Art.

218 (211) LABOR AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION CASES

April 3, 1995 NLRC issued Temporary mandatory

injunction enjoining petitioner to cease and desist from
enforcing Feb. 22, 1995 Memorandum of dismissal.

(29) PAL v. NLRC, March 20, 1998

Adopted the view that:

o

Petitioners:

Private respondents cannot be validly

dismissed on the strength of PALs Code of

Philippine Airlines Inc. petition for certiorari which

Discipline which was declared illegal

seeks the nullification of the injunctive writ issued by

NLRC and the order denying petitioners MR on the

The whimsical, baseless and premature

dismissals of private respondents shich caused

ground that said orders were issued in excess of

them grave and irreparable injury is enjoinable

jurisdiction

as private respondents are left with no

speedy and adequate at law except issuance

Respondents:

of a temporary mandatory injuction

NLRC

Ferdinand Pineda

Labor Code not only to restrain any actual

Gogfredo Cabling

or threatened commission of any or all

Private respondents are flight attendants of

prohibited or unlawful acts but aslo to

PAL

require the performance of a particular act

in any labor dispute

Facts:

Temporary power was recognized by this

February 22, 1995 Ferdinand Pineda and Gogfredo

Court in the case of Chemo-Technische Mfg.,

were dismissed, from the service for their alleged

Inc. Employees Union, DFA et. Al. v. Chemo-

involvement in the April 3, 1993 currency smuggling in

Technisc

Hong Kong, by the PALs Disciplinary Board

o

April 3, 1995 the private respondents were

May 4, 1995 petitioner moved for reconsideration

arguing that:

instructed to attend an investigation by

or restraining order since this may be issued

which Joseph Abaca, Aviation Mechanic in

only under Art. 218 if case involves or arises

Hongkong was intercept by the Hongkong

from labor dispute

o

the Kai Tak International Airport while

contain some 2.5 million pesos in PH currencies.

NLRC denied petitioners MR and ruled

o

PAL cannot validly claim that NLRC cannot

That at the police Station, Mr. Abaca claimed

exercise the injunctive power under Art. 218

skybed section of the arrival flight

we have here is not a labor dispute

that he just found said plastic bag at the

o

NLRC divest the Labor arbiter of its original

and exclusive jurisdiction over illegal dismissal

about to exit said gate carrying a bag said

o

NLRC has no jurisdiction to issue an injunction

PALs Security and Fraud Sub-departmentat

Airport Police at Gate 05. The ramp area of

of Labor Code on the pretext that what

PALs Disciplinary Board, Abaca was made to

Art. 218 (e) empowered NLRC not only to

identify petitioners as co-conspirators; that

issue prohibitory injunction, but a mandatory

despite the fact that the procedure of

one as well

identification adopted by PALs disciplinary

Board was anomalous

Private respondents remedy for their

dismissals is to file an illegal dismissal case

NLRC

NLRC is empowered under Art. 218 (e) of the

against PAL which cases are within the

As aggrieved by said dismissal, Private respondent filed

original and exclusive jurisdiction of the Labor

a petition for injunction in NLRC and prayed for:

Arbiter is ignorant

Upon filing of petition, TRO from dismissal or

reinstatement of Private respondent

o

In requiring as a condition for the issuance

of a temporary or permanent injunction-

After hearing, writ of preliminary mandatory

that complainant has no adequate remedy

injunction be issued to reinstate respondents

at law.

and awarded full backwages, moral damages

Art.218 clearly envisioned adequacy and not

of PHP 500.00.00 each, attys fees

plain availability of a remedy at law as an

and the cost of suit

injunction.

equivalent to 10% of whatever is awarded,

alternative bar to the issuance of an

1

An illegal dismissal suit while available

be a labor dispute between the contending parties

certainly not an adequate remedy

before the labor arbiters

at law.

It is an essential requirement that there must first

as a remedy under Art. 217 (a) is

In the case at bar, there is no labor

Thus Art. 218 (e) stands as the sole

dispute between Pal and private respondents

adequate remedy at law for PAL

as there has yet been ni complaint for illegal

dismissal filed with the labor arbiter by the

ISSUE: Whether or not the NLRC, even without a complaint

private respondents against PAL

for illegal dismissal tiled before the Labor Arbiter, entertain an

action for injunction and issue such writ enjoining PAL from

The Petition for injunction directly filed before the

NLRC is in reality an action for illegal dismissal

enforcing its order of dismissal against private respondents, and

IT is clear from the allegations in the

ordering petitioner to reinstate the private respondents to

petition which rays for reinstatement, award

their previous positions (NO)

of full backwages, moral and exemplary

damages and attys fees.

Held: NO

Injunction is also a special equitable relief granted only

appellate in nature and, therefore, it cannot

in cases where there is no plain, adequate and

entertain the private respondents petition for

complete remedy at law.

injunction which challenges the dismissal orders of

Art. 218 (e) of the Labor Code to enjoin or restrain

petitioner

any actual or threatened commission of any or all

prohibited or unlawful acts or to require the

(30) Landbank of the Phils. v. Listana, August 5, 2008

performance of a particular act in any labor dispute

Land Bank of the Philippines vs. Severino Listana, sr.

which, it not restrained or performed forthwith, may

cause grave or irreparable damage to any party or

G.R. No. 152611. August 5, 2003

render ineffectual any decision in favor of such party

Sec. 1, Rule XI of the New Rule of Procedure of the

NLRC Injunction in Ordinary Dispute -

Petitioner:

LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES

preliminary Injunction or a restraining order may be

granted by the Commission through its divisions

Respondent:

pursuant to the provisions of par. (e) of Art. 218 of

SEVERINO LISTANA, SR.

LC, as amended, when it is established on the bases

of sworn allegations in the petition that the acts

before NLRC, which, if not restrained or performed

Reform (DAR).

any party or render ineffectual any decision in favor

of such party

DAR

The foregoing ancillary power may be

exercised by the labor arbiters inly as an

The DAR assessed the value of land and valued it at

5,871,689.03. This was rejected by the respondent,

incident to the cases pending before them

Listana.

arbiters only as an incident to the cases

pending before them in order to preserve the

Hence, Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication

Board (DARAB) of Sorsogon commenced a summary

rights of the parties during the pendency of

proceeding to determine the just compensation of the

the case, but excluding labor disputes involving

land.

strikes and lockout

The power of the NLRC to issue an injunctive writ

DARAB

originates from any labor dispute upon application by

the party thereof

o

He voluntarily offered to sell the said land to the

government through the Department of Agrarian

forwith, may cause grave or irreparable damage to

Severino Listana is the owner of a 240.0561 hectares

of land located in Sorsogon.

complained of, involving or arisingfrom any labor dispute

Jurisdiction of the NLRC in illegal dismissal cases is

1998, DARAB rendered a decision to change the first

assessed value of the land to 10,956,963.25.

If not granted may cause grave and

irreparable damage to any party or render

DARAB also ordered the Land Bank to pay the land

owner the aforementioned amount.

ineffectual any decision in favor of such

party

punish any person for indirect contempt on any of

-

PARAD issued a writ of execution directing the

the grounds and in the manner prescribed under Rule

manager of Land Bank, Alex Lorayes, to pay the

71 of the Revised Rules of Court.

respondent.
-

Due to the non-compliance of the land bank to the

In this connection, Rule 71, Section 4 of the 1997 Rules of Civil

said writ, on September 2, 1999 the respondent filed

Procedure, which deals with the commencement of indirect

a motion for contempt with the PARAD. This was

contempt proceedings, provides:

granted in year 2000.

Sec. 4. How proceedings commenced. Proceedings for

indirect contempt may be initiated motu proprio by

Landbank
-

Land Bank filed a case to the RTC sitting as a Special

the court against which the contempt was

Agrarian Court (SAC) to determine just compensation.

committed by an order or any other formal charge

This was also dismissed in year 2000.

requiring the respondent to show cause why he should

Landbank filed with PARAB a notice of appeal,

not be punished for contempt.

manifesting the intention to appeal the decision of

DARAB.
-

Charges for indirect contempt shall be commenced by

This, however, was denied by PARAD Capellan and an

a verified petition with supporting particulars and

alias writ of execution and an order of arrest against

certified true copies of documents or papers involved

Lorayes were issued.

therein, and upon full compliance with the

requirements for filing initiatory pleadings for civil

actions in the court concerned.

In order to prevent PARAD Capellan to issue an order

If the contempt charges arose out of or are related

of arrest, the bank filed a petition for injunction

to a principal action pending in the court, the petition

before the RTC of Sorsogon.

for contempt shall allege that fact but said petition

reconsideration was filed by the respondent, which

the court in its discretion orders the consolidation of

was denied by the court.

the contempt charge and the principal action for joint

This was granted by the court. A motion for

shall be docketed, heard and decided separately, unless

hearing and decision.

CA
-

Thus the respondent filed a special civil action for

2. NO. Quasi-judicial agencies that have the power to cite

certiorari with the CA.

persons for indirect contempt pursuant to Rule 71 of the Rules

The CA rendered the assailed decision which nullified

of Court can only do so by initiating them in the proper

the orders of the RTC.

Regional Trial Court.

ISSUE:

It is not within their jurisdiction and competence to

decide the indirect contempt cases. These matters are

1.

Whether or not the order for the arrest of Mr. Alex

still within the province of the Regional Trial Courts.

Lorayes by the PARAD is valid. YES

2.

In the present case, the indirect contempt charge

Whether or not PARAD, a quasi-judicial body, has the

was filed, not with the Regional Trial Court, but with

jurisdiction to decide contempt charge filed by the

the PARAD, and it was the PARAD that cited Mr.

respondent, Listana? NO

Lorayes with indirect contempt. Hence, the contempt

proceedings initiated through an unverified Motion for

HELD:

Contempt filed by the respondent with the PARAD

were invalid for the following reasons:

1. YES. On the substantive issue of whether the order for the

arrest of petitioners manager, Mr. Alex Lorayes by the PARAD,

was valid, Rule XVIII of the 2003 DARAB Rules reads, in

First, the Rules of Court clearly require the filing of a

verified petition with the Regional Trial Court, which

pertinent part:

was not complied with in this case. The charge was

not initiated by the PARAD motu proprio; rather, it

SECTION 2. Indirect Contempt. The Board or any of

was by a motion filed by respondent.

its members or its Adjudicator may also cite and

Second, neither the PARAD nor the DARAB have

jurisdiction to decide the contempt charge filed by the

Labor Arbiter: Denied the unions motion for a stay order on

respondent.

the ground that the issues raised by the petitioners can best

be ventilated during the trial on the merits of the case. This

The issuance of a warrant of arrest was

prompted the union to file with NLRC a petition for the

beyond the power of the PARAD and the

issuance of a preliminary mandatory injunction and/or TRO.

DARAB.
o

Consequently, all the proceedings that

NLRC: Issued a TRO. However, the respondents failed to comply.

Contempt, specifically the Orders of the

NLRC then upgraded the TRO to a writ of preliminary

PARAD dated August 20, 2000 and January

injunction.

stemmed from respondents Motion for

The union moved to cite the respondents in contempt of court.

3, 2001 for the arrest of Alex A. Lorayes, are

null and void.

NLRC directed the Labor Arbiter to hear the motion for

(31) Robosa v. NLRC, February 8, 2012.

contempt. This prompted the respondents to question NLRCs

orders before the SC through a petition for certiorari. SC

Robosa v. NLRC
G.R. No. 176085

dismissed the petition for being premature. NLRC heard the

February 8, 2012

contempt charge which it subsequently dismissed. It ordered

the Labor Arbiter to proceed hearing the main case on the

Petitioners: Federico S. Robosa, Rolando E. Pandy, Noel D. Roxas,

merits.

Nanette H. Pinto were rank-and-file employees of respondent

The petitioners moved for, but failed to secure, a

Chemo-Technische Manufacturing, Inc. (CTMI). They were

reconsideration from the NLRC on the dismissal of the

officers and members of the CTMI Employees Union-DFA

contempt charge. They then sought relief from the CA by way

(union)

of a petition for certiorari under Rule 65.

Private Respondents: Chemo-Technische Manufacturing, Inc.

CA: Dismissed the petition as it opined that NLRCs order of

(CTMI), is the manufacturer and distributor of "Wella"

dismissal of the contempt charge is not subject to review by

products. Procter and Gamble Philippines, Inc. (P & GPI)

an appellate court.

Alexander Angeles, Veronica Gutierrez, Fernando Embat and

acquired all the interests, franchises and goodwill of CTMI

during the pendency of the dispute. Franklin R. De Luzuriaga is

the President and General Manager of CTMI.

ISSUES: (1) WON the NLRC has contempt powers YES

(2) WON the dismissal of a contempt charge

FACTS: In 1991, the union filed a petition for certification

is appealable NO

election at CTMI. During the consent election, the union failed

(3) WON the NLRC committed grave abuse

to garner the votes required to be certified as the exclusive

of discretion in dismissing the contempt charge against the

bargaining agent of the company.

respondents NO

Thereafter, CTMI, through De Luzuriaga, issued a memorandum

demobilizing its sales territories and abolishing its system of

RULING:

sales group of a new system (Salon Business Groups).

the Labor Code, , the NLRC (and the labor arbiters) may hold

truck-sales representatives while simultaneously informing the

(1)

YES. Under Art. 218 (d) [now Art. 225]of

any offending party in contempt, directly or indirectly, and

The union asked for the withdrawal of CTMIs directives, but

impose appropriate penalties in accordance with law. The penalty

CTMI ignored the request. Instead, it issued on a notice of

for direct contempt consists of either imprisonment or fine, the

termination of employment to the sales drivers, due to the

degree or amount depends on whether the contempt is against

abolition of their positions.

the Commission or the labor arbiter. The Labor Code, however,

requires the labor arbiter or the Commission to deal with

The union filed a complaint for illegal dismissal and unfair labor

indirect contempt in the manner prescribed under Rule 71 of

practice, with a claim for damages, against CTMI, De Luzuriaga

the Rules of Court.

and other CTMI officers. The union also moved for the issuance

of a writ of preliminary injunction and/or temporary restraining

Rule 71 of the Rules of Court does not require the

order (TRO).

labor arbiter or the NLRC to initiate indirect contempt

4

proceedings before the trial court. This mode is to be observed

MANILA ELECTRIC COMPANY, Petitioner, vs. JAN CARLO GALA,

only when there is no law granting them contempt powers.24

Respondent.

As is clear under Article 218(d) of the Labor Code, the labor

arbiter or the Commission is empowered or has jurisdiction to

FACTS

hold the offending party or parties in direct or indirect

In March 2006, respondent Jan Carlo Gala commenced

contempt. The petitioners, therefore, have not improperly

employment with the petitioner Meralco Electric Company

brought the indirect contempt charges against the respondents

(Meralco) as a probationary lineman. Barely four months on

before the NLRC.

the job, Gala was dismissed for alleged complicity in pilferages of

(2)

Meralcos electrical supplies.Gala denied involvement in the

NO. The CA held that the NLRCs dismissal of

pilferage. Despite Galas explanation, Meralco proceeded with the

the contempt charges against the respondents amounts to an

investigation and eventually terminated his employment in July

acquittal in a criminal case and is not subject to appeal. The CA

2006. Gala responded by filing an illegal dismissal complaint

ruling is grounded on prevailing jurisprudence. In the leading case

against Meralco.

Reyes as ponente, that the contempt proceeding far from

Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint for lack of merit. LA held

being a civil action is "of a criminal nature and of summary

that Galas participation in the pilferage of Meralcos property

character in which the court exercises but limited jurisdiction."

rendered him unqualified to become a regular employee. NLRC

It was then explicitly held: "Hence, as in criminal proceedings,

reversed the labor arbiters ruling. It found that Gala had

an appeal would not lie from the order of dismissal of, or an

been illegally dismissed, since there was "no concrete showing of

of In re Mison, Jr. v. Subido, it was stressed by Justice J.B.L.

exoneration from, a charge of contempt of court."

(3)

complicity with the alleged misconduct/dishonesty."

NO. An act of a court or tribunal may only

Gala contends, in regard to the alleged procedural defects of

be considered as committed in grave abuse of discretion when

the petition, that the "Verification and Certification,"

it was performed in a capricious or whimsical exercise of

"Secretarys Certificate" and "Affidavit of Service" do not

of discretion must be so patent and gross as to amount to an

Certificates of the affiants, in violation of Section 6 of

evasion of a positive duty enjoined by law, or to act at all in

Commonwealth Act No. 465 (an Act to Impose a Residence

contemplation of law, as where the power is exercised in an

Tax). Additionally, the lawyers who signed the petition failed to

arbitrary and despotic manner by reason of passion or personal

indicate their updated Mandatory Continuing Legal Education

judgment which is equivalent to lack of jurisdiction. The abuse

contain the details of the Community or Residence Tax

hostility.

(MCLE) certificate numbers, in violation of the rules.

