no appeal from the decisions, awards or orders of the NLRC. Art. 223 is not

the proper basis for elevating the case to CA or to SC. The proper remedy from the decisions, awards or orders of the NLRC to the CA is a Rule 65 petition for certiorari and from the CA to the SC, a Rule 45 petition for review on certiorari.

Appeal from the NLRC to the DOLE Secretary and to the President had long been abolished.

Appeal is not a constitutional right but a mere statutory privilege. Hence, parties who seek to avail of it must comply with the statutes or rules allowing it.

A MR is unavailing as a remedy against a decision of the Labor Arbiter. The Labor Arbiter should treat the motion as an appeal to the NLRC.

A petition for relief should be treated as appeal.

9

Affirmative relief is not available to a party who failed to appeal. A party who des not appeal from a decision of a court cannot obtain affirmative relief other the ones granted in the appealed decision.

Grounds for Appeal to the NLRC:1) Prima facie evidence of abuse of discretion on the part of Labor Arbiter;

NLRC has certiorari power; the NLRC is possessed of the power to rectify any abuse of discretion committed by the Labor Arbiter

2) If the decision, award or order was secured through fraud or coercion, including graft and corruption;

3) If made purely on questions of law; and/or4) If serious errors in findings of fact are raised which, if not corrected, would cause grave

or irreparable damage or injury to the appellant

Perfection of Appeal to the NLRC: The perfection of an appeal shall stay the execution of the decision of the Labor

Arbiter except execution for reinstatement pending appeal The perfection of appeal within the period and in the manner prescribed by law is

jurisdictional and non-compliance with the legal requirements is fatal and has the effect of rendering the judgment final and executory, hence, unappealable

Requisites:1) Observance of the reglementary period

2 Kinds:a. Ten (10) calendar days – in the case of appeals from decisions of

the Labor Arbiter under Art. 223 Labor Codeb. Five (5) calendar days – in the case of appeals from decisions of

the DOLE regional Director under Art. 129 Labor Code Calendar days, not working days: Saturdays, Sundays, and

legal holidays are included in reckoning and computing the reglementary period

Exceptions to 10-day/5-day: a. 10th days or 5th day falling on a Saturday, Sunday or holiday, in which

case, the appeal may be filed in the next working dayb. reliance on erroneous notice of decision as when the notice expressly

states “working days” and not “calendar days”c. appeal from decisions of the Labor Arbiters in direct contempt cases –

five (5) calendar daysd. filing of petition for extraordinary remedies from orders or resolutions

of Labor Arbiters or on third party claims – ten (10) calendar dayse. when NLRC exercises its power to “correct, amend, or waive any error,

defect, or irregularity whether in substance or form” in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction, as provided under Art. 218(c) of the Labor Code, in which case, the late filing of the appeal is excused

f. when technical rules are disregarded under Art. 221g. when there are some compelling reasons that justify the allowance of

the appeal despite its late filing such as when it is granted in the interest of substantial justice

Some Principles on Reglementary Period:

10

1. It is mandatory and not mere technicality2. The failure to appeal within the reglementary period renders the

judgment appealed from final and executory by operation of law; consequently, the prevailing party is entitled, as a matter of right, to a writ of execution and the issuance thereof becomes a ministerial duty which may be compelled through the remedy of mandamus

3. The date of receipt of decisions, resolutions or orders by the parties is of no moment. For purposes of appeal, the reglementary period shall be counted from receipt of such decisions, resolutions, or orders by the counsel or representative of record.

4. Miscomputation of the reglementary period will not forestall the finality of the judgment. It is in the interest of everyone that the date when judgments become final and executory should remain fixed and ascertainable.

5. Date of mailing by registered mail of the appeal memorandum is the date of its filing.

6. Prohibited pleadings:a. Motion for extension of time to perfect an appeal b. Motion for extension of time to file the memorandum of

appealc. Motion for extension of time to file appeal bond

2) Payment of appeal and legal research fee Strict observance of the rule on appeal fee Mandatory and jurisdictional An appeal fee is perfected only when there is proof of payment of the

appeal fee. If not paid, the running of the reglementary period for perfecting an appeal will not be tolled.

