LABOR RELATIONS

CEDRIC VANGUARDIA

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISION

1. Composition, Appointment and Qualification of Labor Arbiters and
Commissioners
Articles 220-223 Labor Code as amended by R.A. No. 9347
2. Proceedings before Labor Arbiters
Rule V, 2011 NLRC Rules of Procedure
3. Proceedings before the Commission
Rule VII, 2011 NLRC Rules of Procedure
JURISDICTION OF LABOR ARBITERS
1. Venue, Assignment and Disposition of cases
Rule IV, NLRC Rules of Procedure
2. Endorsement or Referral of cases to Labor Arbiters after mandatory
conciliation-mediation conducted by Desk Officers under the DOLE Single
Entry Assistance Desk Office of DOLE or the NLRC Single Entry Approach
Article 234, Labor Code as amended by R.A. No. 10396
3. Cases subject to original jurisdiction of Labor Arbiters
Articles 124, 224, 223 Labor Code; Sec. 10, R.A. No. 8042, as amended by R.A. No.
10022 (lapsed into law on March 8, 2010)
1. Under Section 2 (1) Article IX (B) of the 1987 Constitution, the NLRC has no jurisdiction
over complaint for illegal dismissal filed by an employee of a government-owned and
controlled corporation with original charter.
CASE: Bliss Development Corp. v NLRC
2. Employees of a government-owned and controlled corporation with original charter like
the LRTA is covered by Civil Service Law, rules and regulations.
CASE: Light Rail Transit Authority v Venus, Jr. March 24, 2006
3. Jurisdiction over disputes involving government employees is vested with the Public
Sector Labor Management Council pursuant to Executive Order No. 180 (June 1, 1980).
CASE: SS Employees Association v Court of Appeals, July 28, 1989
4. The National Parks Development Committee is a government agency whose employees
are covered by civil service rules.
CASE: Samahang Mangggawa ng Rizal Parkk vs NLRC, June 21, 1991

5. The Boy Scout of the Philippines may be regarded as both a government-controlled

corporation with an original charter and as an instrumentality of the government within
the meaning of Section 2(1), Article IX (B) of the 1987 Constitution.
CASE:BSP v NLRC, April 22, 1991
6. The NLRC has no jurisdiction over employees of an international agency like the
SEAFDEC or any of its departments.
CASE: SEAFDEC-AQD v NLRC, February 14, 1992
7. Notwithstanding the original jurisdiction of labor Arbiter over money claims exceeding
5,000.00, the Secretary of Labor or his representative, i.e., Regional Director shall have
the power to hear and decide money claims exceeding 5,000.00 where the
employment relationship still exists and the employer does not contest or raise any
issue relative to the inspection results.
CASE: Maternity Childrens Hospital v Sec. of Labor, June 30 1989;
Batongbuhay Gold Mines, Inc. v NLRC, August 6, 1999;
Peoples Broadcasting Services, Inc. v NLRC, March 6, 201, en banc.
READ Articles 128(a,b) and 129, Labor Code re: Jurisdiction of Sec. of Labor/Regional Director
over money claims

8. The provisions of the Labor Code which govern the dismissal of employees are
comprehensive enough to include religious corporations. Where the case does not
involve an ecclesiastical or purely religious affair, the Labor Arbiter can take cognizance
of the case.
CASE: Austria v. NLRC, August 16, 1999
9. Claims of workers to recover damages agreed upon in the contract of employment as
redress for breach of contract belongs to the jurisdiction of the regular courts, while
claims for damages arising from acts attributed to the employer while still an employee
are in connection with employer-employee relationship and therefore under the
jurisdiction of Labor Arbiters.
CASE: Dai-Chi Electronics manufacturing Corp. v Villarama, Jr.;
Encarnacion v. Dynasty Amusement Center Corp.
10.

The jurisdiction of the Securities and Exchange Commission over cases enumerated
in Sec. 5 of P.D. No. 902-A (Revised Securities Act) which included controversies in the
election and appointment of directors, trustees, officers, or managers of corporations,
partnerships or associations and petition to be declared in a state of suspension of
payments for corporate rehabilitation, has been transferred to the Regional Trial
Courts pursuant to R.A. No. 8799 (Securities Regulation Code) which was signed into
law on July 19, 2000.
2

CASE: Nacpil v. Intercontinental Broadcasting Corp., March 21, 2002

11.