We find no grave abuse of discretion in the assailed

The CA denied Meralcos petition for lack of merit. It concurred

NLRC ruling. It rightly avoided delving into issues which would

with the NLRC that Gala had been illegally dismissed.

clearly be in excess of its jurisdiction for they are issues

involving the merits of the case which are by law within the

ISSUE

original and exclusive jurisdiction of the labor arbiter. To be sure,

Whether or not Meralcos petition was validly dismissed due to

whether payroll reinstatement of some of the petitioners is

procedural defects.

proper; whether the resignation of some of them was compelled

by dire economic necessity; whether the petitioners are

RULING

contrary to law or public policy are issues that should be heard

labor legislation that the NLRC and the labor arbiters shall use

by the labor arbiter in the first instance. The NLRC can

every reasonable means to ascertain the facts in each case

inquire into them only on appeal after the merits of the case

speedily and objectively, without regard to technicalities of law

shall have been adjudicated by the labor arbiter.

or procedure, provided due process is duly observed. In keeping

entitled to their money claims; and whether quitclaims are

We stress at this point that it is the spirit and intention of

with this policy and in the interest of substantial justice, we

deem it proper to give due course to the petition, especially in

Art. 227 (221) TECHNICAL RULES NOT BINDING AND PRIOR

view of the conflict between the findings of the labor arbiter,

RESORT TO AMICABLE SETTLEMENT

on the one hand, and the NLRC and the CA, on the other. The
application of technical rules of procedure in labor cases may be

(32) Meralco v. Gala, March 7, 2012

G.R. Nos. 191288 & 191304

relaxed to serve the demands of substantial justice.

March 7, 2012

(33) Nationwide Security and Allied Services v. CA, July 14, 2008
5

the Commission and its members

NATIONWIDE SECURITY AND ALLIED SERVICES,

and Labor Arbiters shall use every

INC., petitioner, vs. THE COURT OF APPEALS, NATIONAL

and all reasonable means to

LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION and JOSEPH

ascertain the facts in each case

DIMPAZ, HIPOLITO LOPEZ, EDWARD ODATO,

speedily and objectively and

FELICISIMO PABON and JOHNNY AGBAY, respondents.

without [regard] to technicalities

QUISUMBING, J p:

of law or procedure, all [i]n the

FACTS:

interest of due process." *

Labor Arbiter Manuel M. Manansala found petitioner

Nationwide Security and Allied Services, Inc., a security

HELD:

security guards who were employees of the petitioner.

dismissed its case based on technicalities while the private

Petitioner contends that the Court of Appeals erred when it

agency, not liable for illegal dismissal in involving eight

respondents contend that the appeal to the NLRC had not

However, the Labor Arbiter directed the petitioner

been perfected, since the appeal was filed outside the

to pay the aforementioned security guards P81,750.00

reglementary period, and the bond was insufficient. 9 AECacT

in separation pay, P8,700.00 in unpaid salaries,

After considering all the circumstances in this case and the

P93,795.68 for underpayment and 10% attorney's fees

submission by the parties, we are in agreement that the

based on the total monetary award.

petition lacks merit.

Dissatisfied with the decision, petitioner appealed to

the NLRC which dismissed its appeal for two reasons

petitioner under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court is

first, for having been filed beyond the reglementary

inappropriate. The proper remedy is a petition for

period within which to perfect the appeal and second,

review under Rule 45 purely on questions of law.

for filing an insufficient appeal bond.

Its motion for reconsideration having been denied,

There being a remedy of appeal via petition for

have the appeal resolved on the merits rather than

to the petitioner, the filing of a petition

review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court available

petitioner then appealed to the Court of Appeals to

on pure technicalities in the interest of due process.

CA

The Court of Appeals dismissed the case

o

for certiorari under Rule 65 is improper.

But even if we bend our Rules to allow the present

petition for certiorari, still it will not prosper because
we do not find any grave abuse of discretion

holding that in a special action for certiorari

amounting to lack of or excess of jurisdiction on the

part of the Court of Appeals when it dismissed the

the burden is on petitioner to prove

petition of the security agency.

not merely reversible error, but

grave abuse of discretion amounting

Under Rule 65, the abuse of discretion must be so

patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of

to lack of or excess of jurisdiction on

positive duty or to a virtual refusal to perform a

the part of public respondent NLRC.

Petition for certiorari filed with the Court by

duty enjoined by law, or to act at all in

Court of Appeals likewise denied the petitioner's motion

contemplation of law, as where the power is exercised

for reconsideration|||

in an arbitrary and despotic manner by reason of

ISSUE:

passion or personal hostility.

Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred when it dismissed

its case based on technicalities

In the instant case, both the NLRC and the Court

of Appeals found that petitioner received the decision

*WHETHER OR NOT TECHNICALITIES IN LABOR

of the Labor Arbiter on July 16, 1999. Petitioner then

CASES MUST PREVAIL OVER THE SPIRIT AND

simultaneously filed its "Appeal Memorandum", "Notice of

INTENTION OF THE LABOR CODE UNDER ARTICLE 221

Appeal" and "Motion to Reduce Bond", by registered

THEREOF WHICH STATES:

mail on July 29, 1999.

"In any proceeding before the

Commission or any of the Labor

Arbiters, the rules of evidence

These were received by the NLRC on July 30, 1999.

The appeal to the NLRC should have been perfected,

prevailing in courts of Law or

as provided by its Rules, within a period of 10 days

equity shall not be controlling

from receipt by petitioner of the decision on July 16,

and it is the spirit and

1999. Clearly, the filing of the appeal three days

[i]ntention of this Code that

after July 26, 1999 was already beyond the

6

reglementary period and in violation of the NLRC Rules

2005

and the pertinent Article on Appeal in the Labor

Code. CHDAEc

Failure to perfect an appeal renders the decision final

and executory.

right and one who seeks to avail of the right must

refused to give him the

for acts of

key to his assigned taxi cab

insubordination and

resignation letter which he

management

refusal to heed

did not sign.

comply with the statute or the rules. The rules,

particularly the requirements for perfecting an appeal

within the reglementary period specified in the law,

instructions.

July 15 and 16, 2005 -

indispensable interdictions against needless delays and

It is only

Said the traffic

but Bryan insisted that he

violations, insubordination

Llamas did not file his

management

Position Paper.

instructions constitute

sign the resignation letter.

must be strictly followed as they are considered

Said they had issued

him several memoranda

unless he signed a

The right to appeal is a statutory

for the orderly discharge of judicial business.

July 14, 2005 - Bryan

and refusal to heed

grounds for the

in highly meritorious cases that this Court will opt not

termination of Llamas

to strictly apply the rules and thus prevent a grave

employment.

injustice from being done. 17 The exception does not

obtain here. Thus, we are in agreement that the

LA

decision of the Labor Arbiter already became final and

November 29, 2005 - LA dismissed Llamas Complaint for lack of

executory because petitioner failed to file the appeal

merit

within 10 calendar days from receipt of the decision.

Llamas was not dismissed, legally or illegally.

Llamas left his job and was absent without leave.

December 20, 2005 - Llamas filed his Position Paper

and exxplained that the reason he failed to
seasonably file his position paper
o

repeated pleas, had continuously deferred

(34) Diamond Taxi v. Llamas, March 12, 2014

G.R. No. 190724

compliance with the LAs orders. Hence, he

was forced to secure the services of another

March 12, 2014

counsel on December 19, 2005.

BRION, J.:

Petitioners:

NLRC (2005 NLRC Rules) (the governing NLRC Rules of

Procedure at the time Llamas filed his complaint
before the LA).

Labor Artbiter
Respondent

Diamond Taxi and Bryan

July 18, 2005 - Llamas filed

Ong filed their Position

Claimed that Llamas

was absent without

misunderstanding with

May 30, 2006 - The NLRC dismissed Llamas Motion for

Reconsideration (which the LA treated as an appeal)

Denied dismissing Llamas.

Bryan Ong
Alleged he had a

NLRC

Paper:

against the Diamond Taxi and

LA treated Llamas Motion as an Appeal per Section 15,

Rule V of the 2005 Revised Rules of Procedure of the

Facts:

Complaint for illegal dismissal

January 16, 2006 - Llamas filed before the LA a

Motion for Reconsideration on .

Felipe Llamas worked as a taxi driver of Petitioner

before the Labor Arbiter (LA) a

January 5, 2006 - Llamas received a copy of this LA

Decision

Diamond Taxi and Bryan Ong Employer

Respondent:

because his previous counsel, despite his

for non-perfection
o

Certification of Non-Forum Shopping per

leave from July 14,

Section 4, Rule VI of the 2005 NLRC Rules.

2005 to August 1, 2005

Aljuver Ong, Bryans brother

and committed several

and operations manager of

traffic violations in

Diamond Taxi, on July 13,

2000 to 2005.

Said Llamas failed to attach the required

Llamas filed a Motion for Reconsideration. Attached

the required Certification of Non-Forum Shopping.
o

August 31, 2006 - The NLRC denied his

Motion for Reconsideration

CA

Held:

Llamas filed a Petition for Certiorari before the CA.

August 13, 2008 - The CA reversed and set aside the

dismissing Llamas appeal onmere technicality.

NLRC resolution
o

Article 221 (now Article 227) of the Labor Code -

Held the filing of a certificate of non-forum

"the Commission and its members and the Labor

shopping, while mandatory, may be excused

Arbiters shall use every and all reasonable means to

upon substantial compliance. The rules of

ascertain the facts in each case speedily and

procedure may be suspended if good reasons

objectively and without regard to technicalities of law

exist.
o

YES. The NLRC committed grave abuse ofdiscretion in

or procedure, all in the interest of due process."

There were no overt acts showing Llamas

clear intention to abandon his job. Llamas

facilitate the attainment of justice. A strict

immediately filed the illegal dismissal case

and rigid application which would result in

showing his desire to return to work.

technicalities that tend to frustrate rather

dismissal. Llamas was forced to quit. To

be allowed

Petitioners act amounted to constructive

than promote substantial justice should not

continue to work has been impossible, i.e.,

making him sign a resignation letter as a

o

that a party is given the fullest opportunity

warranted Llamas dismissal, petitioners should

defense rather than for him to lose life,

have charged Llamas for the infractions to

honor, or property on mere technicalities.

On the allegation of several infractions that

to establish the merits of his action or

Under the Constitution and the Labor Code, the

But they did not; hence, they cannot be

State is bound to protect labor and assure the rights

justify his dismissal on the ground of

being a preferred constitutional right that, under

abandonment.

these fundamental guidelines, technical infirmities in

The NLRC acted with grave abuse of

labor pleadings cannot defeat.

successfully used as supporting grounds to

of workers to security of tenure tenurial security

discretion for dismissing Llamas appeal purely

on a technicality. Equitable grounds exist as

to exempt his appeal from the rule on

process. But, more importantly, it is a right

certificate of non-forum shopping. The NLRC

that assumes a preferred position in our legal

should have considered substantial compliance

hierarchy.

submitted the required certificate with his

infirmities to defeat Llamas tenurial security without

Petitioners should pay Llamas separation pay,

full opportunity to establish his cases merits.

full backwages and other benefits from the

time of the dismissal up to the finality of

Llamas did not abandon his work; he was

constructively dismissed.

the decision. Awarded separation pay in lieu

"Abandonment is the deliberate and

of reinstatement because of the resulting

unjustified refusal of an employee to resume

strained work relationship between Llamas

his employment." It is a form of neglect of

and Bryan following the altercation between

duty that constitutes just cause for the

the former and the latters brother (July

employer to dismiss the employ

13, 2005 incident).

Petitioners Diamond Taxi and Bryan Ong filed a Motion

To constitute abandonment of work, two

elements must concur:

for Reconsideration.

NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion when, in

dismissing Llamas appeal, it allowed purely technical

motion for reconsideration.

This is a property right of which he could not

and should not be deprived of without due

with this rule when Llamas subsequently

Ultimately, what should guide judicial action is

assigned taxi cab.

give him an opportunity to explain his side.

No procedural rule is sacrosanct if such shall

result in subverting justice."

precondition for giving him the key to his

o

"rules of procedure are mere tools designed to

CA denied their Motion for Reconsideration.

(1) the employee must have failed

to report for work or must have
been absent without valid or

ISSUES: W/N the NLRC committed grave abuse ofdiscretion in

justifiable reason;

dismissing Llamas appeal onmere technicality.

(2) there must have been a clear

intention [on the part of the

employee] to sever the employer-

30, 2004 or for a total of 24.97 months in the amount

employee relationship manifested by

of P1,110,665.60.

some overt act."

Labor Arbiter Danna M. Castillon still issued a Writ of Execution dated

They did not present proof of some overt

March 9, 2004 to enforce the monetary award in accordance with

act of Llamas that clearly and unequivocally

the abovementioned computation. Accordingly, the Sheriff issued

shows his intention to abandon his job.

a Notice of Sale/Levy on Execution of Personal Property by virtue of

which petitioners properties were levied and was sold to the

Art. 229 (223) APPEAL

respondents..

(35) Islriz Trading v. Capadeet. al. January 31, 2011

reason of the reinstatement order of Labor Arbiter Gan which is self-

The monetary award refers to respondents accrued salaries by

executory pursuant to Article 223 of the Labor Code. The Order

cited Roquero v. Philippine Airlines Inc. where this Court ruled that

Islriz trading vs Capadeet

Petitioner
Respondent
-

employees are still entitled to their accrued salaries even if the order
of reinstatement has been reversed on appeal.

Islriz trading

CA
-

Efren Capada, Lauro Licup, Norberto Nigos, Godofredo

In a Decision dated March 18, 2005, the CA quoted

the June 3, 2004 Order of Labor Arbiter Castillon and

Magnaye, Ronnie Abel, Arnel Siberre, Edmundo Capada,

agreed with her ratiocination that pursuant to Article

Nomerlito Magnaye and Alberto Dela Vega

223 of the Labor Code, what is sought to be enforced

by the subject Writ of Execution is the accrued

Facts

salaries owing to respondents by reason of the

Respondent filed a complaint for illegal dismissal and non-

reinstatement order of Labor Arbiter Gan.

payment of overtime pay, holiday pay, rest day pay, allowances and
separation pay against petitioner on August 9, 2000 before the Labor

Arbiter. On his part, petitioner imputed abandonment of work against

Issue:

respondents.

period between the Labor Arbiters order of reinstatement pending

LA
-

appeal and the NLRC Resolution overturning that of the Labor Arbiter.

Declaring respondent Islriz Trading guilty of illegal

Held:

dismissal on December 21, 2001.

-

WON the respondents may collect their wages during the

Ordering respondent to reinstate complainants to their

the Court held that even if the order of

reinstatement of the Labor Arbiter is reversed on

former positions without loss of seniority rights and the

appeal, it is obligatory on the part of the employer to

payment of full backwages from date of dismissal to

reinstate and pay the wages of the dismissed

actual reinstatemen

employee during the period of appeal until reversal by

the higher court or tribunal. It likewise settled the

NLRC
-

view that the Labor Arbiters order of reinstatement

Aggrieved, petitioner appealed to the NLRC which

is immediately executory and the employer has to

granted the appeal. The NLRC set aside the Decision of

either re-admit them to work under the same terms

Labor Arbiter Gan in a Resolution dated September 5,

and conditions prevailing prior to their dismissal, or to

2002. Finding that respondents failure to continue

reinstate them in the payroll, and that failing to

working for petitioner was neither caused by

exercise the options in the alternative, employer must

termination nor abandonment of work, the NLRC

pay the employees salaries.

ordered respondents reinstatement but without

backwages.
-

After the Labor Arbiters decision is reversed by a higher

tribunal, the employee may be barred from collecting

This became final and executory on December 7, 2002.

the accrued wages, if it is shown that the delay in

Respondents averred that a Writ of Execution dated April 22,

enforcing the reinstatement pending appeal was

2002 was already issued and their reinstatement immediately

without fault on the part of the employer.

executory even pending appeal. But despite the issuance and

subsequent finality of the NLRC Resolution which likewise ordered

Two fold test in determining whether an employee is

barred from recovering his accrued wages, to wit: (1)

respondents reinstatement, petitioner still refused to reinstate them.

there must be actual delay or that the order of

The labor arbiter through Fiscal Examiner Trinchera issued computation

reinstatement pending appeal was not executed prior

of respondents accrued salaries from January 1, 2002 to January

to its reversal; and (2) the delay must not be due to

the employers unjustified act or omission.
9

The respondents complied with the two fold test

the instant case a month after they were

therefore the respondents have the right to collect

terminated from their work is more than sufficient

their accrued salaries during the period between the

evidence to prove and show that they do not have

Labor Arbiters Decision ordering their reinstatement

the intention of abandoning their work.

pending appeal and the NLRC Resolution overturning the

same because petitioners failure to reinstate them
either actually or through payroll was due to

petitioners unjustified refusal to effect reinstatement.

KJ Commercial appealed to the NLRC.

It filed before the NLRC a motion to reduce bond
and posted a P50,000 cash bond.

(36) Garcia et. al v. KJ Commerical, February 29, 2012

NLRCs Ruling

Garcia, et. al. vs. KJ Commercial and Reynaldo Que,

The NLRC dismissed the appeal.

