Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Labor Law Review First Semester, SY 2017 - 2018
Labor Law Review First Semester, SY 2017 - 2018
Read and understand Articles 220 to Article 223 of the Labor Code.
These Articles pertain to the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC)
2
Jurisprudential References
affecting labor apply in this case. (Sameer Overseas Placement Agency, Inc.
vs. Joy C. Cabilles, G.R. No. 170139, August 5, 2014.)
Under Article 224, it is clear that a labor arbiter has original and
exclusive jurisdiction over termination disputes. On the other hand, under
Article 272, a voluntary arbitrator has original and exclusive jurisdiction over
grievances arising from the interpretation or enforcement of company
policies. As a general rule then, termination disputes should be brought
before a labor arbiter, except when the parties, under Art. 262 (now Article
273) unmistakably express that they agree to submit the same to voluntary
arbitration. (Negros Metal Corp. vs. Armelo J. Lamayo, G.R. No. 186557,
August 25, 2010)
In the decided case entitled Ma. Ana M. Tamonte, et al. vs. Hongkong
and Shanghai Banking Corp. Ltd., et al., G.R. No. 166970, August 17, 2011
the Supreme Court ruled:
While it is true that labor arbiters and the NLRC have jurisdiction
to award not only reliefs provided by labor laws, but also damages
governed by the Civil Code, these reliefs must still be based on an
action that has a reasonable causal connection with the Labor Code,
other labor statutes, or collective bargaining agreements. (Evelyn
Tolosa vs. NLRC, G.R. No. 149578, April 10, 2003)
The NLRC can promulgate its own rules, issue temporary restraining
orders that are valid for twenty (20) days, issue preliminary injunction, hold any
person in contempt directly or indirectly and impose appropriate penalties
therefor in accordance with law. That the reception of evidence for the
application of a writ of injunction may be delegated by the Commission to any
6
of its Labor Arbiters who shall conduct such hearings in such places as he may
determine to be accessible to the parties and their witnesses and shall submit
thereafter his recommendation to the Commission.
The NLRC has the power to decide case certified for compulsory
arbitration by the Secretary of Labor and Employment as provided in Article 277
(g) of the Labor Code. The decisions of the NLRC in certified cases cannot be
reviewed by the Secretary of Labor and Employment but can be brought to the
Court of Appeals via petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court.
Technical rules are not binding the proceedings before the NLRC and the
Labor Arbiters.
In a number of cases, the Supreme Court has construed Article 221 (now
Article 227) of the Labor Code as permitting the NLRC or the LA to decide a
case on the basis of position papers and other documents submitted without
necessarily resorting to technical rules of evidence as observed in the regular
courts of justice. Rules of evidence are not strictly observed in proceedings
before administrative bodies like the NLRC. (Lepanto Consolidated Mining Co.
vs. Moreno Dumapis, et al., G.R. No. 163210, August 13, 2008)
The posting of a cash or surety bond is a requirement sine qua non for
the perfection of an appeal from the labor arbiter's monetary award. The
posting of a bond within the period provided by law is not merely mandatory
but jurisdictional. Failure to perfect an appeal has the effect of rendering the
judgment final and executory. (Benjamin S. Santos vs. Elena Velarde, G.R.
No. 140753, April 30, 2003)
The requirement for posting the surety bond is not merely procedural
but jurisdictional and cannot be trifled with. Non-compliance with such legal
requirements is fatal and has the effect of rendering the judgment final and
executory. (Hilario S. Ramirez vs. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 182626,
December 4, 2009)
motion to reduce bond, and it may rule on the motion beyond the 10-day
period within which to perfect an appeal. Obviously, at the time of the filing
of the motion to reduce bond and posting of a bond in a reasonable amount,
there is no assurance whether the appellant's motion is indeed based on
"meritorious ground" and whether the bond he or she posted is of a
"reasonable amount." Thus, the appellant always runs the risk of failing to
perfect an appeal. (Cesar V. Garcia, et al. vs. KJ Commercial, et al., G.R.
No. 196830, February 29, 2012)
Although the general rule provides that an appeal in labor cases from
a decision involving a monetary award may be perfected only upon the
posting of a cash or surety bond, the Court has relaxed this requirement
under certain exceptional circumstances in order to resolve controversies on
their merits. These circumstances include: (1) the fundamental consideration
of substantial justice; (2) the prevention of miscarriage of justice or of unjust
enrichment; and (3) special circumstances of the case combined with its
legal merits, and the amount and the issue involved. Guidelines that are
applicable in the reduction of appeal bonds were also explained in Nicol v.
Footjoy Industrial Corporation. The bond requirement in appeals involving
monetary awards has been and may be relaxed in meritorious cases,
including instances in which (1) there was substantial compliance with the
Rules, (2) surrounding facts and circumstances constitute meritorious
grounds to reduce the bond, (3) a liberal interpretation of the requirement of
an appeal bond would serve the desired 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. (McBurnie v. Ganzon, G.R. Nos. 178034, 178117 &
186984-85, October 17, 2013 citing Garcia v. KJ Commercial, G.R. No.
196830, February 29, 2012)
11
With respect to the period within which to perfect the appeal, the Supreme
Court, in the case of Judy Phils., Inc. vs. NLRC, G.R. No. 111934, April 29, 1998
has ruled that:
Since the 10-day period provided in Article 223 (now Article 229)
of the Labor Code refers to ten calendar days and not to ten
working days, this means that Saturdays, Sundays and Legal
Holidays are not to be excluded, but included, in the computation of
the 10-day period. This is in line with the objective of the law for
speedy disposition of labor cases with the end in view of protecting
the interest of the workingman. In subsequent cases, We ruled that
if the tenth day to perfect an appeal from the decision of the Labor
Arbiter to the NLRC falls on a Saturday, the appeal shall be made
on the next working day, as embodied in Section 1, Rule VI of the
NLRC Rules of Procedure promulgated on January 14, 1992. This
conclusion arrived at by the Court recognizes the fact that on
Saturdays the offices of NLRC and certain post offices are closed.
Article 223 (now Article 229) (3rd paragraph) of the Labor Code,
as amended by Section 12 of Republic Act No. 6715, and Section 2
of the NLRC Interim Rules on Appeals under RA No. 6715,
Amending the Labor Code, provide that an order of reinstatement
by the Labor Arbiter is immediately executory even pending
appeal. (Alejandro Roquero vs. Philippine Airlines, Inc., G.R. No.
152329, April 22, 2003)
For better understanding, the Supreme Court has elucidated the rule on
reinstatement aspect pending appeal in the case of Froilan M. Bergonio, Jr. v.
South East Asian Airlines, G.R. No. 195227, April 21, 2014. The Supreme Court
held:
Good Luck