25

Ang Tibay v. CIR

G.R. No. L-46496
February 27, 1940
Laurel, J.

Facts:

National Labor Union claims that National Workers Brotherhood is a company dominated union and Toribio was merely
busting NLU when only its members were laid off by Toribio.

The case reached the Court of Industrial Relations (CIR) where Toribio and NWB won. Eventually, NLU went to the
Supreme Court invoking its right for a new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence.

Issue:

Whether or not NLU is entitled to a new trial.

Held:

Yes. The Court of Industrial Relations is not narrowly constrained by technical rules of procedure, and is required the
court shall act according to justice and equity and substantial merits of the case, without regard to technicalities or legal
evidence but may inform its mind in such manner as it may deem just and equitable.
26

SM AGRI AND GENERAL MACHINERIES v. NLRC

G.R. No. 74806
January 9, 1989
Padilla, J.

Facts:

Private respondent charged petitioner for unlawful dismissal and prayed for an award of damages. The Labor Arbiter, on
29 March 1984, rendered a decision in favor of private respondent, copy of which was received by petitioner on 10 April
1984. Petitioner filed an appeal, by Registered Mail, on 23 April 1984. The NLRC dismissed petitioner's appeal on the
ground that it was filed out of time. According to petitioner, it was physically impossible to file the appeal on 20 April
1984 either personally or by registered mail, since it was Good Friday, a Legal Holiday.

Issue:

Whether or not the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing petitioner's appeal on the ground of
tardiness or late filing.

Held:

Yes. While upholding the interpretation made in the Vir-Jen Shipping case that the 10-day period fixed by Art. 223 of the
Labor Code contemplates calendar days and not working days, the court recognizes an exception to this general rule,
i.e., where the 10th day is a Sunday or a Legal Holiday, in which event, the appeal can be filed on the next business day.
Consequently, in such a case, the supposedly last day to appeal will not be deemed the last day because it happens to be
a Sunday or Legal Holiday. Instead, the act can be done on the next business day following that Sunday or Legal Holiday.
27

ST. MARTIN FUNERAL HOME v. NLRC

G.R. No. 130866
September 16, 1998
Regalado, J.

Facts:

Respondent filed a case against St. Martin Funeral Homes in the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) alleging
that his dismissal was illegal. The LA ruled in favor of the petitioner. The respondent appealed to the secretary of NLRC
who set aside the decision and remanded the case to the labor arbiter. Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration, but
was denied by the NLRC. Now, petitioners appealed to the Supreme Court – alleging that the NLRC committed grave
abuse of discretion.

Issue:

Whether or not the petitioner’s appeal/petition for certiorari was properly filed in the Supreme Court.

Held:

No. The petitioners rightfully filed a motion for reconsideration, but the appeal or certiorari should have been filed
initially to the Court of Appeals – as consistent with the principle of hierarchy of courts. As such, the Supreme Court
remanded the case to the Court of Appeals.
28

BORJA ESTATE v. SPS. BALLAD

G.R. No. 152550
June 8, 2005
Tinga, J.

Facts:

The Labor Arbiter ruled that the Ballad spouses had been illegally dismissed, after concluding that they had been
employees of the Borjas. The Borjas filed their appeal before the NLRC together with a Motion for Reduction of Bond.
The NLRC dismissed the petitioners’ Motion for Reduction of Bond. Petitioners’ appeal was likewise dismissed in the
same Resolution for failure to post a cash or surety bond within the reglementary period. The Court of Appeals affirmed
the Resolutions of the NLRC holding that the filing of a cash or surety bond is sine qua non to the perfection of appeal
from the labor monetary’s award.

Issue:

Whether or not the CA erred in agreeing with the NLRC that the posting of a cash or surety bond during the period of
time to file an appeal is mandatory.

Held:

Yes. Evidently, the posting of a cash or surety bond is mandatory. And the perfection of an appeal in the manner and
within the period prescribed by law is not only mandatory but jurisdictional. The requirement that the employer post a
cash or surety bond to perfect its/his appeal is apparently intended to assure the workers that if they prevail in the case,
they will receive the money judgment in their favor upon the dismissal of the employer’s appeal. It was intended to
discourage employers from using an appeal to delay, or even evade, their obligation to satisfy their employees’ just and
lawful claims.
29

UERM-MMC v. NLRC
G.R. No. 110419
March 3, 1997
Puno, J.

Facts:

Respondents were directed by the LA to pay the 517 individual complainants a total of P17,082,448.56 plus exemplary
damages of P2,000 each. Within the reglementary period for appeal, the petitioners filed their Notice and
Memorandum of Appeal with a Real Estate Bond consisting of land and various improvements therein
worth P102,345,650. The private respondents moved to dismiss the appeal on the ground that Article 223 of the Labor
Code, as amended, requires the posting of a cash or surety bond. The NLRC directed petitioners to post a cash or surety
bond of P17,082,448.56 with a warning that failure to do so would cause the dismissal of the appeal.