G.R. No. 196830, February 29, 2012

The NLRC ruled that KJ Commercial failed to perfect

an appeal for failure to post the required bond.

Respondent:
KJ Commercial

is a sole proprietorship.

It owns trucks and engages in the business of

posted a P2,562,930 surety bond.

-

paramount interest of justice is better served in the

On different dates, KJ Commercial employed as truck

resolution of this case.

drivers and truck helpers petitioners Cesar V. Garcia,

Carlos Razon, Alberto De Guzman, Tomas Razon, Omer

Petitioners:

E. Palo, Rizalde Valencia, Allan Basa, Jessie Garcia,

Juanito Paras, Alejandro Orag,Rommel Pangan, Ruel

Soliman,and Cenen Canlapan (petitioners).
On 2 January 2006,
o

Petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration.

In its resolution, the NLRC denied the motion for

lack of merit. The NLRC held:

petitioners demanded for a P40 daily salary

We stress that it is within the power and

increase.
o

discretion of this Commission to grant or

deny a motion to reduce appeal bond. Having

To pressure KJ Commercial to grant their

earlier denied the motion to reduce bond of

demand, they stopped working and abandoned

the respondents-appellants, this Commission is

their trucks at the Northern Cement Plant

not precluded from reconsidering its earlier

Station in Sison, Pangasinan.

o

Decision on second look when it finds

They also blocked other workers from

meritorious ground to serve the ends of

reporting to work.
-

justice. Settled is the norm in the matter

On 3 February 2006
o

of appeal bonds that letter-perfect rules

petitioners filed with the Labor Arbiter a

must yield to the broader interest of

complaint for illegal dismissal, underpayment

substantial justice.

of salary and non-payment of service

incentive leave and thirteenth month pay.

CA

LA held that KJ Commercial illegally dismissed

petitioners.
-

Petitioners filed with the Court of Appeals a petition

for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court.

Labor Arbiters Ruling

-

According to the NLRC, considering the merit of the

appeal, by granting the motion for reconsideration, the

Petitioners:

The NLRC granted the motion and set aside the

LaborArbiters decision.

distributing cement products.

KJ Commercial filed a motion for reconsideration and

CA dismissed the petition and affirmed the NLRCs

Resolutions. The Court of Appeals held:

LA ruled that the acts of the complainants in filing

After scrupulously examining the contrasting

10

positions of the parties, and the conflicting

In order to give full effect to the provisions on

decisions of the labor tribunals, We find the

motion to reduce bond, the appellant must be allowed

records of the case bereft of evidence to

to wait for the ruling of the NLRC on the motion

substantiate the conclusions reached by the

even beyond the 10-day period to perfect an appeal.

Labor Arbiter that petitioners were illegally

dismissed from employment.

there is indeed meritorious ground and that the

ISSUE:

amount of the bond posted is reasonable, then the

Whether or not KJ Commercial failed to perfect an appeal

appeal is perfected.

since the motion to reduce bond did not stop the running of
the period to appeal.

Section 15, Rule VII of the Rules.

The motion to reduce bond stopped the running of the

that the amount of the bond posted is reasonable,

KJ Commercials filing of a motion to reduce bond and

then the appeal is perfected.

delayed posting of the P2,562,930 surety bond did not

render the Labor Arbiters Decision final and executory.

-

If the NLRC denies the motion, then the decision of

the labor arbiter becomes final and executory.

The Rules of Procedure of the NLRC allows the filing

of a motion to reduce bond subject to two conditions:

In any case, the rule that the filing of a motion to

reduce bond shall not stop the running of the period

(1) there is meritorious ground, and

to perfect an appeal is not absolute. The Court may

(2) a bond in a reasonable amount is posted.

relax the rule.

Section 6 of Article VI states: No motion to reduce

Jurisprudence tells us that in labor cases, an appeal

from a decision involving a monetary award may be

bond shall be entertained except on meritorious

perfected only upon the posting of a cash or surety

grounds and upon the posting of a bond in a

bond.

reasonable amount in relation to the monetary

award.
-

If the NLRC grants the motion for reconsideration

and rules that there is indeed meritorious ground and

period to appeal.
-

If the NLRC denies the motion, the appellant may

still file a motion for reconsideration as provided under

HELD: NO.
-

If the NLRC grants the motion and rules that

The Court, however, has relaxed this requirement

under certain exceptional circumstances in order to

resolve controversies on their merits. These

The mere filing of the motion to reduce bond without

circumstances include:

compliance with the requisites in the preceding

(1) fundamental consideration of substantial

paragraph shall not stop the running of the period to

justice;

perfect an appeal.
-

(2) prevention of miscarriage of justice or of

The filing of a motion to reduce bond and compliance

unjust enrichment; and

with the two conditions stop the running of the

(3) special circumstances of the case combined

period to perfect an appeal.

with its legal merits, and the amount and

the issue involved.

The NLRC has full discretion to grant or deny the

motion to reduce bond, and it may rule on the

bring about the immediate and appropriate resolution

motion beyond the 10-day period within which to

of controversies on the merits. Some of these cases

perfect an appeal.
-

The Court has relaxed the requirement in order to

include:

Obviously, at the time of the filing of the motion to

(a) counsels reliance on the footnote of the

reduce bond and posting of a bond in a reasonable

notice of the decision of the labor arbiter

amount, there is no assurance whether the appellants

that the aggrieved party may appeal within

motion is indeed based on meritorious ground and

ten (10) working days;

whether the bond he or she posted is of a reasonable

(b) fundamental consideration of substantial

amount. Thus, the appellant always runs the risk of

justice;

failing to perfect an appeal.

11

(c) prevention of miscarriage of justice or of

However, instead of posting the required cash or surety bond,

unjust enrichment, as where the tardy

he filed a motion to reduce the appeal bond.

appeal is from a decision granting separation

pay which was already granted in an earlier

NLRC: Denied the motion to reduce bond and dismissed the

final decision; and

appeal for failure to post cash or surety bond within the

(d) special circumstances of the case combined

reglementary period.

with its legal merits or the amount and the

issue involved.

Ong filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals

alleging that the NLRC acted with grave abuse of discretion in

(37) Ong v. CA, September 22, 2004

dismissing the appeal for non-perfection of appeal although a

motion to reduce appeal bond was seasonably filed.

G.R. No. 152494

September 22, 2004

CA: Dismissed the petition and thereafter likewise dismissed the

Petitioner: Mariano Ong is the sole proprietor of Milestone Metal

motion for reconsideration for lack of merit.

Manufacturing (Milestone), which manufactures, among others,

wearing apparels, belts, and umbrellas.
ISSUE: WON CA committed grave abuse of discretion when it
Private Respondents: The 15 private respondents alleged that

upheld NLRCs Decision dismissing the appeal of Petitioner Ong for

they were employees of petitioner.

non-perfection when a motion to reduce appeal bond was

seasonably filed.

FACTS: Sometime in 1998, Ongs business suffered very low sales

and productivity because of the economic crisis in the country.
Hence, it adopted a rotation scheme by reducing the workdays

RULING: NO. The right to appeal is not a natural right or a

of its employees to three days a week or less for an

part of due process, it is merely a statutory privilege, and may

indefinite period.

be exercised only in the manner and in accordance with the

provisions of law. The party who seeks to avail of the same

On separate dates, the 15 respondents filed before the (NLRC)

must comply with the requirements of the rules. Failing to do

complaints for illegal dismissal, underpayment of wages, non-

so, the right to appeal is lost.

payment of overtime pay, holiday pay, service incentive leave

pay, 13th month pay, damages, and attorneys fees against

Article 223 [now Article 229] of the Labor Code, as amended,

petitioner. These cases were consolidated.

sets forth the rules on appeal from the Labor Arbiters

monetary award: x x x In case of a judgment involving a

Ong claimed that 9 of the 15 respondents were not employees

monetary award, an appeal by the employer may be

of Milestone but of another company which stopped its

perfected only upon the posting of a cash or surety bond issued

those 9 employees who filed a complaint were not dismissed

Commission in the amount equivalent to the monetary award

from employment; rather, they refused to work after the

in the judgment appealed from.

operation due to business losses. Further, he claims that 6 of

by a reputable bonding company duly accredited by the

rotation scheme was adopted. Anent their monetary claims,

Ong presented documents showing that he paid their minimum

The pertinent provisions of Rule VI of the New Rules of

SSS, Medicare, and Pag-Ibig Funds.

December 10, 1999) provides that

wage, 13th month pay, holiday pay, and contributions to the

Procedure of the NLRC (as amended by RESOLUTION NO. 3-99

In case the decision of the

Labor Arbiter, the Regional Director or his duly authorized

Labor Arbiter: Rendered a decision ordering Ong to pay

Hearing Officer involves a monetary award, an appeal by the

respondents their wage differential, holiday pay, service

employer shall be perfected only upon the posting of a cash or

incentive leave pay and 13th month pay, and attorneys fees.

surety bond, which shall be in effect until final disposition of

equivalent to month salary for every year of service due

by the Commission or the Supreme Court in an amount

to the indefiniteness of the rotation scheme and strained

equivalent to the monetary award, exclusive of damages and

relations caused by the filing of the complaints.

attorneys fees. X x x The Commission may, in justifiable cases

The Labor Arbiter also ordered Ong respondents separation pay

the case, issued by a reputable bonding company duly accredited

and upon Motion of the Appellant, reduce the amount of the

Ong filed with the NLRC a notice of appeal with a

bond. The filing of the motion to reduce bond shall not stop

memorandum of appeal and paid the docket fees therefor.

the running of the period to perfect appeal.

12

In the case at bar, petitioner received the decision of the

Labor Arbiter on January 6, 2000. He filed his notice of appeal

(38) Rosewood Processing Inc v. NLRC, 1998 case

with memorandum of appeal and paid the corresponding appeal

fees on January 17, 2000, the last day of filing the appeal.

ROSEWOOD PROCESSING, INC., petitioner, vs. NATIONAL LABOR

However, in lieu of the required cash or surety bond, he filed a

RELATIONSCOMMISSION, NAPOLEON C. MAMON, ARSENIO

motion to reduce bond alleging that the amount of

GAZZINGAN, ROMEO C. VELASCO, ARMANDO L. BALLON, VICTOR

P1,427,802,04 as bond is "unjustified and prohibitive" and prayed

E. ALDEZA, JOSE L. CABRERA, VETERANS PHILIPPINE SCOUT

that the same be reduced to a "reasonable level." The NLRC

SECURITY AGENCY, and/or ENGR. SERGIO JAMILA

denied the motion and consequently dismissed the appeal for

IV, respondents. [G.R. Nos. 116476-84. May 21, 1998]

non-perfection.

FACTS: On May 13, 1991, a complaint for illegal dismissal;

While, Section 6, Rule VI of the NLRCs New Rules of

underpayment of wages; and for non payment of overtime

Procedure allows the Commission to reduce the amount of the

pay, legal holiday pay, premium pay for holiday and rest day,

bond, the exercise of the authority is not a matter of right

thirteenth month pay, cash bond deposit, unpaid wages and

on the part of the movant but lies within the sound

damages was filed against Veterans Philippine Scout Security

discretion of the NLRC upon showing of meritorious grounds.

Agency and/or Sergio Jamila IV. Thereafter, petitioner was

impleaded as a third-party respondent by the security

NLRC did not act with grave abuse of discretion when it

agency.

denied petitioners motion for the same failed to either

elucidate why the amount of the bond was "unjustified and

In due course, Labor Arbiter Ricardo C. Nora rendered a

prohibitive" or to indicate what would be a "reasonable level.

consolidated Decision that respondents Veterans Philippine Scout

In Calabash Garments, Inc. v. NLRC, it was held that "a

Security Agency, Sergio Jamila IV, and third-party respondent

substantial monetary award, even if it runs into millions, does

Rosewood Processing, Inc. are hereby ordered to pay jointly and

not necessarily give the employer-appellant a "meritorious case"

severally complainants P789,154.39; Respondents are likewise

and does not automatically warrant a reduction of the appeal

ordered to pay attorneys fees. The labor arbiter noted the

bond."

failure of the security agency to present evidence to refute

the complainants allegation. Instead, it impleaded the petitioner

Even granting arguendo that petitioner has meritorious grounds

as third-party respondent, contending that its actions were

to reduce the appeal bond, the result would have been the

primarily caused by petitioners noncompliance with its obligations

same since he failed to post cash or surety bond within the

prescribed period.

under the contract for security services, and the subsequent

Petitioner Ong should have seasonably filed

cancellation of the said contract. Although the security agency

the appeal bond within the ten-day reglementary period

could lawfully place the complainants on floating status for a

following the receipt of the order, resolution or decision of the

period not exceeding six months, the act was illegal because

NLRC to forestall the finality of such order, resolution or

the former had issued a newspaper advertisement for new

decision. In the alternative, he should have paid only a

security guards. Since the relation between the complainants

moderate and reasonable sum for the premium. The law does

and the agency was already strained, the labor arbiter ordered

not require its outright payment, but only the posting of a

the payment of separation pay in lieu of reinstatement.

bond to ensure that the award will be eventually paid should

The appeal filed by petitioner was dismissed by the

the appeal fail. What petitioners have to pay is a moderate

and reasonable sum for the premium for such bond.

National Labor Relations Commission in its Resolution promulgated

Ong did not post a full or partial appeal bond within the

appeal bond within the reglementary period, not perfected

April 28, 1994, for failure of the petitioner to file the required
within the reglementary ten-day period. Petitioner received a

prescribed period, thus, no appeal was perfected from the

decision of the Labor Arbiter. For this reason, the decision sought

copy of the labor arbiters Decision on April 2, 1993, and it filed

and therefore immutable. Clearly, then, the NLRC has no

submitted the appeal bond on April 26, 1993, or twelve days

its Memorandum of Appeal on April 12, 1993. However, it

to be appealed to the NLRC had become final and executory

after the expiration of the period for appeal per Rule VI,

authority to entertain the appeal, much less to reverse the

Sections 1, 3 and 6 of the 1990 Rules of Procedure of the

decision of the Labor Arbiter. Any amendment or alteration

made which substantially affects the final and executory

National Labor Relations Commission. Thus, it ruled that the

entire proceeding held for that purpose.

1993. In the assailed Order, Respondent Commission denied

labor arbiters Decision became final and executory on April 13,

judgment is null and void for lack of jurisdiction, including the

13

reconsideration, because petitioner allegedly failed to raise any

due to the late filing of the appeal bond. The solicitor general

palpable or patent error committed by said commission. Hence,

argues for the affirmation of the assailed Resolution for

the sole reason that the appeal bond, even if it was filed on

this recourse.

time, was defective, as it was not in an amount equivalent

ISSUE: Whether the appeal from the labor arbiter to the

to the monetary award in the judgment appealed from. The

NLRC was perfected on time. Yes

Court disagrees. We hold that petitioners motion to reduce the

Whether petitioner is solidarily liable with the security agency

bond is a substantial compliance with the Labor Code. This

for the payment of back wages, wage differential and

holding is consistent with the norm that letter-perfect rules

separation pay. Yes

must yield to the broader interest of substantial justice. A

judicious reading of the memorandum of appeal would have

HELD: The petition is impressed with some merit and deserves

made it evident to Respondent Commission that the recourse

partial grant. The perfection of an appeal within the

was meritorious. Respondent Commission acted with grave abuse

reglementary period and in the manner prescribed by law is

of discretion in peremptorily dismissing the appeal without passing

jurisdictional, and noncompliance with such legal requirement is

upon -- in fact, ignoring -- the motion to reduce the appeal

fatal and effectively renders the judgment final and

bond.

executory.

The overriding premise in the labor arbiters Decision holding

ART. 223. Appeal.Decisions, awards or orders of the Labor Arbiter

the security agency and the petitioner liable was that said

are final and executory unless appealed to the Commission by

parties offered no evidence refuting or rebutting the

any or both parties within ten (10) calendar days from receipt

complainants computation of their monetary claims. The arbiter

of such decisions, awards, or orders. xxx

ruled that petitioner was liable in solidum with the agency

for salary differentials based on Articles 106, 107 and 109 of

x x x x x x x x x

the Labor Code which hold an employer jointly and severally

liable with its contractor or subcontractor, as if it is the

In case of a judgment involving a monetary award, an appeal

direct employer. Upon the other hand, back wages and

by the employer may be perfected only upon the posting of a

separation pay were awarded because the complainants were

cash or surety bond issued by a reputable bonding company

constructively and illegally dismissed by the security agency

duly accredited by the Commission in the amount equivalent to

the monetary award in the judgment appealed from.

which placed them on floating status and at the same time

Indisputable is the legal doctrine that the appeal of a decision

the relationship between the security agency and the

gave assignments to newly hired security guards. Noting that

complainants was already strained, the labor arbiter granted

involving a monetary award in labor cases may be perfected

separation pay in lieu of reinstatement.

only upon the posting of a cash or surety bond.