Exceptions:a. most persuasive and weighty reasonsb. to relieve a litigant from an injustice not commensurate

with his failure to comply with the prescribed procedurec. good faith of the defaulting party by immediately paying

within a reasonable time from the time of the defaultd. existence of special or compelling circumstancese. merits of the casef. cause not entirely attributable to the fault or negligence

of the party favored by the suspension of the rulesg. lack of any showing that the review sought is merely

frivolous and dilatoryh. other party will not be unjustly prejudiced therebyi. fraud, accident, mistake or excusable negligence without

the appellant’s faultj. peculiar, legal and equitable circumstances attendant to

each casek. in the name of substantial justice and fair playl. importance of the issues involvedm. exercise of sound discretion by the judge, guided by all

the attendant circumstances

11

3) Filing of Memorandum of AppealRequisites of a valid Memorandum of Appeal:

a. should be verified by the appellant himself in accordance with the Rules of Court;

b. should be presented in three (3) legibly typewritten or printed copies;

c. shall state the grounds relied upon and the arguments in support thereof, including the relief prayed for;

d. shall contain a statement of the date the appellant received the appealed decision, award or order; and

e. shall be accompanied byi. proof of payment of the required appeal fee and legal

research feeii. posting of a cash or surety bond (in case of monetary

awards); and iii. proof of service upon the other party

Some principles on Memorandum of Appeal:a. Mere notice of appeal without complying with the other

requisites aforestated shall not stop the running of the period for perfecting an appeal

b. Memorandum of appeal is not similar to motion for reconsideration

c. Lack of verification in a memorandum of appeal is not a fatal defect. It may easily be corrected by an oath

d. Supplemental appeal need not be verifies. Neither the laws nor the rules require the verification of the supplemental appeal. Verification is a formal, not jurisdictional, requirement.

e. An appeal will be dismissed if signed only by an unauthorized representative.

f. Only complainants who signed the memorandum of appeal are deemed to have appealed the Labor Arbiter’s decision.

g. Certification of non-forum shopping is no longer provided in the 2011 NLRC Rules of Procedure. It is only required in the initiatory complaint or petition filed with the Labor Arbiter.

4) Proof of service to the other party Failure to serve copy of the Memorandum of Appeal to adverse party, not

fatal. While it is required in all cases, the appellant shall furnish a copy of a Memorandum of Appeal to the other party, con-compliance herewith, however, will not be an obstacle to the perfection of the appeal; nor will it amount to a jurisdictional defect on the NLRC’s taking cognizance thereof.

5) Posting of cash, property or surety bond, in case of monetary awards Rules on posting of bond have been liberally construed and relaxed

considering the substantial merits of the case and the existence of exceptional circumstances justifying the same

Rule on reduction of appeal bond GR: the appeal bond should be posted should be equivalent to the

monetary award of the Labor Arbiter. Its reduction is neither provided for in the Labor Code nor in its implementing rules.

Except: reduction of the bond allowed on meritorious grounds

12

Requisites: a Motion to Reduce Bond may be allowed provided the ff conditions are complied with:

i. Motion should be filed within the reglementary periodii. Motion should be based on meritorious grounds

iii. Motion should be accompanied by a partial bond, the amount of which would be reasonable in relation to the monetary awards

When case meritorious:o There was substantial compliance with the Ruleso Surrounding facts and circumstances constitute meritorious

grounds to reduce the bondo A liberal interpretation of the requirement of an appeal bond

would serve the desired objective of resolving controversies on the merits

o The appellants, at the very least, exhibited their willingness and/or good faith by posting a partial bond during the reglementary period

Some Principles on reduction of Bond Bond may be reduced when decision failed to specify the exact amount

of monetary award from which the amount of the appeal bond is to be based.

Conversely, the reduction of the bond will not be warranted not only when no meritorious ground is shown to justify the same but when the appellant absolutely failed to comply with the requirement of posting a bond, even if partial; or when circumstances show the employer’s unwillingness to ensure the satisfaction of its workers’ valid claims.

Monetary award running into millions is not justification to reduce bond Financial difficulties or financial incapacity is not sufficient grounds to

reduce bond. The full amount of the monetary award should still be posted within the

reglementary period even of the appellant has filed a motion to reduce bond.

Alternative remedy is to pay partial appeal bond while motion to reduce bond is pending with the NLRC.