Issue:

Whether or not in perfecting an appeal to the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) a property bond is excluded
by the two forms of appeal bond — cash or surety — as enumerated in Article 223 of the Labor Code.

Held:

The applicable law is Article 223 of the Labor Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 6715. Considering that the current
policy is not to strictly follow technical rules but rather to take into account the spirit and intention of the Labor Code, it
would be prudent for us to look into the merits of the case, especially since petitioner disputes the allegation that
private respondent was illegally dismissed. In the case at bar, the judgment involved is more than P17 million and its
precipitate execution can adversely affect the existence of petitioner medical center. Likewise, the issues involved
are not insignificant and they deserve af ull discourse by our quasi-judicial and judicial authorities. We are also confident
that the real property bond posted by the petitioners sufficiently protects the interests of private respondentsshould
they finally prevail.
30
ACDA v. MOL
G.R. No. L-51607
December 15, 1982
De Castro, J.

Facts:

The Minister of Labor upheld the petitioner's dismissal and set aside the Resolution of the NLRC, affirming the decision
of the LA. The NLRC said in its decision that the appeal was filed in only seven copies instead of ten as required by the
Rules of the Commission. No appeal fee appears to have been paid, which means that the appeal has not been perfected
in accordance with the said Rules.

Issue:

Whether or not the NLRC erred in affirming the decision of the LA.

Held:

The requirement of an appeal fee is by no means a mere technicality of law or procedure. It is an essential requirement
in the perfection of an appeal without which the decision appealed from would become final and executory, as if no
appeal was filed at all. And this must be so considering that the right to appeal is not a natural right nor a part of due
process but is merely a statutory privilege and may be exercised only in the manner prescribed by, and in accordance
with, the provisions of the law.
31

CW TAN MFG v. NLRC

G.R. 79596
February 10, 1989
Gancayco, J.

Facts:

Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint filed by the private respondent. An appeal was interposed by private respondent
Brimon to the public respondent NLRC. The appeal was dismissed for having been filed out of time as there was no proof
of service of the appeal to the adverse party. A Motion for Reconsideration was filed and the NLRC reconsidered its
resolution and issued a new one in favor of the private respondent. Hence, this petition.

Issue:

Whether or not the questioned decision of the labor arbiter had become final and executory for failure of private
respondents to perfect their appeal on time.

Held:

No. The failure of the private respondent to furnish a copy of the appeal memorandum to the adverse party is not a
jurisdictional defect, but is a mere formal lapse as ruled by this court in several instances. And when as in this case such
requirement was complied with although beyond the period of appeal, the appeal should be given due course. As to the
issue of the non-payment of the appeal fee on time, the broader interest of justice and the desired objective in deciding
the case on the merits demand that the appeal be given due course.
32

ABBOTT LABORATORIES v. NLRC

G.R. No. 76959
October 12, 1987
Gutierrez, Jr., J

Facts:

Bobadilla was directed by Victa to comply with the transfer order, otherwise his would be dropped from the payroll for
having abandoned his job. When competent failed to report to his new assignment, Abbott assigned thereat another
PED PMR. Bobadilla filed a complaint. LA ruled for the respondent on the ground that the complainant is guilty of gross
insubordination. NLRC reversed the decision.

Issue:

Whether or not Albert Bobadilla could be validly dismissed from his employment on the ground of insubordination for
refusing to accept his new assignment.

Held:

Yes. Bobadilla had tacitly given his consent thereto when he acceded to the petitioners' policy of hiring sales staff who
are willing to be assigned anywhere in the Philippines which is demanded by the petitioners' business. The hiring, firing,
transfer, demotion, and promotion of employees has been traditionally identified as a management prerogative subject
to limitations found in law, a collective bargaining agreement, or general principles of fair play and justice. This is a
function associated with the employer's inherent right to control and manage effectively its enterprise.
33

PACIFIC MILLS v. NLRC

G.R. No. 88864
January 17, 1990
Gancayco, J.

Facts:

The SC dismissed the petition questioning the decision of the NLRC. The entry of judgment having been effected, the
NLRC in the process of execution of the said decision of the LA made a computation of the award to the private
respondents. Petitioner filed a motion to stay execution/reconsideration citing supervening events that affect the
computation of the award. NLRC did not stay execution of judgment and issued an order for immediate implementation
of the partial writ of execution without further delay.

Issue:

Whether the execution of a final judgment of the NLRC may be stayed in view of supervening events

Held:

Yes. There can be no question that the supervening events cited by petitioner would certainly affect the computation of
the award in the decision of the NLRC. It is the duty of the NLRC to consider the same and inquire into the correctness of
the execution, as such supervening events may affect such execution.
34

VELOSO v. DOLE
G.R. No. 87297
August 5, 1991
Cruz, J.