However, in a number of cases, this Court has relaxed this

Notwithstanding the service contract between the

requirement in order to bring about the immediate and

petitioner and the security agency, the former is still solidarily

appropriate resolution of controversies on the merits. Some of

liable to the employees, who were not privy to said contract,

these cases include: (a) counsels reliance on the footnote of the

pursuant to the aforecited provisions of the Code. Labor

notice of the decision of the labor arbiter that the aggrieved

standard legislations are enacted to alleviate the plight of

party may appeal xxx within ten (10) working days; (b)

workers whose wages barely meet the spiraling costs

fundamental consideration of substantial justice; (c) prevention

of their basic needs.

of miscarriage of justice or of unjust enrichment, as where the

They are considered written in every contract, and

tardy appeal is from a decision granting separation pay which

stipulations in violation thereof are considered not

was already granted in an earlier final decision; and (d) special

written. Similarly, legislated wage increases are deemed

circumstances of the case combined with its legal merits or

amendments to the contract. Thus, employers cannot hide

the amount and the issue involved.

behind their contracts in order to evade their or their

Here, petitioner claims to have received the labor arbiters

contractors or subcontractors liability for noncompliance with

Decision on April 6, 1993. On April 16, 1993, it filed, together with

the statutory minimum wage.

its memorandum on appeal and notice of appeal, a motion to

The joint and several liability of the employer or principal

reduce the appeal bond accompanied by a surety bond for fifty

was enacted to ensure compliance with the provisions of the

thousand pesos issued by Prudential Guarantee and Assurance,

Code, principally those on statutory minimum wage. The

Inc. Ignoring petitioners motion (to reduce bond), Respondent

contractor or subcontractor is made liable by virtue of his or

Commission rendered its assailed Resolution dismissing the appeal

14

security agency, is solidarily liable to PAY the complainants only

her status as a direct employer, and the principal as the

indirect employer of the contractors employees. This liability

wage differentials during the period that the complainants

facilitates, if not guarantees, payment of the workers

were actually under its employ, as above detailed. Petitioner

mandated by the 1987 Constitution. This is not unduly

separation pay.

is EXONERATED from the payment of back wages and

compensation, thus, giving the workers ample protection as

burdensome to the employer. Should the indirect employer be

(39) FSFI v. NLRC, December 11, 2003

constrained to pay the workers, it can recover whatever

amount it had paid in accordance with the terms of the

4.05 FSFA vs NLRC

service contract between itself and the contractor.

G.R. No. 153859 | December 11, 2003

Withal, fairness likewise dictates that the petitioner

FILIPINAS (Pre-fabricated Bldg.) SYSTEMS "FILSYSTEMS," INC.

should not, however, be held liable for wage differentials

and FELIPE A. CRUZ, JR., petitioners, vs. NATIONAL LABOR

incurred while the complainants were assigned to other

RELATIONS COMMISSION and CRESENCIANO BEBANCO,

companies. Under these cited provisions of the Labor Code, should

JUANITO R. BENZON, REY NUALLA, BONIFACIO TORRES,

the contractor fail to pay the wages of its employees in

ERNESTO SINCONEQUE and EMILIO ANEANO, respondents.

accordance with law, the indirect employer (the petitioner in

this case), is jointly and severally liable with the contractor,

Ponente: Puno, J.

but such responsibility should be understood to be limited to

DOCTRINE:

the extent of the work performed under the contract, in the

same manner and extent that he is liable to the employees

In decisions of the LA involving a monetary award in favor of

directly employed by him. This liability of petitioner covers the

the employees, the employers failure to file an appeal bond

payment of the workers performance of any work, task, job

(together with the memorandum of appeal) within 10 days

or project. So long as the work, task, job or project has been

after receipt of such decision is fatal to the perfection of the

performed for petitioners benefit or on its behalf, the liability

appeal.

accrues for such period even if, later on, the employees are
eventually transferred or reassigned elsewhere.

FACTS:

Similarly, the solidary liability for payment of back wages

and separation pay is limited, under Article 106, to the extent

of the work performed under the contract; under Article 107,

LA
A complaint for illegal dismissal and monetary claims for

to the performance of any work, task, job or project; and

service incentive leave, 13th month pay and night shift

under Article 109, to the extent of their civil liability under

differential was filed by respondents against petitioners

this Chapter [on payment of wages]. These provisions cannot

before the National Labor Relations Commission.

apply to petitioner, considering that the complainants were no

longer working for or assigned to it when they were illegally

Labor Arbiter Donato G. Quinto, Jr. ordered the parties to

dismissed. Furthermore, an order to pay back wages and

file their position paper. Respondents complied, but, despite

separation pay is invested with a punitive character, such that

several warnings and time extensions, petitioners did not.

an indirect employer should not be made liable without a

The inaction was construed as a waiver by petitioners of

finding that it had committed or conspired in the illegal

their right to present evidence.

dismissal.

The Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of respondents:

The liability arising from an illegal dismissal is unlike an

order to pay the statutory minimum wage, because the

workers right to such wage is derived from law. The proposition

1)

Respondents claim of illegal dismissal was sustained,

2)

Petitioners were ordered to reinstate respondents.

3)

Respondents monetary claims were granted.

that payment of back wages and separation pay should be

covered by Article 109, which holds an indirect employer solidarily
responsible with his contractor or subcontractor for any
violation of any provision of this Code, would have been tenable
if there were proof -- there was none in this case -- that

the principal/employer had conspired with the contractor in the

acts giving rise to the illegal dismissal.

NLRC

WHEREFORE, the petition is partially GRANTED. The assailed

Decision is hereby MODIFIED, such that petitioner, with the

15

because petitioners failed to adduce contrary evidence.

Petitioners

For the first time on appeal, they submitted evidence

2)

that:
1)

Respondents were project employees, and

2)

Their dismissal was due to the discontinuation of

motion for reconsideration only on June 19, 2002.

He contended that his request for cancellation was
filed within the allowable period.

the Jaka Tower I project where they were

assigned.

Respondents

file a petition, alleging that they have a new counsel.

within the 10-day reglementary period.

ISSUE:

They further contended that it was too late for

petitioners to present evidence in the NLRC.

Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred and committed

The NLRC still assumed jurisdiction over the appeal. Due

has not acquired jurisdiction over petitioners appeal due to the

of illegal dismissal, it remanded the case to the Labor

reglementary period in perfecting an appeal NO.

grave abuse of discretion in finding and ruling that the NLRC

to the evidence presented by petitioners on the issue

latters submission of an appeal bond 7 days beyond the 10-day

Arbiter for further proceedings.

HELD: (Quisumbing, Austria-Martinez, Callejo, Sr., and Tinga, JJ.,

Respondents motion for consideration was denied.

concur.)

CA

rare instances that the court relaxes the rule upon a

showing of substantial compliance with it and to prevent

Rules on Civil Procedure.

patent injustice.

The appellate court ruled that the NLRC did not have

jurisdiction over the appeal, since petitioners appeal

an appeal together with an appeal bond if the

Arbiters decision.

decision involves a monetary award in favor of the

employees, viz:

October 31, 2001: Petitioners motion for consideration

was denied.

ART. 223. Appeal. Decisions, awards,

or orders of the Labor Arbiter are

The CA declared its judgment final and executory. An

final and executory unless appealed

entry of judgment was made.

to the Commission by any or both

parties within ten (10) calendar

November 9, 2001: Petitioners counsel, Atty. Louis

days from receipt of such decisions,

Acosta, received the resolution denying the motion for

awards, or orders. . . .

reconsideration.

Article 223 of the Labor Code provides a 10-day period

from receipt of the Arbiters decision for the filing of

bond was filed out of time. It reinstated the Labor

NO. Payment of the appeal bond is a jurisdictional requisite

for the perfection of an appeal to the NLRC. It is only in

Respondents then repaired to the Court of Appeals on

a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 of the 1997

SC
June 16, 2002: Petitioners filed an extension of time to

for failure of the petitioners to file the appeal bond

August 20, 2002: The Court of Appeals denied the

request in a resolution.

They assailed the NLRCs jurisdiction over the appeal

He received a copy of the denial of petitioners

In case of a judgment involving a

November 23, 2001: Atty. Rodolfo P. Orticio filed his

monetary award, an appeal by the

notice of appearance.

employer may be perfected only

upon the posting of a cash or

He moved for cancellation of the entry of judgment

on the ground that:

surety bond issued by a reputable

1)

the Commission in the amount

bonding company duly accredited by

He is petitioners new counsel.

equivalent to the monetary award

16

in the judgment appealed from. xxx

running of the period for perfecting

xxx xxx (italics supplied).

an appeal. xxx xxx xxx

Rule VI, NLRC Rules of Procedure, as amended,

Section 7. No Extension of Period.

filed within the 10-day reglementary period:

of the period within which to

likewise require the appeal and the appeal bond to be

No motion or request for extension

perfect an appeal shall be allowed.

Section 1. Periods of Appeal.

xxx xxx xxx (Emphasis supplied).

Decisions, awards, or orders of the

Labor Arbiter and the POEA

Administrator shall be final and

The late filing of the bond divested the NLRC of its

jurisdiction to entertain petitioners' appeal.

executory unless appealed to the

In the case at bar, petitioners alleged that they

Commission by any or both parties

received a copy of the Arbiter's decision on October 31,

within ten (10) calendar days from

receipt of such decisions, awards, or

1998. Their memorandum of appeal was dated

the Administrator, and in case of a

execution of the decision was executed only on

November 9, 1998, but their appeal bond to stay

orders of the Labor Arbiter or of

November 17, 1998. No partial payment of the bond

decision of the Regional Director or

was made during the reglementary period nor was

his duly authorized Hearing Officer

there any explanation for its late filing.

within five (5) calendar days from

receipt of such decisions, awards or
th

orders. If the 10

th

or 5

day, as

Late submission of petitioners' evidence with the NLRC

should not be tolerated.

the case may be, falls on a

Saturday, Sunday or a holiday, the

Petitioners should have adduced their evidence on the

last day to perfect the appeal shall

issue of illegal dismissal before the Labor Arbiter. They

be the next working day. xxx xxx

failed to do so despite the opportunities given to them

xxx

by the Arbiter. It was only when an adverse decision

was rendered against them by the Arbiter that

Section 3. Requisites for Perfection

they offered to submit their evidence before the

of Appeal. (a) The appeal shall be

NLRC refuting respondents' complaint of illegal dismissal.

filed within the reglementary period

as provided in Section 1 of this Rule;

shall be under oath with proof of

A judgment becomes final provided there was proper

service of notice thereof.

payment of the required appeal fee

and the posting of a cash surety

There was such proper service upon private respondent's

bond as provided in Section 5 of this

former counsel, Atty. Acosta. Therefore, the April 2,

Rule (which provides how much and

2001 decision did become final and executory.

where the appeal fee is to be paid);

shall be accompanied by a

memorandum of appeal which shall

Petition before the SC

Petitioners should have filed the present petition

state the grounds relied upon and

within fifteen days under Rule 45 of the Rules of

the arguments in support thereof;

Court, viz:

the relief prayed for; and a

statement of the date when the

SECTION 1. Filing of petition with

appellant received the appealed

Supreme Court. A party desiring

decision, order or award and proof of

to appeal by certiorari from a

service on the other party of such

judgment or final order or resolution

appeal.

of the Court of Appeals, the

Sandiganbayan, the Regional Trial

A mere notice of appeal without

Court or other courts whenever

complying with the other requisite

authorized by law, may file with

aforestated shall not stop the

the Supreme Court a verified

17

petition for review on certiorari. The

4. P33,830.00 as regular holiday pay differentials; and

petition shall raise only questions of

5. P365,551.95 as proportionate 13

law which must be distinctly set

th

month pay for 1990.

There being no appeal by respondents or petitioners, the decision

forth.

of labor arbiter de Vera eventually became final and

executory. However, petitioners complained that the decision

could not be executed because UNIX allegedly diverted,
invested and transferred all its money, assets and properties to

SECTION 2. Time for filing. The

respondent Fuji Zipper Manufacturing Corporation (FUJI) whose

petition shall be filed within fifteen

(15) days from notice of the

stockholders and officers were also those of UNIX.

appealed from, or of the denial of

Thus, petitioners filed another complaint against respondents

judgment or final order or resolution

UNIX, its corporate officers and stockholders of record, and

the petitioner's motion for new

FUJI. Petitioners mainly prayed that respondents UNIX and

trial or reconsideration filed in due

FUJI be held jointly and severally held liable for the payment

time after notice of the judgment.

of the monetary awards ordered by labor arbiter de Vera.

. . . .

Labor arbiter Felipe Pati rendered a decision on the second

Petitioners received a copy of the denial of their

complaint:

motion for reconsideration of the Court of Appeals'

decision on November 9, 2001. However, they obtained

WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered piercing the veil of

the new counsels services on November 23, 2001, and

corporate fiction of the two respondent sister corporations

it was only in June 2002 that a petition was filed

which by virtue of this Decision are now considered as mere

with the Supreme Court. There was ample time for

associations of persons jointly and severally pay the subject

Atty. Orticio to appeal the CAs adverse ruling to the

amount of P8,233,880.30 out of the properties and unpaid

SC. Yet, the appeal was not seasonably made by said

subscription on subscribed Capital Stock of the Board of

counsel; such procedural lapse is binding on petitioners.

Directors, Corporate Officers, Incorporators and Stockholders of

The petition was dismissed.

said respondent corporations, plus the amount of P3,000,000.00

The LAs decision was reinstated with the modification that if

damages, respectively, as well as 10% attorneys fees from any

and P1,000,000.00 in the form of moral and exemplary

recoverable amounts.

respondents reinstatement was not feasible, they should be

paid separation pay in accordance with law.

Private respondents FUJI, its officers and stockholders filed a

(40) Buenaobra v. Lim King Guan, January 20, 2004

memorandum on appeal and a motion to dispense with the

posting of a cash or surety appeal bond on the ground that

G.R. No. 150147. January 20, 2004

they were not the employers of petitioners. They alleged that

BUENAOBRA v LIM KING GUAN

they could not be held responsible for petitioners claims and to

require them to post the bond would be unjust and unfair,
and not sanctioned by law.

FACTS: Petitioners were employees of private respondent Unix

International Export Corporation (UNIX), a corporation engaged

The NLRC, Third Division rendered the first assailed order denying

in the business of manufacturing bags, wallets and the like.

the motion to exempt from filing appeal bond for lack of

Sometime in 1991 and 1992, petitioners filed several cases

merit. Respondents were directed to post cash or surety bond

against UNIX and its incorporators and officers for unfair labor

in the amount ofP8,233,880.30 within an unextendible period of

practice, illegal lockout/dismissal, underpayment of wages, holiday

pay, proportionate 13

th

ten (10) days upon receipt. Otherwise the appeal shall be

month pay, unpaid wages, interest,

dismissed.

moral and exemplary damages and attorneys fees.

Petitioners moved for reconsideration of the said order, arguing

Labor arbiter Jose S. de Vera rendered a decision ordering

that the timely posting of an appeal bond is mandatory for

respondent Unix Export Corporation to pay complainants, as

the perfection of an appeal and should be complied with.

follows:1. P5,821,838.40 as backwages; 2. P1,484,912.00 as

The NLRC, Third Division rendered the second assailed order

separation pay; 3. P527,748.00 as wage differentials;

dismissing the Motion for Reconsideration of the petitioners for

18

lack of merit. The NLRC admitted the Respondents

in Paco, Mankayan, Benguet. On February 4, 2008, the

Supplemental Memorandum of Appeal.

company ordered the dismissal from employment of Icao due

to breach of trust and confidence and act of highgrading (or

Petitioners filed a petition in the Court of Appeals imputing

act of concealing, possessing or unauthorized extraction of

grave abuse of discretion to the NLRC, Third Division when it

highgrade material/ore without proper authority). This order

allowed private respondents to post the mandated cash or

stemmed from what transpired on January 4, 2008, when

surety bond four months after the filing of their memorandum

Icao allegedly had in his possession a wrapped object containing

on appeal. The Court of Appeals dismissed the petition for lack

gold bearing highgrade ores found in his skullguard upon being

of merit.

apprehended by the security guards of the company. Icao

ISSUE: Was there a perfected appeal by FUJI?

denied the charge against him and claimed that his dismissal
from work was without just or authorized cause.