The partial bond must be posted within the reglementary period. Late filing of the bond divests the NLRC of its jurisdiction to entertain the appeal

Partial bond posted must not be inadequate

B. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION (NLRC) Nature:

The NLRC is an administrative quasi-judicial body. It is an agency attached to the DOLE solely for program and policy coordination only. It is in charge of deciding labor cases through compulsory arbitration.

Composition: Composed of a Chairman and 23 members called “Commissioners” Tripartite composition:

8 – should be chosen from among the nominees of the workers sector

13

8 – from the employees sectorChairman and the 7 remaining members – shall come from the public sector, with the latter to be chosen preferably from among the incumbent Labor Arbiters

Commission en banc – The Commission en banc does not sit to hear and decide cases. It has no adjudicatory power. This function is reposed in the eight (8) divisions thereof. The Commission sits only for the following purposes:

1) to promulgate rules and regulations governing the hearing and disposition of cases before any of its division and regional branches

2) to formulate policies affecting its administration and operationsNLRC’s 8 Divisions

The NLRC is divided into eight (8) divisions. Each division comprises of 3 members (1 from the public sector who shall act as its Presiding Commissioner; 1 from workers sector and 1 from employers sector).

Of the eight (8) divisions, the First, Second, Third, Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Divisions shall have exclusive territorial jurisdiction over appealed cases coming from Luzon; Seventh Division, appealed cases from the Visayas Region; and the Eight Division, appealed cases from Mindanao including those from the ARMM. The various Divisions of the Commission have exclusive appellate jurisdiction over cases within their respective territorial jurisdictions.

However, the Commission sitting en banc may, on temporary or emergency basis, allow cases within the jurisdiction of any division to be heard and decided by any other division whose docket allows the additional workload, provided that such transfer will not expose litigants to unnecessary additional expenses.

Under its present legal set up, the Commission exercises adjudicatory and all other powers, functions, and duties through its eight (8) Divisions.

1. JURISDICTIONa. Exclusive original jurisdiction

1) Petition for injunction in ordinary labor disputes- to enjoin or restrain any actual or threatened commission of any or all

prohibited or unlawful acts, or- to require the performance of a particular act in any labor dispute which, if not

restrained or performed forthwith, may cause grave or irreparable damage to any party

2) Petition for injunction in strikes or lockouts under Art. 264 Labor Code3) Certified cases which refer to labor disputes causing or likely to cause a strike or lockout

in an industry indispensable to the national interest, certified to it by the secretary of Labor and Employment for compulsory arbitration by virtue of Art. 263(g) Labor Code

4) Petition to annul or modify the order or resolution (including those issued during execution proceedings) of the Labor Code

b. Exclusive appellate jurisdiction1) All cases decided by the Labor Arbiters – if a claim does not fall within the originals and

exclusive jurisdiction of the Labor Arbiter, the NLRC cannot have appellate jurisdiction thereover

2) Cases decided by the DOLE Regional Directors or hearing officers involving money claims under Art. 129 of the Labor Code

3) Contempt cases decided by the Labor Arbiters

14

2. EFFECT OF NLRC REVERSAL OF LABOR ARBITER’S ORDER OF REINSTATEMENT From the moment an employee is ordered reinstated by the Labor Arbiter on the basis of

the finding that his dismissal is illegal, up to the time that an appellate tribunal like the NLRC, CA or SC, as the case may be, REVERSES the said finding, the employee is generally entitled to his so-called “reinstatement wages.”

Doctrinal Rulings:1) Roquero Doctrine –

- Enunciates the rule that in cases where an employee is ordered reinstated by the Labor Arbiter and the employer fails or refuses to obey the reinstatement order but initiates an appeal, the employer’s success in having the decision of the Labor Arbiter’s decision reversed on appeal will not exculpate him from the liability to pay the reinstatement wages of the employee reckoned and computed from the time the employee was ordered reinstated by the Labor Arbiter until the date of its reversal on appeal.

- Following Roquero, it is now the norm that 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 its reversal by the NLRC, or the CA, or the SC, as the case may be. If the employee has been reinstated during the period of appeal and such reinstatement order is subsequently reversed on appeal with finality, the employee is not required to reimburse whatever salaries he has received for he is entitled to such, more so if he actually rendered services during the said period.

2) Genuino Doctrine- The essence of this doctrine is that the employee who is reinstated in the

payroll, as distinguished from actual reinstatement, should refund the salaries he received if the dismissal is finally found legal on appeal. This doctrine however does not apply if the employee was actually reinstated to his former position or not reinstated at all pending appeal.