Facts:

Petitioners signed a Quitclaim and Release while the motion for reconsideration and recomputation of the amount
awarded to the petitioners filed by the respondent was pending. These releases were later impugned by the petitioners.
The petitioners claim that they were forced to sign their respective releases in favor of their employer, the private
respondent, by reason of their dire necessity. The latter, for its part, insists that the petitioner entered into the
compromise agreement freely and with open eyes and should not now be permitted to reject their solemn
commitments.

Issue:

Whether or not the quitclaims may be annulled and the writ of execution be issued.

Held:

No. "Dire necessity" is not an acceptable ground for annulling the releases, especially since it has not been shown that
the employees had been forced to execute them. It has not even been proven that the considerations for the quitclaims
were unconscionably low and that the petitioners had been tricked into accepting them.

The petitioners cannot renege on their agreement simply because they may now feel they made a mistake in not
awaiting the resolution of the private respondent's motion for reconsideration and recomputation. The possibility that
the original award might have been affirmed does not justify the invalidation of the perfectly valid compromise
agreements they had entered into in good faith and with full voluntariness.
35

VOLKSCHEL v. BLR
G.R. No. L-45824
June 19, 1985
Cuevas, J.

Facts:

Petitioner and ALUMETAL jointly entered into a collective bargaining agreement with respondent companies where it
was agreed that the respondent company will make payroll deductions twice a month for membership dues and other
fees or fines. After some time, a majority of petitioner’s members decided to disaffiliate from respondent federation in
order to operate on its own as an independent labor group.

Issue:

Whether or not petitioner union’s disaffiliation from respondent federation was valid.

Held:

Yes. A local union, being separate and voluntary association, is free to serve the interest of all its members including the
freedom to disaffiliate when circumstances warrant.
36

ADAMSON & ADAMSON, INC. v. CIR and ADAMSON & ADAMSON SUPERVISORY UNION (FFW)
G.R. No. L-35120
January 31, 1984
Gutierrez, Jr., J.

Facts:

Adamson and Adamson, Inc., filed this petition to set aside orders of the respondent CIR holding that the Adamson and
Adamson, Inc. Supervisory Union (FFW) can legally represent supervisors of the petitioner corporation notwithstanding
the affiliation of the rank and file union of the same company with the same labor federation, the Federation of Free
Workers.

Issue:

Whether or not a supervisor’s union may affiliate with a federation with which unions of rank-and-file employees of the
same employer are also affiliated.

Held:

Yes. There is nothing in the provisions of the Industrial Peace Act which provides that a duly registered local union
affiliating with a national union or federation loses its legal personality, or its independence. They are separately and
independently registered of each other. Both sent their separate proposals for collective bargaining agreements with
their employer. There could be no employer influence on rank-in-file organizational activities nor there could be any
rank and file influence on the supervisory functions of the supervisors because of the representation sought to be
proscribed.
37

TROPICAL HUT EMPLOYEES’ UNION v. TROPICAL HUT

G.R. No. L-43495-99
January 20, 1990
Medialdea, J.

Facts:

The rank and file workers of the respondent company organized a local union (THEU) and immediately sought affiliation
with the NATU. NATU accepted the THEU application for affiliation. Later on, NATU received a letter jointly signed by the
incumbent officers of the local union informing the NATU that THEU was disaffiliating from the NATU federation. The
employees were dismissed because, as respondent company contended, they violated the union security clause.

Issue:

Whether or not the disaffiliation of the local union from the national federation was valid

Held:

Yes. A local union, being a separate and voluntary association, is free to serve the interest of all its members including
the freedom to disaffiliate when circumstances warrant. This right is consistent with the constitutional guarantee of
freedom of association
38

VILLAR v. HON. INCIONG

G.R. No. L-50283-84
April 20, 1983
Guerrero, J.

Facts:

Amigo Employees Union under Federation of Unions of Rizal filed for a certification election but was denied due to the
opposition of AEU-PAFLU. AEU-PAFLU then called a special meeting among members and it was there decided that an
investigation of certain people would beheld pursuant to the constitution and by-laws of the Federation. Based on the
findings and recommendations of the PAFLU trial committee, the PAFLU President found the petitioners guilty of the
charges against the petitioners and it was requested that they be terminated in conformity with the security clause in
the CBA.

Issue:

Whether or not PAFLU had the authority to investigate oppositors and, thereafter, expel them from the roll of
membership of the AEU-PAFLU.

Held:

Yes. That PAFLU had the authority to investigate petitioners and after finding them guilty at charged, to expel them from
the roll of membership of the Amigo Employees Union-PAFLU is clear under the constitution of the PAFLU to which the
local union was affiliated. And pursuant to the security clause of the new CBA, reiterating the same clause in the old
CBA, PAFLU was justified in applying said security clause. Recognized and salutary is the principle that when a labor
union affiliates with a mother union, it becomes bound by the laws and regulations of the parent organization.