HELD: Yes. The provision of Article 223 of the Labor Code

requiring the posting of bond on appeals involving monetary

The Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of Icao on September 30,

awards must be given liberal interpretation in line with the

2008. It found the charge of highgrading was fabricated and

desired objective of resolving controversies on the merits. If

there was no just cause for the dismissal of respondent. It

only to achieve substantial justice, strict observance of the

further concluded that the claim of the security guards that

reglementary periods may be relaxed if warranted. The NLRC,

Icao had inserted ores in his boots while in a standing position

Third Division could not be said to have abused its discretion in

was not in accord with normal human physiological functioning

requiring the posting of bond after it denied private

and that it was inconsistent with normal human behavior for

respondents motion to be exempted therefrom.

a man, who knew that he was being chased for allegedly

It is true that the perfection of an appeal in the manner

placing wrapped ore inside his boots, to then transfer the ore

and within the period prescribed by law is not only mandatory

to his skullguard, where it could be found once he was

but jurisdictional, and failure to perfect an appeal has the

apprehended. LCMC was ordered to pay Icao his full backwages

effect of making the judgment final and executory. However,

amounting to P345, 879.45.

technicality should not be allowed to stand in the way of

equitably and completely resolving the rights and obligations of

LCMC appealed to the NLRC. On February 29, 2009, the NLRC

the parties. We have allowed appeals from the decisions of the

1st Division ruled for the dismissal on the ground that there

labor arbiter to the NLRC, even if filed beyond the

was non-perfection of the appeal provided for under Article 223

reglementary period, in the interest of justice. The facts and

of the Labor Code and consequently declaring LAs decision to be

circumstances of the instant case warrant liberality considering

final and executory. It noted that instead of posting an

the amount involved and the fact that petitioners already

appeal bond required under the Labor Code for the perfection

obtained a favorable judgment on February 23, 1993 against

of an appeal, LCMC and its CEO filed a Consolidated Motion For

their employer UNIX.

Release Of Cash Bond And To Apply Bond Subject For Release As

Payment For Appeal Bond (Consolidated Motion). They requested

It is only fair and just that respondent FUJI be afforded the

therein that the NLRC release the cash bond of P401,610.84,

opportunity to be heard on appeal before the NLRC, specially in

which they had posted in the separate case Dangiw Siggaao v.

the light of labor arbiter Patis later decision holding FUJI

LCMC, and apply the same cash bond to their present appeal

jointly and severally liable with UNIX in the payment of the

bond liability. They reasoned that since this Court had already

monetary awards adjudged by labor arbiter de Vera against

decided Dangiw Siggaao in their favor, and that the ruling

UNIX.

therein had become final and executory, the cash bond posted
therein could now be released. They also cited financial

(41) Lepanto Consolidated Mining Corporation v. Icao, January

difficulty as a reason for resorting to this course of action and

15, 2014.

prayed that, in the interest of justice, the motion be granted.

Lepanto v. Belio Icao

An appeal before the CA was made but to no avail, said court

affirmed the NLRCs decision of dismissal due to non-perfection

FACTS:

of appeal, that the posting of the appeal bond is indispensable

Respondent Icao filed a complaint for illegal dismissal and

damages

jurisdictional requirement. However, the CA

against herein petitioner Lepanto Consolidated Mining

dropped the CEO as

a party to this case as it found that no specific act was

Company (LCMC) and its CEO Felipe Yap before the Arbitration

alleged in private respondents pleadings to show that he had a

Branch of the NLRC. Icao was a former employee of the

hand in Icaos illegal dismissal; much less, that he acted in bad

company and worked as the Lead Miner in its underground mine

faith.
19

attempt on the part of petitioner to evade the posting of

ISSUES: Whether or not petitioner complied with the appeal

the appeal bond

bond requirement under the Labor Code and the NLRC Rules
by filing a Consolidated Motion to release the cash bond it

Court found exceptional circumstances that warranted an

posted in another case, which had been decided with finality in

extraordinary exercise of its power to exempt a party from

its favor, with a view to applying the same cash bond to the

the rules on appeal bond, there is all the more reason in the

present case.

present case to find that petitioner substantially complied with

the requirement. We emphasize that in this case we are not

HELD:

even exempting petitioner from the rule, as in fact we are

Affirmative, We reiterate our pronouncement in Araneta v.

enforcing compliance with the posting of an appeal bond. We

Rodas,22where the Court said that when the law does not

are simply liberally applying the rules on what constitutes

clearly provide a rule or norm for the tribunal to follow in

compliance with the requirement, given the special

deciding a question submitted, but leaves to the tribunal the

circumstances surrounding the case as explained above.

judge must decide the question in conformity with justice,

(42) Bergonio v. SEAIR, April 21, 2014.

discretion to determine the case in one way or another, the

reason and equity, in view of the circumstances of the case.
Applying this doctrine, we rule that petitioner substantially

Bergonio v. CA

complied with the mandatory requirement of posting an appeal

bond for the reasons explained below.

FACTS:

In 2004, petitioners filed before the LA a complaint

First, there is no question that the appeal was filed within

reinstatement against respondents. On May 31, 2005, the LA

the 10-day reglementary period.Except for the alleged failure

ruled in favor of the petitioners that they were illegally

to post an appeal bond, the appeal to the NLRC was therefore

dismissed and suspended and ordered respondent among others,

in order.

to immediately reinstate the petitioners with full backwages.

Second, it is also undisputed that petitioner has an

issuance of Writ of Execution and for their immediate

unencumbered amount of money in the form of cash in the

reinstatement. A pre-execution conference was made and

custody of the NLRC in the separate case Dangiw Siggaao,

respondent manifested their intention to reinstate petitioners

which was earlier decided in its favor.

in the payroll but it did not materialize and instead the

Under the Rule VI, Section 6 of the 2005 NLRC Rules, "[a]

execution on October 3, 2005 arguing its strained relationship

cash or surety bond shall be valid and effective from the date

with the petitioners because of threatening text messages.

of deposit or posting, until the case is finally decided, resolved or

On October 7, 2005, LA issued a Writ of Execution. However, it

terminated, or the award satisfied." Hence, it is clear that a

was returned unsatisfied prompting the petitioners to file for a

for illegal dismissal and illegal suspension with prayer of

On August 20, 2005, petitioners filed before LA a Motion for

respondents subsequently filed an Opposition to the Motion for

bond is encumbered and bound to a case only for as long as 1)

recomputation of accrued wages that was granted by LA.

the case has not been finally decided, resolved or terminated;

or 2) the award has not been satisfied. Therefore, once the

On February 21, 2006, FOUR MONTHS after the Oct. 7, 2005

appeal is finally decided and no award needs to be satisfied,

issuance of the Writ of Execution, repondents issued a

the bond is automatically released. Since the money is now

Memorandum directing petitioner to report for work on

unrestricted access to the cash which he may now use as he

failed to report prompting the respondent to move for the

pleases as appeal bond in another case, for instance. This is

suspension of the reinstatement.

unencumbered, the employer who posted it should now have

February 24, 2006 at Clark-Field, Pampanga but petitioners

what petitioner simply did.

Meanwhile, the May 31, 2005 decision was appealed by the
Third, the cash bond in the amount ofP401,610.84 posted in

respondentto the NLRC but the latter dismissed the same on

in the amount ofP345,879.45 required in the present case.

February 6, 2007, the NLRC issued an Entry of Judgment

Dangiw Siggaao is more than enough to cover the appeal bond

the ground of non-perfection of appeal on Nov 29, '06.

And on

declaring the Nov 29, 06 decision final and executory.another

Fourth, this ruling remains faithful to the spirit behind the

Writ of Execution was issued by the LA together with A

appeal bond requirement which is to ensure that workers will

Garnishment sent to the respondents depositary bank in the

receive the money awarded in their favor when the employers

amount of 1.9M.

appeal eventually fails.There was no showing at all of any

20

On Dec. 18, 07 respondents got a partly favorable decision

pending appeal upon reinstatement, which reinstatement is

when it elevated the case to the CA, ruling that the dismissal

immediately executory. Unless the appellate tribunal issues a

of the petitioners was in fact valid.

restraining order, the LA is duty bound to implement the order

But the petitioners filed

with LA an Urgent Ex-Parte Motion for the Immediate

of reinstatement and the employer has no option but to

Release of the Garnished amount and LA noted that due to

comply with it. Moreover, and equally worth emphasizing, is

respondents refusal to reinstate petitioners despite the final

that an order of reinstatement issued by the LA is self-

and executory nature of the Reinstatement Order on May 31,

executory, i.e., the dismissed employee need not even apply for

05

and the LA need not even issue awrit of execution to trigger

- the accrued wages should be computed until the the

Dec. 18, 07 CA decision reversing LAs earlier ruling of illegal

the employers duty to reinstate the dismissed employee.

dismissal, - amounting to P 3, 078, 366.33. The LA granted the

Urgent Ex-Parte Motion and affirmed in toto by the NLRC on

The reversal by a higher tribunal of the LAs finding (of illegal

July 16, 08.

dismissal), notwithstanding, an employer, who, despite the LAs

Again, the respondent assailed the July 16, 08 NLRC decision

order of reinstatement, did not reinstate the employee during

respondents and remanded the case to the Computation and

tribunal may still be held liable for the accrued wages of the

Examination Unit of the NLRC for proper computation only up

employee, i.e., the unpaid salary accruing up to the time the

to Feb. 24, 06. Furthermore, CA agrees that the

higher tribunal reverses the decision. The rule, therefore, is that

Reinstatement is immediate in nature and should be executed

an employee may still recover the accrued wages up to and

even pending appeal until the decision is reversed by a higher

despite the reversal by the higher tribunal. This entitlement of

to Dec. 18 CA decision BUT the CA further pointed out that

immediate and self-executory nature of the reinstatement

the petitioners cannot do this computation because the delay

aspect of the LAs decision.

before the CA.

The appellate court ruled in favor of

the pendency of the appeal up to the reversal by a higher

court --- applying this principle, the computation should be up

the employee to the accrued wages proceeds from the

of the reinstatement was WITHOUT the fault of the

employer as it was petitioners who did not show up on Feb. 24

There are only 2 exceptions in the above rule:

them to compute backwages up to Dec. 18, 07. Accordingly, CA

pending appeal was not executed prior to its reversal; and

reversed, for grave abuse of discretion, the NLRC July 16, 08

2) the delay must not be due to the employers unjustified

decision that affirmed LAs order to release the garnished

act or omission

return-to-work order of the respondent, in effect barring

1)actual delay or the fact that the order of reinstatement

amount and recomputation of backwages.

In any event, the decision of the Labor Arbiter reinstating a

ISSUES: Whether or not the CA correctly found the NLRC in

In reversing the CAs decision for its legal error we apply this

grave abuse of discretion in affirming the release of the

exception as two-fold test:

garnished amount despite the respondents issuance of and the

petitioners failure to comply with the February 21, 2006

FIRST, the existence of delay, whether there was actual

return-to-work Memorandum.

delay or whether order of reinstatement pending appeal was

not executed prior to its reversal?

answer this test in the

HELD: Negative. Under Article 223 (now 229) paragraph 3 of

affirmative.

our Labor Code:

To recall, on May 31, 2005, the LA rendered the decision finding

the petitioners illegally dismissed and ordering their immediate

Xxxx " In any event, the decision of the Labor Arbiter

reinstatement. Per the records, the respondents received copy

reinstating a dismissed or separated employee, insofar as the

of this decision on July 8, 2005. From the time the respondents

reinstatement aspect is concerned, shall immediately be

received copy of the LAs decision, and the issuance of the writ

executory, pending appeal. The employee shall either be

of execution, until the CA reversed this decision on December

admitted back to work under the same terms and conditions

17, 2008, the respondents had not reinstated the petitioners,

prevailing prior to his dismissal or separation or, at the option of

either by actual reinstatement or in the payroll.

bond by the employer shall not stay the execution for

execution of the reinstatement aspect of the LAs May 31,

reinstatement provided herein."

2005 decision before it was reversed in the CAs decision.

the employer, merely reinstated in the payroll. The posting of a

From these

facts and without doubt, there was actual delay in the

SECOND, the cause of the delay whether the delay was not

Otherwise stated, a dismissed employee whose case was

due to the employers unjustified act or omission. We answer

favorably decided by the LA is entitled to receive wages

this test in the negative; we find that the delay in the

21

execution of the reinstatement pending appeal was due to the

SERVICES, and SPOUSES HOMER and CARINA ALUMISIN

G.R. No. 189404. December 11, 2013. BRION, J.

respondents unjustified acts. In reversing, for grave abuse of

discretion, the NLRCs order affirming the release of the

garnished amount, the CA relied on the fact of the issuance of

Petitioners:

the February 21, 2006 Memorandum and of the petitioners

failure to comply with its return-to-work directive. In other

Janitors and Leadsmen in various PLDT offices in Metro

Manila

words, with the issuance of this Memorandum, the CA

WILGEN LOON,

JERRY ARCILLA,

considered the respondents as having sufficiently complied with

ALBERT PEREYE,

ARNOLD PEREYE,

subsequent delay in or the non-execution of the

PATROCINO TOETIN,

EVELYN LEONARDO,

reinstatement order was no longer the respondents fault, but

ELMER GLOCENDA,

RUFO CUNAMAY,

rather of the petitioners who refused to report back to work

ROLANDO SAJOL,

ROLANDO ABUCAYON,

despite the directive. The Court is convinced that the delay in

JENNIFER NATIVIDAD,

MARITESS TORION,

fault. For one, respondent filed several pleading to suspend the

EVIRDE HAQUE,

MYRNA VINAS,

execution of reinstatement. These pleadings to our mind show a

RODELITO AYALA,

WINELITO OJEL,

determined effort on the respondents part to prevent or

RENATO RODREGO,

NENA ABINA,

suspend the execution of reinstatement pending appeal. Another

EMALYN OLIVEROS,

LOUIE ILAGAN,

is that NO actual intention to reinstate despite return-to-

JOEL ENTIG,

ARNEL ARANETA,

their obligation to reinstate the petitioners. And, the

EDGARDO OBOSE, ARNEL MALARAS,

the reinstatement pending appeal was due to respondents

ARMANDO LONZAGA,

work directive being issued as it was only sent to one

BENJAMIN COSE,

RIZAL GELLIDO,

WELITO LOON and

party(Pelaez) who did not act in representation of the others

WILLIAM ALIPAO

hence there was really no sufficient notice.

Respondents:

All told, under the facts and the surrounding circumstances, the

POWER MASTER, INC.,

delay was due to the acts of the respondents that we find

TRI-C GENERAL SERVICES,

were unjustified. We reiterate and emphasize, Article 223,

paragraph 3, of the Labor Code mandates the employer to

SPOUSES HOMER and CARINA ALUMISIN officers of

above mentioned corporations

immediately reinstate the dismissed employee, either by

actually reinstating him/her under the conditions prevailing prior

Facts:

to the dismissal or, at the option of the employer, in the

payroll. The respondents' failure in this case to exercise either

Petitioners filed a complaint for money claims against

respondents alleging that ther were not paid minimum

th

option rendered them liable for the petitioners' accrued salary

wages, OT, holiday, premium, SIL, and 13

until the LA decision was reversed by the CA on December 17,

They further averred that respondents made them

2008. We, therefore, find that the NLRC, in affirming the

sign bank pay roll sheets.

release of the garnished amount, merely implemented the

mandate of Article 223; it simply recognized as immediate and

month pays.

Petitioners amended their complaint and included illegal

dismissal as their cause of action because respondents

self-executory the reinstatement aspect of the LA's decision.

relieved them from service in retaliation for filing the

original complaint.

(43) Loon v. Power Master , December 11, 2013.

Respondents did not participate in proceedings before

the LA. Except on 2 occassions when Mr. Romulo Pacia

WILGEN LOON, JERRY ARCILLA, ALBERT PEREYE, ARNOLD

appeared on behalf of the respondents and their

PEREYE,

counsel also appeared in the preliminary mandatory

EDGARDO OBOSE, ARNEL MALARAS, PATROCINO TOETIN, EVELYN

conference but respondends NEITHER FILED position

LEONARDO, ELMER GLOCENDA, RUFO CUNAMAY, ROLANDO SAJOL,

paper/proffered pieces of evidence in their defense.

ROLANDO ABUCAYON, JENNIFER NATIVIDAD, MARITESS

TORION,

LA:

ARMANDO LONZAGA, RIZAL GELLIDO, EVIRDE HAQUE, 1 MYRNA

Ruled in favor of petitioners on the ground that the

VINAS, RODELITO AYALA, WINELITO OJEL, RENATO RODREGO,

BURDEN OF PROOF rests with the employer that

NENA ABINA, EMALYN OLIVEROS, LOUIE ILAGAN, JOEL ENTIG,

suchs were paid to the petitioners.

ARNEL ARANETA, BENJAMIN COSE, WELITO LOON and

WILLIAM
ALIPAO,

Awarded

them with the following:

th

Salary differential, SIL, and 13

vs .

attys fees.

POWER MASTER, INC., TRI-C GENERAL

22

month pays, and

Denied the following because petitioners failed toshow

Petitioners filed pettion for certiorari under Rule 65

tha tthey rendered OT work and worked on

CA affirmed NLRC

holidays/rest days:

CA denied petioners motion for reconsideration.

backwages, OT, holiday and premium pays

Petitioners cant be declared to have been dismissed

because there was no notice of termination

ISSUE:

NLRC:

WON CA committed reversible error in finding that

Both parties appealed Petitioners (on the denied

NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion - YES

their persons)

- YES

Respondents insist the following:

WON NLRC properly allowed respondents supplemental

benfits) and Respondent (LA has no jurisdiction over

WON respondents perfected their appeal before NLRC

They paiid petitioners minimum wage, SIL

appeal YES

and 13

WON respondents may adduce evidence for the first

th

month pay EVIDENCE: attached

photocopy and computerized copies of payroll

time on appeal - YES

sheets to their memorandum on appeal

Respondents filed an unverified supplemental appeal.