- In effect, the Genuino ruling qualified the earlier Roqero doctrine on the issue whether the dismissed employee who is reinstated in the payroll and not actually reinstated o his former position has the obligation to refund what he has received as and by way of salaries during his payroll reinstatement if and when his dismissal is held valid and legal on appeal.

3) Garcia DoctrineModification of the Genuine Doctrine: the refund doctrine in Genuino should

no longer be observed it easily demonstrates how a favorable decision by the Labor Arbiter could harm, more than help, a dismissed employee. It is mirage of a stop-gap leading the employee to a risky cliff of insolvency.

Modification of the Roquero doctrine: the Roquero Doctrine was reaffirmed but with the modification that after the Labor Arbiter’s decision is reversed by a higher tribunal, the employee may be barred from collecting the accrued wages, if its shown that that the delay in enforcing the reinstatement pending appeal was without fault on the employer.

Two-Fold Test: There must be actual delay or the fact that the order of

reinstatement pending appeal was not executed prior to its reversal; and

The delay mist not be due to the employer’s unjustified act or omission. If the delay is due to the employer’s unjustified refusal,

15

the employer may still be required to pay the salaries notwithstanding the reversal of the Labor Arbiter’s decision.

Subsequent cases after the Garcia Doctrine1. College of Immaculate conception

2. Islriz Trading

3. Pfizer, Inc. vs Velasco

4. C. Alcantara & Sons, Inc.

To clarify, employees ordered reinstated by the Labor Arbiter are entitled to accrued wages only from the time the employer received a copy of the Labor Arbiter’s decision declaring the employee’s termination illegal and ordering the reinstatement up to the date of the decision of the appellate tribunal overturning that of the Labor Arbiter. It is not accurate to say therefore that such entitlement commences from the time the reinstatement order was issued up to the date when the same was reversed by a higher court without fear of refunding what he had received.

The manner of effecting the reinstatement and promptness of compliance therewith by employer, immaterial (College of Immaculate Conception)

o Situation No. 1: If the Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of the dismissed employee and ordered the latter’s reinstatement, the employer did not immediately comply with the directive, on appeal, the decision was reversed and found that there was no illegal dismissal, it is ruled that the employee is entitled to payment of his salaries and allowances pending appeal

o Situation No. 2: If the Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of the dismissed employee and ordered the latter’s reinstatement, the employer complied with the directive, on appeal, the decision was reversed and found that there was no illegal dismissal, the ruling in no. 1 will still apply, i.e., the employee is entitled to payment of his salaries and allowances pending appeal

Thus, either way, the employee gets his salaries and allowances pending appeal. The only difference lies as to the time when the employee gets it.

Some Principles on Reinstatement Wages Employer is not liable to pay any reinstatement backwages if reinstatement is ordered

NOT by the Labor Arbiter but by the NLCR on appeal and it was not executed by writ and its finding of illegal dismissal is later reversed by CA and/or SC

Payroll-reinstated employee is entitled not only to reinstatement wages but also to other benefits during the period of payroll reinstatement until the illegal dismissal case is reversed by a higher tribunal

Award of additional backwages and other benefits from the time the Labor Arbiter ordered reinstatement until actual or payroll reinstatement is proper and valid

Backwages include the period when the employee should have been reinstated by order of Labor Arbiter

3. REMEDIES

16

1. Appeal granted under Art. 223 Labor Code2. Remedies under Art. 218 Labor Code

a. Administering of oathsb. Summoning of parties to a controversyc. Issuing subpoenas duces tecum and ad testificandumd. Investigation a question, matter or controversy within it jurisdictione. Conduct own proceedingsf. Holding any person in direct or indirect contempt and impose appropriate

penalties therefore in accordance with lawg. Issuing TRO and prohibitory mandatory injunction

3. Additional Remedies:h. Conciliation and mediation per Art. 221 Labor Code, NLRC Rules of Procedure

and RA 10396i. Conduct of ocular inspection per Art. 219 Labor Codej. Grant of extraordinary remedies per 2011 NLRC Rules of Procedure

Extraordinary Remedies:Nature:

power of the NLRC to grant extraordinary powers is newly created remedy under Rule XII of the 2011 NLRC Rules of Procedure. Since this is a newly minted remedy, there has yet been no decision by the SC dwelling on its validity. What is clear though is that the remedy is not equivalent to nor a substitute for appeal.