Under Administrative Matter No. 00-8-10-SC on the Rules of Procedure on Corporate

Rehabilitation approved by the Supreme Court on December 2, 2008 and became
effective on January 16, 2009, the issuance of a Stay Order in corporate rehabilitation
only suspends the implementation of a writ of execution against the judgment debtor
and does not affect the right to commence actions or proceedings insofar as it is
necessary to preserve a claim against the debtor.
CASE: Rubberworld v. NLRC, April 14, 1999

12.

Where there was already an actual dismissal of the employee, jurisdiction over the
case is lodged with the Labor Arbiter and not the voluntary arbitrator. Only disputes
involving the union and the company shall be referred to the grievance machinery or
voluntary arbitrators.
CASE: Atlas Farms, Inc. v. NLRC, November 18, 2002

13.

A reading of Article 217 (now 224) in conjunction with Article 262 (now 275) shoes that
termination disputes fall under the jurisdiction of the Labor Arbiter unless the union
and the company agree that termination disputes should be submitted to voluntary
arbitration.
CASE: Landtex Industries v. CA, August 9, 2007

14.

The POEA Rules only provide sanctions which the POEA can impose on erring agencies.
It does not provide for damages and money claims recoverable by aggrieved
employees because it is not the POEA but the NLRC which has jurisdiction over such
matters.
CASE: Santiago v. CF Sharp Crew Management, Inc.

15.

Jurisdiction by estoppel a party cannot invoke the jurisdiction of a court to secure

affirmative relief against his opponent and after obtaining or failing to obtain such
relief repudiate or question the same jurisdiction.
CASE: Tijam v. sibonghanoy, 23 SCRA 29

16.

The special civil action of certiorari is the proper vehicle for judicial review of decisions
of the NLRC. A special civil action of certiorari is within the concurrent original
jurisdiction of the SC and the Court of Appeals . Consequently, all petitions for
certiorari should be initially filed in the CA in strict observance of the doctrine of
hierarchy of courts.
CASE: St. Martin Funeral Homes v. NLRC, September 16, 1998

NLRC proceedings and amicable settlement of labor disputes Article 227,

Labor Code
1. The Supreme Court construed Artcle 221 ( now 227) Labor Code so as to allow
the NLRC or a Labor Arbiter to decide a case on a basis of position papers and
other documents submitted without resorting to technical rules of evidence as
observed in the regular courts.
CASE: Manila Doctors Hospital v. NLRC, February 28, 1985
2. While it is true that affiants may be regarded as infirm evidence before the
regular courts unless the affiants are presented on the stand, such affidavits by
themselves are acceptable in proceedings before the Labor Arbiter.
CASE: Great Pacific Life Employees Union v. Great Pacific Life
Assurance Corp.
NOTE: Under Rule V, Section 12 (c) of the NLRC Rules of Procedure, the
submission of position papers by the parties shall be accompanied by all
supporting documents, including the affidavits of witnesses which shall
take the place of their direct testimony.
3. Petition for relief and/or motion for reconsideration even if seasonably filed
based on a valid ground is unavailing as a remedy since the NLRC Rules
themselves have provided a specific procedure to be followed.
CASE: Cayena v. NLRC
NOTE: Under Rule V, Section 5 of the 2011 NLRC Rules of Procedure
petition for relief from judgment and motion for reconsideration are
prohibited pleadings before the Labor Arbiter.
4. The NLRC is not precluded from receiving evidence on appeal because technical
rules of procedure are not binding in labor cases.
CASE: Casimiro v. Stern Real Estate, Inc., March 10, 2006
5. Pleadings shall be construed liberally so as to render substantial justice to the
parties and to determine speedily and inexpensively the actual merits of the
case. Hence, the absence of verification is not jurisdictional but only a formal
defect.
CASE: Linton Commercial Co., Inc. v. Hellera, October 10, 2007
6. COMPROMISE AGREEMENT
i. General Rule: Waivers and Quitclaims are invalid as against public policy.
4

Exception: Where it is shown that the person making the waiver did so
voluntarily with full understanding of what he was doing and the
consideration for the quitclaim is credible and reasonable, the transaction
must be recognized as a valid and binding undertaking.
CASE: Periquet v. NLRC, June 22, 1990
ii. Once an employee resigns and executes quitclaim in favor of the employer, he is thereby
stopped from filing any further money claims