Held:

Wherein they attached the above mentioned

In labor cases, strict adherence to the technical rules

evidence plus list of employees with WTM cards and

of procedure is not required. However the liberality is qualified

documentary evidence

by 2 requirements:

showing that petitioners were

dismissed for cause and had been accorded due process

1.

Petitioners filed an Urgent Manifestation and Motion

submission of evidence;

to ask for deletion of the above mentioned appeal on

2.

the following grounds:

o
o
o

Supplemental appeal was not verified

In this case, the respondents failed to adequately explain their

appeal)

sufficiently prove the allegations sought to be proven why did

Documentary evidence bore forged signatures

the respondents no present the evidence at the earliest

of petitioners.

opportunity?.

Belatedly filed (6 months from notice of

delay in the submission of evidence and they failed to

Reiterated such allegations in an Urgent Motion to

Respondents perfected their appeal with NLRC because

Resolve manifestation and Motion (To Expunge from

the revocation of the bonding companys authority has been

the Records Respondents Supplemental Appeal, Reply

prospective. Paragraph 2, Article 223 of the Labor Code provides

that "[i]n case of a judgment involving a monetary award, an

appeal by the employer may be perfected only upon the

There after, petitioners filed an Urgent Manifestation

posting of a cash or surety bond issued by a reputable bonding

with Reiterating Motion to Strike-off the Record

company duly accredited by the Commission in the amount

Supplemental Appeal/Reply, Quitclaims an Spurious

equivalent to the monetary award in the judgment appealed

Documents Attached to Respondents Appeal

from."

RULING: partially ruled in favor of respondents

o

affirmed LAs awards of holiday pay and

In the petitioners assertion that the respondents posted a

attys fees and that LA has jurisdiction over

bond from a surety not accredited by NLRC the court held

voluntary appearance

still accredited at the time of the filing however such

Allowed respondents to submit pieces of

accreditation was subsequently revoked. In Del Rosario v.

evidence on the ground that theyve been

Philippine Journalists the court ruled that a bonding companys

deprived of due process (coz they didnt

revocation is prospective and shall not prejudice the respondents

actually receive LAs processes)

who relied on its subsisting accreditation in Good Faith.

persons of respondents through their

o

o
o

that the surety bond (Security Pacific Assurance Corp) was

Vacated LAs award of salary differential,

13

a party should sufficiently prove the allegations sought

to be proven

and/or Rejoinder)

a party should adequately explain any delay in the

th

month pay and SIL

On the second issue, the court ruled that CA correctly

Petitioners were lawfully dismissed on grounds

ruled that NLRC properly gave due course to respondents

of serious misconduct and wilfull disobedience

supplemental appeal. Neither laws nor rules require the

Petitioners motion for reconsideration was denied.

verification of such appeal. Furthermore, its a formal

requirement, not jurisdictional. It is merely an addendum.

CA
23

Lastly the court ruled that the petitioners are entitled to

of allowing McBurnie to obtain an alien work permit in the

the following:

Philippines.

Backwages due to the employers failure to discharge

At the time McBurnie left for Australia for his medical

the burden of proving that the termination was just

and valid

Salary differential, SIL and holiday and 13

th

treatment, he had not yet obtained a work permit.

month

Labor Arbiter: The LA declared McBurnie as having been illegally

pay in illegal dismissal cases, general rule is burden to

dismissed from employment. The respondents filed their

prove payment rests on the defendant

Memorandum of Appeal and Motion to Reduce Bond, and posted

Attys fees

an appeal bond in the amount of P100,000.00. They claimed

On the other hand, the court held that petitioners are not

that an award of more than P60 Million Pesos to a single

entitled to OT and premium pays on the ground that

foreigner who had no work permit and who left the country

petitioners failed to provide sufficient factual basis for such

for good one month after the purported commencement of his

award.

employment was a patent nullity.

SC reversed and set asice CAs decision and remanded the case

NLRC: The NLRC denied the motion to reduce bond explaining

to LA for computing full back wages and other benefits

that in cases involving monetary award, an employer seeking

mentioned.

to appeal the LA decision to the Commission is unconditionally

required by Art. 223 of the Labor Code to post bond equivalent

(44) Mcburnie v. Ganzon, October 17, 2013.

to the monetary award. The NLRC dismissed their appeal due

McBurnie v. Ganzon

The motion for reconsideration was denied, the respondents

G.R. Nos. 178034 & 178117 & G R. Nos. 186984-85; October 17,

appealed to the CA via a Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition

2013

(with extremely urgent prayer for the issuance of a

REYES, J.:

Preliminary Injunction and/or Temporary Restraining Order).

Petitioner: ANDREW JAMES MCBURNIE - an Australian

CA: The CA granted the respondent's application for a writ of

national

preliminary injunction. It directed the NLRC, McBurnie, and all

to respondent's failure to post the required additional bond.

persons acting for and under their authority to refrain from

Respondents: EULALIO GANZON, EGI-MANAGERS, INC. and E.

causing the execution and enforcement of the LA decision in

GANZON, INC.

favor of McBurnie, conditioned upon the respondents posting of

a bond in the amount of P10,000,000.00. The reconsideration of

FACTS: October 4, 2002 - McBurnie instituted a complaint for

issuance of the writ of preliminary injunction sought by

illegal dismissal and other monetary claims against the

McBurnie was denied by the CA.

respondents.

The CA rendered a decision allowing the respondent's motion to

employment agreement with the company EGI as an

to their appeal.

Executive Vice-President who shall oversee the management of

The CA also ruled that the NLRC committed grave abuse of

the companys hotels and resorts within the Philippines.

discretion in immediately denying the motion without fixing an

He performed work for the company until sometime in

appeal bond in an amount that was reasonable, as it denied

him to go back to Australia while recuperating from his injuries.

the LA.

May 11, 1999 - McBurnie claimed that he signed a five-year

reduce appeal bond and directing the NLRC to give due course

November 1999, when he figured in an accident that compelled

the respondents of their right to appeal from the decision of

While in Australia, he was informed by respondent Ganzon

that his services were no longer needed because their intended

ISSUE: Whether or not reduction of appeal bonds under Art.

project would no longer push through.

229 [223] of the Labor Code is allowed.

The respondents opposed the complaint, contending that their

HELD: YES. The Court has cautioned the NLRC to give Article

agreement with McBurnie was to jointly invest in and

223 of the Labor Code, particularly the provisions requiring bonds

establish a company for the management of hotels.

in appeals involving monetary awards, a liberal interpretation in

They did not intend to create an employer-employee

line with the desired objective of resolving controversies on the

relationship, and the execution of the employment contract

merits.

that was being invoked by McBurnie was solely for the purpose

Although the general rule provides that an appeal in labor cases

from a decision involving a monetary award may be perfected
24

only upon the posting of a cash or surety bond, the Court has

the time of her suspension. On appeal, the National Labor

relaxed this requirement under certain exceptional circumstances

Relations Commission (NLRC) declared that the status quo

in order to resolve controversies on their merits. These

between them should be maintained and affirmed the Labor

(1) the fundamental consideration of substantial justice;

NLRC further directed petitioner to pay de Jesus her back

(2) the prevention of miscarriage of justice or of unjust

salaries from the date she filed her motion for execution up to

enrichment; and

the date of the promulgation of the decision. Petitioners filed

(3) special circumstances of the case combined with its legal

their partial motion for reconsideration which the NLRC denied,

circumstances include:

Arbiters order of reinstatement, but without backwages. The

merits, and the amount and the issue involved.

hence this petition.

The bond requirement in appeals involving monetary awards has

been and may be relaxed in meritorious cases, including

ISSUE:

instances in which:

writ of execution?

(1) there was substantial compliance with the Rules,

Whether or not an order for reinstatement needs a

(2) surrounding facts and circumstances constitute meritorious

RULING:

grounds to reduce the bond,

No. The provision of Article 223 is clear that an award for

(3) a liberal interpretation of the requirement of an appeal

reinstatement shall be immediately executory even pending

bond would serve the desired objective of resolving controversies

appeal and the posting of a bond by the employer shall not

on the merits, or

stay the execution for reinstatement.

(4) the appellants, at the very least, exhibited their willingness

and/or good faith by posting a partial bond during the

To require the application for and issuance of a writ of

reglementary period.

execution as prerequisites for the execution of a reinstatement

award would certainly betray and run counter to the very

Reinstatement Aspect of LAs Decision

object and intent of Article 223, i. e., the immediate execution

of a reinstatement order. The reason is simple. An application

(45) Pioneer Texturizing Corporation v. NLRC, 1997 case

for a writ of execution and its issuance could be delayed for

numerous reasons.

Pioneer Texturizing Corp vs National Labor Relations Commission

A mere continuance or postponement of a scheduled hearing, for

G.R. No. 118651. October 16, 1997

instance, or an inaction on the part of the Labor Arbiter or

FACTS:

the NLRC could easily delay the issuance of the writ thereby

De Jesus is petitioners reviser/trimmer who based her assigned

setting at naught the strict mandate and noble purpose

work on a paper note posted by petitioners. The posted paper is

envisioned by Article 223. On appeal, however, the appellate

identified by its P.O. Number. De Jesus worked on P.O. No. 3853

tribunal concerned may enjoin or suspend the reinstatement

by trimming the cloths ribs and thereafter submitted tickets

order in the exercise of its sound discretion.

corresponding to the work done to her supervisor. Three days

later, de Jesus received a memorandum requiring her to explain

Furthermore, the rule is that all doubts in the interpretation

why no disciplinary action should be taken against her for

and implementation of labor laws should be resolved in favor of

dishonesty and tampering of official records and documents with

labor. In ruling that an order or award for reinstatement

the intention of cheating as P.O. No. 3853 allegedly required no

trimming.

does not require a writ of execution the Court is simply

The memorandum also placed her under preventive suspension

that an award or order for reinstatement is self-executory.

adhering and giving meaning to this rule. Henceforth, we rule

After receipt of the decision or resolution ordering the

for thirty days. In her explanation, de Jesus maintained that

employee's reinstatement, the employer has the right to

she merely committed a mistake in trimming P.O. No. 3853 and

admitted that she may have been negligent, but not for

choose whether to re-admit the employee to work under the

employment. De Jesus filed a complaint for illegal dismissal

reinstate the employee in the payroll.

same terms and conditions prevailing prior to his dismissal or to

dishonesty or tampering. Nonetheless, she was terminated from

against petitioners.

In either instance, the employer has to inform the employee

The Labor Arbiter held petitioners guilty of illegal dismissal and

of his choice. The notification is based on practical considerations

without loss of seniority rights and with full backwages from

has to report for work or not.

for without notice, the employee has no way of knowing if he

were ordered to reinstate de Jesus to her previous position

25

(46) Roquero v. PAL, 2 April 2004

PAL.

Roquero v. PAL

April 2 2004

In a Memorandum dated July 14, 1994, Roquero and

Pabayo were dismissed by PAL. Thus, they filed a case

for illegal dismissal.

Respondent

Labor Arbiter

PHILIPPINE AIRLINES, INC.,

The dismissal of Roquero and Pabayo was upheld.

The LA found both parties at fault PAL for applying

Petitioner:

means to entice the complainants into committing

ALEJANDRO ROQUERO

the infraction and the complainants for giving in to

Roquero, along with Rene Pabayo, were ground

the temptation and eventually indulging in the

equipment mechanics of PAL

-

prohibited activity.

Roquero and Pabayo were caught red-handed

possessing and using shabu in a raid conducted by PAL

Nonetheless, the Labor Arbiter awarded separation pay

and attorneys fees to the complainants

security officers and NARCOM personnel.

-

The two alleged that they did not voluntarily indulge

Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), the complainants

in the said act but were instigated by a certain Jojie

were acquitted by the RTC on the ground of

Alipato.
-

instigation.

Alipato persuaded Pabayo to join him in taking the

drugs. They met Roquero along the way and he

NRC

agreed to join them.

-

Inside the company premises, they locked the door

used.
When they started the procedure of taking the
-

and Pabayo and seized the drugs and the

Complainants did not appeal from the decision but filed

a motion for a writ of execution of the order of

paraphernalia used.

It ordered reinstatement to their former positions

but without backwages.

drugs, armed men entered the room, arrested Roquero

The NLRC ruled in favor of complainants as it likewise

found PAL guilty of instigation.

and Alipato lost no time in preparing the drugs to be

-

While the case was on appeal with the National

reinstatement.

Roquero and Pabayo were subjected to a physical

The Labor Arbiter granted the motion but PAL refused

examination where the results showed that they

to execute the said order on the ground that they

were positive of drugs.

have filed a Petition for Review before this Court.

They were also brought to the security office of PAL

where they executed written confessions without

the benefit of counsel.

During the pendency of the case with the Court of

Appeals, PAL and Pabayo filed a Motion to
Withdraw/Dismiss the case with respect to Pabayo,

On March 30, 1994,

o

after they voluntarily entered into a compromise

Roquero and Pabayo received a notice of

agreement. The motion was granted

administrative charge for violating the PAL

Code of Discipline.
o

CA

They were required to answer the charges

and were placed under preventive suspension.

reversed the decision of the NLRC and reinstated the

decision of the Labor Arbiter insofar as it upheld the
dismissal of Roquero.

Roquero and Pabayo assailed their arrest and asserted

that they were instigated by PAL to take the drugs.

-

However, it denied the award of separation pay and

attorneys fees to Roquero on the ground that one

They argued that Alipato was not really a trainee of

who has been validly dismissed is not entitled to those

PAL but was placed in the premises to instigate the

benefits

commission of the crime.

-

They based their argument on the fact that Alipato

ISSUES:

Moreover, Alipato has no record of employment with

responsible for an action arising from the instigation perpetrated

was not arrested.

-

1. Whether or not the instigated employee shall be solely

26

by the employer. YES

dismissing the petitioner.

-

The twin-notice rule requires

2. Whether or not an employer who refused to reinstate an

(1) the notice which apprises the employee of

of the subject employee. YES

dismissal is being sought along with the

employee despite a writ duly issued is liable to pay the salary

the particular acts or omissions for which his

opportunity for the employee to air his side,
and
(2) the subsequent notice of the employers

HELD:

decision to dismiss him. Both were given by

respondent PAL.

1. YES. There is no question that petitioner Roquero is guilty of

serious misconduct for possessing and using shabu.
-

2.YES. Article 223 (3

He violated Chapter 2, Article VII, section 4 of the

immediately executory even pending appeal.

Any employee who, while on company

premises or on duty, takes or is under the

influence of prohibited or controlled drugs, or

hallucinogenic substances or narcotics shall be

The order of reinstatement is immediately executory.

The unjustified refusal of the employer to reinstate a

dismissed employee entitles him to payment of his

dismissed.

salaries effective from the time the employer failed

to reinstate him despite the issuance of a writ of

SERIOUS MISCONDUCT is defined as the transgression of some

execution.

established and definite rule of action, a forbidden act, a

dereliction of duty, willful in character, and implies wrongful

order of reinstatement.

For serious misconduct to warrant the dismissal of an

employee, it

(2) must relate to the performance of the

(3) must show that the employee has

the time of the decision of the NLRC until the

employer.

finality of the decision of this Court.

Roquero was tasked with the repair and maintenance

of PALs airplanes. He cannot discharge that duty if he

part of the employer to reinstate and pay the

His failure to do his job can mean great loss of lives

wages of the dismissed employee during the period of

and properties.

appeal until reversal by the higher court.

Hence, even if he was instigated to take drugs he

has no right to be reinstated to his position.

He took the drugs fully knowing that he was on

reinstatement order is reversed with finality, the

rules.

It cannot be used as a shield against dismissal from

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.

employment especially when the position involves the

safety of human lives.
-

Petitioner cannot complain he was denied procedural

due process.

On the other hand, if the employee has been

reinstated during the appeal period and such

duty and more so that it is prohibited by company

Instigation is only a defense against criminal liability.

Even if the order of reinstatement of the Labor

Arbiter is reversed on appeal, it is obligatory on the

is a drug user.

Having failed to do so, PAL must pay Roquero the

salary he is entitled to, as if he was reinstated, from

become unfit to continue working for the

Thus, it was mandatory on PAL to actually reinstate

Roquero or reinstate him in the payroll.

employees duty; and

In the case at bar, no restraining order was

granted.

(1) must be serious;

Unless there is a restraining order issued, it is

ministerial upon the Labor Arbiter to implement the

intent and not mere error in judgment.

paragraph) of the Labor Code provide

that an order of reinstatement by the Labor Arbiter is

PAL Code of Discipline which states:

rd

PAL complied with the twin-notice requirement before

27

(47) Air Phil Corp. v. Zamora, August 7, 2004

This prompted APC to file a Petition for Certiorari with the

Court of Appeals.