Grounds:a. if there is prima facie evidence of abuse on the part of the Labor

Arbiterb. if serious errors in findings of facts are raised which, if not

corrected, would cause grave abuse or irreparable damage or injury to the petitioner

c. if a party by fraud, accident, mistake, or excusable negligence ha been prevented from taking an appeal

d. if made purely on questions of lawe. if the order or resolution will cause injustice if not rectified

Initiation through verified petition: To secure these extraordinary remedies, 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 TRO 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 the said resolution or order.

The verified petition may be filed with the Commission (NLRC) furnishing a copy thereof to the adverse party not later than 10 calendar days from receipt of the order or resolution of the Labor Arbiter

Requisites for validity of petitiona. accompanied by clear original or certified true copy of the

order or resolution assailed ofb. contain the arbitral docket number

17

c. state the material date showing the timeliness of the petitiond. verified by the petitioner himselfe. be in the form of Memorandum (grounds relied upon,

arguments in support thereof and reliefs prayed for)f. be in 3 legibly printed copiesg. be accompanied by certificate of non forum shopping, proof

of service upon the other parties and the Labor Arbiter who issued the order or resolution assailed of and proof of payment of the required fees

Petition constitutes exception to the rule that “No appeal may be instituted from Labor Arbiter’s order arising from execution proceedings or incident thereof”Effect of filing petition:

The proceeding before the Labor Arbiter shall CONTINUE unless restrained

In case of execution, the proceedings shall not be suspended but no money collected or credit garnished may be released or personal properties levied may be sold by public auction within 15 calendar days from the filing of the petition.

Issuance of TRO and writ of preliminary injunction The Commission may issue a TRO ex parte effective for a non-

extendible period of 20 days from service on the private respondent if it shall appear from the facts shown by the verified application that great and irreparable injury would result to the petitioner before the petition can be resolved.

The Commission may issue a writ of preliminary injunction based on any grounds provided for in Section 3, Rule 58 of the Rules of Court for the preservation of right of the parties pending resolution of the petition. The writ shall be effective for a non-extendible period of 60 calendar days from service on the private respondent

Effect: The issuance of the TRO and the writ of preliminary injunction shall not suspend the proceeding before the Labor Arbiter or stay the implementation of the writ of execution but shall only restrain or enjoin such particular acts as therein decreed to be restrained or enjoined, unless otherwise declared by the Commission.

Posting of a bond: In the issuance of TRO and the writ, the Commission shall require the posting of a cash bond in the amount of P50,000, or such higher amount as may be determined by the Commission, to recompense those enjoined for any loss, expenses or damage issued by the improvident or erroneous issuance of such order or injunction, including all reasonable costs. The TRO or writ of preliminary injunction shall become effective only upon the posting of the required cash bond.

Resolution of the petition: dismissed or render judgmentRecovery from injunction bond – amount of damages may be recovered by the respondent from the injunction bond of the petitioner shall be

18

ascertained and awarded in the order finally disposing of the issue on the application for injunction.

4. CERTIFIED CASESCertified labor disputes – national interest cases certified by the DOLE Secretary to the Commission for compulsory arbitration under Art 263(g) of the Labor Code

Effects of Certification of Labor Disputes1. on impounding strike or lockout – automatically enjoined2. on actual strike or lockout – EEs immediately return to work; ERs resume operations3. on cases already filed or maybe filed4. on other pending cases5. on which Division should take cognizance of the certified case in case entity has several

workplaces in different regions

Same effect of certification to the NLRC as in cases assumed directly by DOLE Secretary

Execution of Judgment in Certified Cases: it is the NLRC, and not the DOLE Secretary, which has the authority to cause the execution of the judgment rendered therein.