Air Philippines Corp. v. Zamora

G.R. No. 148247 August 7, 2006

CA: Dismissed the petition for failure of APC to attach copies

of all the pleadings (such complaint, answer, position paper) and

Respondent: Enrico Zamora (Zamora) was employed with Air

other material portions of the record as would support the

Philippines Corporation (APC).

allegations therein.

FACTS: Zamora was employed by APC as a B-737 Flight Deck

ISSUES:

Crew. He applied for promotion to the position of airplane

(1) WON CA erred when it dismissed the Petition for

captain and underwent the requisite training program. After

Certiorari filed by APC on the ground that APC failed

completing training, he inquired about his promotion but APC did

to attach copies of the pleadings (such complaint,

not act on it; instead, it continued to give him assignments as

answer, position paper) and other material portions of

Labor Arbiter. He argued that the act of APC of withholding

YES

flight deck crew. Thus, Zamora filed a Complaint with the

the record as would support the allegations therein.

his promotion rendered his continued employment with it

(2) WON NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion in

oppressive and unjust. He therefore asked that APC be held

holding APC liable to Zamora for unpaid salaries. NO

liable for constructive dismissal.

RULING:

APC denied that it dismissed complainant. It pointed out that,

(1)

YES. As a general rule, a petition lacking

when the complaint was filed, Zamora was still employed with

copies of essential pleadings and portions of the case record may

it. It was after a week that Zamora stopped reporting for

be dismissed. This rule, however, is not petrified. As the exact

work, not because he was forced to resign, but because he had

nature of the pleadings and parts of the case record which

joined a rival airline, Grand Air.

must accompany a petition is not specified, much discretion is

Labor Arbiter: Ruled in favor of Zamora and declared APC liable

copies of pleading and other documents. There are, however,

for constructive dismissal and ordered for the reinstatement of

guideposts it must follow.

left to the appellate court to determine the necessity for

Zamora without loss of seniority rights.

First, not all pleadings and parts of case records are required to

Zamora immediately filed a Motion for Execution of the order

be attached to the petition. Only those which are relevant

of reinstatement which was granted by the Labor Arbiter.

and pertinent must accompany it. The test of relevancy is

APC appealed to NLRC.

whether the document in question will support the material

allegations in the petition, whether said document will make

NLRC: Held that no dismissal, constructive or otherwise, took

out a prima facie case of grave abuse of discretion as to

place for it was Zamora himself who voluntarilly terminated

convince the court to give due course to the petition.

his employment by not reporting for work and by joining a

Second, even if a document is relevant and pertinent to the

competitor Grand Air. Upon Motion for Reconsideration filed by

Zamora, NLRC modified its Resolution wherein it affirmed its

petition, it need not be appended if it is shown that the

earlier ruling but ordered APC to pay Zamora his unpaid salaries

contents thereof can also found in another document already

and allowances.

attached to the petition. Thus, if the material allegations in a

position paper are summarized in a questioned judgment, it will

NLRC justified the award of unpaid salaries stating that the

suffice that only a certified true copy of the judgment is

grant of salaries and allowances to Zamora arose from the

attached.

order of his reinstatement which is executory even pending

appeal of APC questioning the same, pursuant to Article 223

Third, a petition lacking an essential pleading or part of the

Zamora was as if actually working from the date APC

earlier dismissed) upon showing that petitioner later submitted

received the copy of the appealed decision of the Labor Arbiter

the documents required, or that it will serve the higher

directing the reinstatement of complainant based on his finding

interest of justice that the case be decided on the merits.

[now Article 229] of the Labor Code. In the eyes of the law,

case record may still be given due course or reinstated (if

that the latter was illegally dismissed from employment.

It is readily apparent in this case that the Court of Appeals

was overzealous in its enforcement of the rules.
28

An anonymous e-mail was sent to the General

The pleadings and other documents it required of petitioner

Manager of respondent detailing allegations of

were not at all relevant to the petition. It is noted that

malfeasance on the part of its supervisory employees

the only issue raised by APC was whether the NLRC

(petitioners) for stealing company time.

committed grave abuse of discretion in granting Zamora unpaid

salaries while declaring him guilty of abandonment of

Respondent thus investigated the matter, requiring

petitioners to submit their written explanation.

employment. Certainly, copies of the Resolutions of the NLRC

would have sufficed as basis for CA to resolve this issue. After

In handwritten letters, petitioners admitted their

wrongdoing.

all, it is in these Resolutions that the NLRC purportedly made

contrary findings.

Respondent thereupon terminated petitioners for

extremely serious offenses as defined in its Code of
Discipline.

(2)

NO. The premise of the award of unpaid

salary to Zamora is that prior to the reversal by the NLRC of

Labor Arbiter (LA)

the decision of the Labor Arbiter, the order of reinstatement

embodied therein was already the subject of an alias writ of

The petitioners filed a complaint for illegal dismissal

against it.

execution even pending appeal.

LA dismissed petitioners complaint, he having found

them guilty of

[s]wiping another employees [sic] I.D. card

Although APC did not comply with this writ of execution, its
unyieldingness made it liable nonetheless to the salaries of

or requesting another employee to swipe ones I.D.

reinstatement of the Labor Arbiter is reversed on appeal, it is

interest of cheating, an offense of dishonesty

obligatory on the part of the employer to reinstate and pay

punishable as a serious form of misconduct and

the wages of the dismissed employee during the period of

fraud or breach of trust under Article 282 of

appeal until reversal by the higher court.

the Labor Codewhich allows the dismissal of an

Zamora pending appeal. As held, even if the order of

card to gain personal advantage and/or in the

employee for a valid cause.

On the other hand, if the employee has been reinstated during

The LA however, ordered the reinstatement

the appeal period and such reinstatement order is reversed

of petitioners to their former positions

with finality, the employee is not required to reimburse

without backwages as a measure of

whatever salary he received for he is entitled to such, more so

equitable and compassionate relief owing

if he actually rendered services during the period.

mainly to petitioners prior unblemished

employment records, show of remorse,

In sum, SC annulled the Resolutions of CA, resolved the main

harshness of the penalty and defective

case on its merits and dismissed the Petition for Certiorari.

attendance monitoring system of respondent.

(48) Lansangan v. Amkor Technology Philippines, January 30, 2009

NLRC

Lansangan v. Amkor Technology Philippines, Inc.

Respondent assailed the reinstatement

aspect of the Arbiters order before NLRC.

G.R. No. 177026, January 30, 2009, Carpio Morales, J.

The NLRC

deleted the reinstatement aspect of the

Arbiters decision.

Petitioner:

Resolution was denied.

Lunesa Lansangan

Rosita Cendaa
o

CA

Petitioners are supervisory employees of

respondent

Petitioners filed a petition for certiorari before the CA

The CA affirmed the finding that petitioners were

guilty of misconduct and the like, ordered respondent

Respondent:

Petitioners motion for reconsideration of the NLRC

to pay petitioners their corresponding

Amkor Technology Philippines, Inc.

backwages without qualification and deduction for the

period covering October 20, 2004 (date of the Arbiters
decision) up to June 30, 2005 (date of the NLRC

FACTS:

Decision), citing Article 223 of the Labor Code

and Roquero v. Philippine Airlines.
29

Both parties filed their respective motions for partial

1993, Citibank, through Victorino P. Vargas, its Country Senior

reconsideration which were denied.

Human Resources Officer, sent a letter to Genuino to explain in

Only petitioners have come to this Court via the

writing three days from the receipt hereof why her

present petition for review

employment should not be terminated in view of her

involvement in the irregular transactions. She was also directed

ISSUE: Whether the petitioners are entitled to reinstatement

to appear in an administrative investigation of the matter.

and full backwages pursuant to Article 223 (NO)

HELD: NO

Genuinos counsel replied through a letter dated September 17,

1993, demanding for a bill of particulars regarding the charges

against Genuino. Genuino did not appear in the administrative

Roquero v. Philippine Airlines, as well as Article 223 of

investigation and failed to submit her written explanation. On

the Labor Code on which the appellate court also

September 27, 1993, Citibank informed Genuino of the result of

relied, finds no application in the present case.

their investigation. It found that Genuino with Santos used

Article 223 concerns itself with an interim relief,

facilities of Genuinos family corporation, namely, Global Pacific,

the case for illegal dismissal is pending appeal, as what

clients funds to products of other companies that yielded

granted to a dismissed or separated employee while

personally and actively participated in the diversion of bank

happened in Roquero. It does not apply where there

interests higher than what Citibank products offered, and that

is no finding of illegal dismissal, as in the present case.

Genuino and Santos realized substantial financial gains, all in

violation of existing company policy and the Corporation Code,

The Arbiter found petitioners dismissal to be valid. Such

which carries a penal sanction. Genuinos employment was

not having appealed it. Following Article 279 which

for illegal suspension and illegal dismissal with damages and

provides:

prayer for temporary restraining order and/or writ of

finding had, as stated earlier, become final, petitioners

terminated. Genuino filed before the Labor Arbiter a Complaint

In cases of regular

preliminary injunction.

employment, the employer shall not

Labor Arbiter - the dismissal of the complainant Marilou S.

employee except for a just cause or

to due process,

when authorized by this Title. An

NLRC- reversed the Labor Arbiters decision CA- with just cause

employee who is

but w/o due process P5,000.00 nominal charges

terminate the services of an

Genuino to be without just cause and in violation of her right

unjustly dismissed from work shall

be entitled to reinstatement

Issue: Whether the dismissal is for a just cause and with the

without loss of seniority rights and

observance of due process?

other privileges and to his full

backwages

Held: The court ruled that Genuino was dismissed for just cause

Petitioners are not entitled to full backwages as

but without the observance of due process. The requirement of

their dismissal was not found to be illegal. Agabon v.

twin notices must be met.

NLRC so states payment of backwages and other

(1) The first written notice to be served on the

benefits is justified only if the employee

employees should contain the specific causes or grounds

was unjustly dismissed.

for termination against them, and a directive that

the employees are given the opportunity to submit

their written explanation within a reasonable period.

(49) Genuino v. NLRC, December 4, 2007

(2) After serving the first notice, the employers should

schedule and conduct a hearing or conference wherein

MARILOU S. GENUINO

VS

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS

the employees will be given the opportunity to: (1)

COMMISSION

explain and clarify their defenses to the charge

G.R. Nos. 142732-33; December 4, 2007

against them; (2) present evidence in support of their

FACTS: Genuino was employed by Citibank as Treasury Sales

against them by the management.

defenses; and (3) rebut the evidence presented

Division Head with the rank of Assistant Vice-President. On

(3) After determining that termination of employment is

August 23, 1993, Citibank sent Genuino a letter charging her

justified, the employers shall serve the employees a

with knowledge and/or involvement in transactions which were

written notice of termination indicating that: (1) all

informed she was under preventive suspension. On September 13,

employees have been considered; and (2) grounds have

irregular or even fraudulent. In the same letter, Genuino was

circumstances involving the charge against the

30

been established to justify the severance of their

letter to Genuino, diecting her to explain within 3 days why

employment.

her employment should not be terminated with regards to her

Since the notice of charges given to Genuino is inadequate, the

involvement in irregular transactions. Genuino's counsel replied

Court held that Citibank failed to observe procedural due

against Genuino. Genuino did not appear in the administrative

process, it never the less found Genuinos dismissal justified.

investigation. On September 27, 1993, Citibank

While the bank gave genuine an opportunity to deny the

informed Genuino of the result of their investigation. It found

truth of the allegations in writing and participate in the

that Genuino with Santos used "facilities of Genuino's family

were too general to enable Genuino to intelligently and

participated in the diversion of bank clients' funds to products

adequately prepare her defense.

of other companies that yielded interests higher than what

Ordinarily, the employer is required to reinstate the employee

Citibank products offered, and that Genuino and Santos

during the pendency of the appeal pursuant to Art.223, par. 3

realized substantial financial gains, all in violation of existing

later reversed on appeal upon the finding that the ground

information, carries a penal sanction." Genuino's employment was

for dismissal is valid then the employer has the right to require

terminated by Citibank on grounds of (1) serious misconduct, (2)

the dismissed employee on payroll reinstatement to refund the

willful breach of the trust reposed upon her by the bank, and

salaries received while the case was pending appeal, or it can

(3) commission of a crime against the bank. October 15,

be deducted from the accrued benefits that the dismissed

1993, Genuino filed before the Labor Arbiter a Complaint against

under existing laws, collective bargaining agreement provisions,

and prayer for temporary restraining order and/or writ of

and company practices. However, if the employee was

preliminary injunction

reinstated to work during the pendency of the appeal, then

LA:

the employee is entitled to the compensation received for

The dismissal was without just cause and in violation of her

Considering that Genuino was not reinstated to work or placed

complainant immediately and pay other benefits with back

on payroll reinstatement, and her dismissal is based on a just

wage. Respondent was also held liable for moral, exemplary

cause, then she is not entitled to be paid the salaries.

damages, and Attorney fee.

dismissal could not be in accordance with due process. While the

demanding for a bill of particulars regarding the charges

administrative investigation, the fact remains that the charges

corporation, namely, Global Pacific, personally and actively

of the Labor Code. If the decision of the Labor Arbiter is

company policy and the Corporation Code, which for your

employee was entitled to receive from his employer

Citibank for illegal suspension and illegal dismissal with damages

actual services rendered without the need of refund.

right to due process. Banks was ordered to reinstate

NLRC:

(49) Genuino v. NLRC, December 4, 2007

Genuino is validly dismissed. Legal on the ground of serious

Version #2

misconduct and breach of trust and confidence

CA:

Genuino v. National Labor Relations Commission

Modified its decision and held that Citibank failed to observe

G.R. Nos. 142732-33, 142753-54, [December 4, 2007]

due process. Citibank should indemnify Genuino in the amount of

VELASCO, JR., J

PhP5,000 for non-observance of due process.

Petitioner:
Marilou S. Genuino-Treasury Sales division in City Bank; salary

Both parties assail the decision of CA, Contention:

P60,487.96

Genuino assails the CA's finding that her dismissal was valid.

Resppondent:

Citibank questions the CA's finding that Citibank violated

William Ferguson- Manila Country Corporate Officer and Business

a right to salaries. That Genuinos reinstatement was not

Head of the Global Finance Bank of Citibank

supported by evidence.

Citibank, N.N.- employer company

Genuino's right to procedural due process and that Genuino has

Aziz Rajkotwala- International Business Manager for the

Global Consumer Bank of Citibank

ISSUE:
Whether or not the dismissal of Genuino is for a just

Facts:

cause and in accordance with due process

On August 23, 1993, Citibank sent Genuino a letter charging her

with "knowledge and/or involvement" in transactions "which

Held:

were irregular or even fraudulent." In the same

Yes. With Just cause but absent Due Process for failure of

letter, Genuino was informed she was under preventive

the bank to issue twin notices.

Vargas, its Country Senior Human Resources Officer, sent a

served on the employees should contain the specific causes or

suspension. September 13, 1993, Citibank, through Victorino P.

(Process of Due process) (1)The first written notice to be

31

grounds for termination against them, and a directive that

While the bank gave Genuino an opportunity to deny the

the employees are given the opportunity to submit their

truth of the allegations in writing and participate in the

written explanation within a reasonable period. Reasonable

administrative investigation, the fact remains that the charges

at least five (5) calendar days from receipt of the notice to

adequately prepare her defense.

give the employees an opportunity to study the accusation

The two-notice requirement of the Labor Code is an essential

against them, consult a union official or lawyer, gather data

part of due process. The first notice informing the employee of

opportunity(time to prepare adequate defense)

is a period of

were too general to enable Genuino to intelligently and

and evidence, and decide on the defenses they will raise

the charges should neither be pro-forma nor vague. It should

not suffice.

employee should be afforded ample opportunity to be heard and

(2) After serving the first notice, the employers should schedule

not mere opportunity.

against the complaint. A general description of the charge will

set out clearly what the employee is being held liable for. The

and conduct a hearing or conference wherein the employees will

be given the opportunity to: (1) explain and clarify their

Althought Citibank failed to observe procedural due process, we

support of their defenses; and (3) rebut the evidence presented

that Genuino was aware of the bank's Corporate Policy

against them by the management. During the hearing or

Manual specifically Chapter 3 on "Principles and Policies" with

conference, the employees are given the chance to defend

regard to avoiding conflicts of interest. In that survey, she

themselves personally, with the assistance of a representative

denied any knowledge of engaging in transactions in conflict

or counsel of their choice.

with Citibank's interests.

justified, the employers shall serve the employees a written

Art. 282 (c) of the Labor Code provides that an employer may

notice of terminationindicating that: (1) all circumstances

terminate an employment for fraud or willful breach by the

involving the charge against the employees have been

employee of the trust reposed in him/her by his/her employer

considered; and (2) grounds have been established to justify the

or duly authorized representative. In order to constitute as

The Implementing Rules and Regulations of the Labor Code

inimical to the interests of the employer. For loss of trust and

provide that any employer seeking to dismiss a worker shall

confidence to be a valid ground for an employee's dismissal, it

furnish the latter a written notice stating the particular acts

must be substantial and not arbitrary, and must be founded

or omissions constituting the grounds for dismissal. The purpose of

on clearly established facts sufficient to warrant the

complained of and enable him/her to prepare his/her defense.

ground for dismissing an employee and proof beyond reasonable

defenses to the charge against them; (2) present evidence in

nevertheless find Genuino's dismissal justified. Citibank maintains

(3) After determining that termination of employment is

severance of their employment.

just cause for dismissal, loss of confidence should relate to acts

this notice is to sufficiently apprise the employee of the acts

employee's separation from work. Loss of confidence is a valid

doubt of the employee's misconduct is not required. It is

Citibank did not identify the particular

sufficient if there is some basis for such loss of confidence or if

acts or omissions allegedly committed by Genuino. The August

the employer has reasonable ground to believe or to entertain

23, 1993 letter charged Genuino with having "some knowledge

the moral conviction that the employee concerned is responsible

and/or involvement" in some transactions "which have the

for the misconduct and that the nature of his participation

appearance of being irregular at the least and may even be

therein rendered him unworthy of the trust and confidence

fraudulent." The September 13, 1993 letter, on the other hand,

demanded by his position.

mentioned "irregular transactions" involving Global Pacific and/or

Genuino did not even dissuade the depositors from withdrawing

Citibank and 12 bank clients. Lastly, the September 20, 1993

their monies from Citibank, and was even instrumental in the

letter stated that Genuino and "Mr. Dante Santos, using the

transfers of monies from Citibank to a competing bank through

facilities of their family corporations (Torrance and Global)

Global and Torrance, the corporations under Genuino's control.

appear to have participated in the diversion of bank clients'

Evidence concludes that Genuino did not have her employer's

funds from Citibank to, and investment thereof in, other

interest. Citibank had valid grounds to dismiss Genuino on ground

companies and that they made money in the process, in

of loss of confidence

violation of the conflict of law rule." The extent of Genuino's

alleged knowledge and participation in the diversion of bank's

SC: Payment of nominal damages in the amount of PhP30,000

clients' funds, manner of diversion, and amounts involved; the

acts attributed to Genuino that conflicted with the bank's

interests; and the circumstances surrounding the alleged irregular

transactions, were not specified in the notices/letters.