C. BUREAU OF LABOR RELATIONS - MED-ARBITERS

The Bureau of Labor Relations

Med-Arbiter or Mediator-Arbiter

Inter Union Disputes

Intra Union Disputes

Other Related Labor Disputes

Jurisdictiona. Mediator-Arbiter: original and exclusive –

Inter union disputes (Representation/Certification Election cases) – appealable directly to the DOLE Secretary

Rule on appeal in unorganized establishments

Rule on appeal in organized establishments

Intra union Disputes -

19

appealable to BLR Director in his appellate jurisdiction which maybe elevated to the CA by way of Rule 65 petition for certiorari

Other related labor relations disputes – appealable to BLR Director in his appellate jurisdiction which

maybe elevated to the CA by way of Rule 65 petition for certiorari Contempt Cases

Except: cancellation of union registration cases (lodged to DOLE Regional Directors)

b. DOLE Regional Director: original and exclusive: appealable to BLR Director in his appellate jurisdiction which

maybe elevated to the CA by way of Rule 65 petition for certiorari except when the BLR Director inhibited himself from taking

cognizance of the appeal from the DOLE Regional Director because he was a former counsel of respondent, or in the absence of the BLR Director, the case shall be elevated to the DOLE Secretary and may legally assume jurisdiction therefore

Denial of application for union registration and Petition for cancellation of registration of independent unions, local chapters and workers associations

Petition for deregistration of CBAs / denial of registration of CBSsDenial of registration of Single enterprise CBAs

Request for examination of books of accounts of independent unions, local chapters and workers associations

c. BLR Director: ORIGINAL And EXCLISVE JURIDCTION –

appealable to the DOLE Secretary in his appellate jurisdiction which maybe elevated to the CA by way of Rule 65 petition for certiorari Complaints and petitions involving registration and cancellation

of registration of federations, national unions, industry unions, trade union centers and their local chapters, affiliates and member organizations

Denial of registration of multi-employer CBAs Request for examination of books of accounts of federations,

national unions, industry unions, trade union centers and their local chapters, affiliates and member organizations

Intra union disputes involving federations, national unions, industry unions, trade union centers and their local chapters, affiliates and member organizations

Contempt cases

APPELLATE JURISDICTION All decisions of Med-Arbiters in

o intra union disputes and o other related labor relations disputeso inter union disputes lodged with the DOLE Secretary

All decisions originating from the DOLE Regional Directors in cases falling under their original and exclusive jurisdictions

20

Administrative functions of the BLRs and LRDs 1. Registration of labor unions2. Keeping of registry of labor unions3. Maintenance and custody of the files of CBAs and other related agreements4. Records of settlement of labor disputes5. Copies of orders and decisions of Voluntary Arbitrators

D. NATIONAL CONCILIATION AND MEDIATION BOARD (NCMB)

Mandate

Conciliator-Mediator

1. Nature of Proceedings

NCMB is not a quasi-judicial agencyRead p. 832

Not being a quasi-judicial agency, NCMB’s rulings cannot be elevated to, and cognizable by, the CA

2. Conciliation vs. MediationRead p. 834

3. Preventive Mediation

E. DOLE REGIONAL DIRECTORS The DOLE has 16 Regional offices nationwide each one of them is headed by a Regional

Director. The DOLE Regional Directors are the duly authorized representatives of the DOLE Secretary

which grants to them both visitorial and enforcement powers.

1. JurisdictionExclusive and Original:a. Labor standard cases under Art. 128b. Small money claims cases arising from labor standards violations in the amount not

exceeding Php5,000.00 and not accompanied with a claim for reinstatement under Art. 129

c. Occupational safety and health violationsd. Registration of unions and cancellation thereof, cases filed against unions and other

labor relations related casese. Complaints against private recruitment and placement agencies for local

employmentf. Cases submitted to them for voluntary arbitration in their capacity as ex-officio

Voluntary Arbitrators

F. DOLE SECRETARY

21

Powers: The DOLE Secretary, being the head of the DOLE, is possessed of a number of powers, some of which are as follows:

1. Visitorial and enforcement powers3 Kinds of Power:

a. Visitorial power – original and excusive jurisdiction of DOLE Regional Directors

b. Enforcement power - original and excusive jurisdiction of DOLE Regional Directors

c. Appellate power or power of review – appellate power of DOLE Secretary in respect to any decision, award or order issued by the DOLE Regional Directors

Nature: Quasi judicial in nature Subject: Inspection of employer-establishment

2. Power to suspend/effects of termination3. Assumption of jurisdiction4. Appellate jurisdiction5. Voluntary arbitration powers

G. GRIEVANCE MACHINERY AND VOLUNTARY ARBITRATION

H. COURT OF APPEALS

I. SUPREME COURT

J. PRESCRIPTION OF ACTIONS

22