32

(50) Garcia et al. v. PAL, January 20, 2009

It settles the view that the Labor Arbiters order of
GARCIA VS. PAL

reinstatement is immediately executory and the employer has

FACTS:

conditions prevailing prior to their dismissal, or to reinstate them

The case stemmed from the administrative charge filed by

in the payroll, and that failing to exercise the options in the

Philippine Airlines (PAL) against its employees-herein petitioners

alternative, employer must pay the employees salaries.

to either re-admit them to work under the same terms and

after they were allegedly caught in the act of sniffing shabu

when a team of company security personnel and law enforcers

Amplification of the Second Ground

raided the PAL Technical Centers Toolroom Section on July 24,

1995.

The Court sustains the appellate courts finding that the

After due notice, PAL dismissed petitioners for

peculiar predicament of a corporate rehabilitation rendered it

transgressing the PAL Code of Discipline, prompting

impossible for respondent to exercise its option under the

them to file a complaint for illegal dismissal and

circumstances.

damages which was resolved by the Labor Arbiter in

their favor, thus ordering PAL to, inter alia,

The test is two-fold:

immediately comply with the reinstatement aspect of

1)

the decision.

order of reinstatement pending appeal was not

the Labor Arbiter issued a Writ of Execution

respecting the reinstatement decision and issued a

there must be actual delay or the fact that the

2)

executed prior to its reversal; and

the delay must not be due to the employers

Notice of Garnishment.

unjustified act or omission.

Appellate court issued the herein challenged Decision

the employers unjustified refusal, the employer may

and Resolution nullifying the NLRC Resolutions on two

still be required to pay the salaries notwithstanding

grounds, essentially espousing that:

the reversal of the Labor Arbiters decision.

If the delay is due to

a subsequent finding of a valid dismissal

WHEREFORE, the petition is PARTIALLY DENIED.

removes the basis for implementing the

the Court of Appeals Decision and Resolution annulling the NLRC

reinstatement aspect of a labor arbiters

Resolutions affirming the validity of the Writ of Execution and

decision; and

the Notice of Garnishment are concerned, the Court finds no

the impossibility to comply with the

reversible error.

reinstatement order due to corporate

Insofar as

SO ORDERED

rehabilitation provides a reasonable

justification for the failure to exercise the

(51) Mt. Carmel College v. REsuena October 10, 2007

options under Article 223 of the Labor Code

(the second ground).

MT. CARMEL COLLEGE vs. JOCELYN RESUENA, EDDIE VILLALON,

HENCE, this Petition.

SYLVIA SEDAYON and ZONSAYDA EMNACE,

G .R . N o . 1 7 3 0 7 6

LEGAL ISSUE:

FACTS: Petitioner Mt. Carmel College is a private educational

WON SUBSEQUENT VALID DISMISSAL REMOVES THE

institution. It is administered by the Carmelite Fathers at

WON corporate rehabilitation provides a reasonable

of petitioner, namely: Jocelyn Resuena (Accounting Clerk), Eddie

justification for the failure to exercise the options

Villalon (Elementary Department Principal); Sylvia Sedayon

under Article 223 of the Labor Code

(Treasurer), and Zonsayda Emnace (Secretary to the Director).

BASIS FOR IMPLEMENTING THE REINSTATEMENT

October 10, 2007

New Escalante, Negros Occidental. Respondents were employees

RULING:

On 21 November 1997, respondents, together with several

Amplification of the First Ground:

participated in a protest action against petitioner. After a

The Court reaffirms the prevailing principle that even if the

hearing conducted by petitioners Fact-Finding Committee and

order of reinstatement of the Labor Arbiter is reversed on

submission of its Report on 25 April 1998, recommending dismissal

appeal, it is obligatory on the part of the employer to

or suspension of respondents, petitioner issued written notices of

the period of appeal until reversal by the higher court.

terminated by petitioner on 15 May 1998.

faculty members, non-academic personnel, and other students,

reinstate and pay the wages of the dismissed employee during

termination to respondents on 7 May 1998. Respondents were

33

Successive writs of execution pertaining to the backwages and

Separate complaints were filed by each of the four

accrued salaries of the respondents were issued by Labor

respondents against petitioner before Regional Arbitration

Arbiter Pura.

Branch VI of the NLRC in Bacolod City. Respondents charged

petitioner with illegal dismissal and claimed 13

th

From the said Order of the Labor Arbiter, petitioner filed with

month pay,

the NLRC an appeal with an application for issuance of a writ

separation pay, damages and attorneys fees. All four cases

of preliminary injunction on the execution of judgment.

were consolidated, and Labor Arbiter Ray T. Drilon thereafter

Petitioner assailed the 15 April 2005 Order of the Labor Arbiter

issued a Decision dated 25 May 1999 affirming the validity of

averring that the latter seriously committed errors when he

trust and confidence. Although the Decision found respondents

the period 15 May 1998 to 25 May 1999. The NLRC dismissed

to have been legally dismissed, as equitable relief, however,

the petitioners appeal in a Resolution dated 15 August 2005 for

they were awarded separation pay computed at one month

lack of merit. Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration but

pay for every year of service, their proportionate 13

it was denied by the NLRC in a Resolution dated 30 November

respondents termination by petitioner on the ground of loss of

th

ordered the payment and garnishment of backwages beyond

month

pay, and attorneys fees, in the sum of P334,875.47 Their claims

2005.

for moral and exemplary damages were denied.

From the foregoing, petitioner filed with the Court of Appeals a

Special Civil Action for Certiorari and Prohibition. The Court of

On 9 September 1999, Labor Arbiter Drilon issued to the parties

a Notice of Judgment/Decision of his 25 May 1999 Decision. The

Appeals eventually dismissed the petition. Thus, petitioners

notice indicated that a decision of the Labor Arbiter reinstating

avowal that their liability for private respondents backwages is

a dismissed or separated employee, in so far as the

limited from May 15, 1998 up to May 25, 1999 is untenable.

executory, even pending appeal. The employee shall either be

executory and does not need a writ of execution for its

admitted back to work under the same terms and conditions

enforcement; Whether the continuing award of backwages is

prevailing prior to his dismissal or separation or at the option of

proper.

reinstatement aspect is concerned, shall immediately be

ISSUE: Whether reinstatement in the instant case is self-

the employee (sic) merely reinstated in the payroll.

In the meantime, petitioner appealed to the NLRC Fourth

HELD: While petitioner concedes that the case pertaining to

Division in Cebu City, seeking the reversal of the portion of the

the complaints for illegal dismissal filed by the respondents

Labor Arbiters Decision dated 25 May 1999 awarding separation

before the Labor Arbiter had been resolved with finality by

pay to respondents. The NLRC dismissed the appeal in its

the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. No. 80639, no other remedy

Decision dated 30 October 2001. In the same Decision dismissing

having been taken therefrom, it however assails the

1999 Decision of the Labor Arbiter, and declared the

therein. Petitioner avers that the Court of Appeals erred in

termination of respondents to be illegal. It ordered the

upholding the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC that the award of

reinstatement of respondents, with payment of backwages or

backwages goes beyond the period 15 May 1998 to 25 May

payment of separation pay in lieu thereof. Petitioner filed a

1999 on the supposition that reinstatement is self-executory

the NLRC. The said Motion was denied in the 19 June

This Court sees no cogent reason as to the relevance of a

2003 Resolution of the NLRC.

discussion on whether or not reinstatement is self-

the appeal, the NLRC reversed and modified the 25 May

correctness and validity of the execution of the judgment

Motion for Reconsideration of the 30 October 2001 Decision of

and does not need a writ of execution for its enforcement.

executory. However, since petitioner raised this issue, this Court

The case was elevated to the Court of Appeals via a Special

has opted to discuss it. Verily, Article 223 of the Labor Code is

assailed the aforementioned NLRC Decision dated 30 October

that the decision of the Labor Arbiter reinstating a dismissed or

2001 and Resolution dated 19 June 2003, arguing that there is

separated employee, insofar as the reinstatement aspect is

more than enough basis for loss of trust and confidence as

concerned, shall immediately be executory, even pending appeal.

Civil Action for Certiorari and Prohibition, where petitioner

not applicable in the instant case. The said provision stipulates

ground for dismissing respondents. It also reiterated compliance

with the twin requirements of notice and hearing. The Court

The records of the case indicate that when Labor Arbiter

March 2004. No Motion for Reconsideration of was filed and it

reinstatement yet although the dispositive portion of the 31

of Appeals denied the petition in a Decision promulgated on 17

Drilon issued its 25 May 1999 Decision, there was no order of

became final and executory on 14 April 2004.

January 2005 Order issued by Labor Arbiter Pura already

provided for reinstatement or payment of separation pay. Art.

At about the same time as the foregoing developments Labor

223 of the Labor Code provides that reinstatement is

on the self-executory nature of a reinstatement order.

Labor Arbiter himself ordered the reinstatement. In this case,

Arbiter Phibun D. Pura issued an Order on 19 May 2003 opining

immediately executory even pending appeal only when the

34

the original Decision of Labor Arbiter Drilon did not order

directed it to reinstate respondents, or in lieu thereof, pay

reinstatement. Reinstatement in this case was actually

separation pay. This, petitioner failed to do. Petitioner did not

ordered by the NLRC, affirmed by the Court of Appeals. The

exercise the option of either reinstatement or paying the

order of Labor Arbiter Pura on 31 January 2005 directing

separation pay of respondents.

reinstatement was issued after the Court of Appeals Decision

dated 17 March 2004 which affirmed the NLRCs order of

Backwages are to be computed from the time of illegal

reinstatement. Thus, Art. 223 finds no application in the instant

dismissal until reinstatement or upon petitioners payment of

case.

separation pay to respondents if reinstatement is no longer

upon appeal to the NLRC and affirmed with finality by the

Thus, an illegally dismissed employee is entitled to two reliefs:

Court of Appeals in on 17 March 2004, petitioner rightly invoked

backwages and reinstatement. The two reliefs provided are

Art. 224 of the Labor Code. As contemplated by Article 224 of

separate and distinct. In instances where reinstatement is no

the Labor Code, the Secretary of Labor and Employment or

longer feasible because of strained relations between the

med-arbiter or voluntary arbitrator may, motu proprio or on

effect, an illegally dismissed employee is entitled to either

Considering that the order for reinstatement was first decided

possible.

any Regional Director, the Commission or any Labor Arbiter, or

employee and the employer, separation pay is granted. In

motion of any interested party, issue a writ of execution on a

reinstatement, if viable, or separation pay if reinstatement is

judgment within five (5) years from the date it becomes final

no longer viable, and backwages.

and executory.

The normal consequences of respondents illegal dismissal, then,

Consequently, under Rule III of the NLRC Manual on the

are reinstatement without loss of seniority rights, and

for the reinstatement of any person to a position, an office or

was withheld up to the date of actual reinstatement. Where

an employment, such writ shall be served by the sheriff upon

reinstatement is no longer viable as an option, separation pay

the losing party or upon any other person required by law to

equivalent to one (1) month salary for every year of service

obey the same, and such party or person may be punished for

should be awarded as an alternative. The payment of

Execution of Judgment, it is provided that if the execution be

payment of backwages computed from the time compensation

contempt if he disobeys such decision or order for

separation pay is in addition to payment of backwages.

reinstatement.
However, as we can glean from the succeeding discussion, the

Concomitantly, it is evident that respondents backwages should

above findings will not affect the award of backwages for the

not be limited to the period from 15 May 1998 to 25 May

period beyond 25 May 1999. Anent the second issue, petitioner

1999. The backwages due respondents must be computed from

Drilon did not order the reinstatement of

reinstatement to their former position or upon petitioners

respondents. Petitioner posits that since there was no finding

payment of separation pay to them if reinstatement is no

of illegal dismissal at the Labor Arbiters level, then it follows

longer feasible. Thus, until petitioner actually implements the

that there was no reinstatement aspect, and its liability for

reinstatement aspect of the NLRC Decision dated 30 October

May 1999, i.e., from dismissal to promulgation of the Labor

March 2004

contends that the 25 May 1999 Decision of Labor Arbiter

the time they were unjustly dismissed until their actual

backwages is limited to the period from 15 May 1998 up to 25

2001, as affirmed in the Court of Appeals Decision dated 17

Arbiters Decision only, as allegedly determined by the NLRC in

its obligation to respondents, insofar as accrued

backwages and other benefits are concerned, continues to

its Decision dated 30 October 2001. It argues that while the

accumulate.

said NLRC Decision awarded backwages from 15 May

1998 to 25 May 1999 only, the Writs of Execution issued

pursuant thereto ordered the payment of backwages way

(51) Mt. Carmel College v. REsuena October 10, 2007

beyond the period stated in the Decision it is supposed to

Version #2

execute.

MT. CARMEL COLLEGEvs. JOCELYN RESUENA

However, the NLRC found respondents to have been illegally

dismissed by petitioner, and ordered reinstatement and

FACTS:

reinstatement is not possible, separation pay as computed in

and administered by the Carmelite Fathers . Respondents,

payment of backwages. Additionally, it stated that where

Petitioner Mt. Carmel College is a private educational institution

the appealed decision should be awarded to

together with several faculty members, nonacademic personnel,

respondents. Petitioner interprets the dispositive portion of the

and other students, participated in a protest action against

NLRC Decision to mean that it is ordered to pay respondents

petitioner. Thereafter, petitioner's Director, Rev. Fr. Modesto E.

seems to have missed that the aforestated NLRC Decision also

should not be dismissed for loss of trust and confidence for

backwages from 15 May 1998 to 25 May 1999 only. Petitioner

Malandac, issued a Memorandum to explain in writing why they

35

joining the protest action. After a hearing dismissal or suspension

1.

An order for reinstatement must be specifically declared

of respondents were recommended. On May 15 1998 respondents

and cannot be presumed like back wages, it is a separate

were terminated by petitioner. Respondents filed a complaint

and distinct relief given to an illegally dismissed employee.

for illegal dismissal.

Art. 223 of the Labor Code provide that reinstatement is

immediately executory even pending appeal only when the

Labor Arbiter Drilon issued a decision affirming validity of

Labor Arbiter himself ordered the reinstatement. In this

termination dated 25 May 1999. On 9 September 1999, Labor

case, the original Decision of Labor Arbiter Drilon did not

Arbiter Drilon issued to the parties a Notice of

order reinstatement. Reinstatement in this case was

reinstatement of the respondents. Petitioner appealed to the

Appeals. Thus, Art. 223 find no application in the instant

NLRC.

case. Considering that the order for reinstatement was

Judgment/Decision of his decision. The notice indicated that the

actually ordered by the NLRC, affirmed by the Court of

first decided upon appeal to the NLRC and affirmed with

NLRC declared the termination of respondents to be illegal. It
ordered the reinstatement of respondents, with payment of

2.

finality by the Court of Appeals.

Petitioner seems to have missed that the NLRC Decision

backwages or payment of separation pay as computed in the

also directed it to reinstate respondents, or in lieu thereof,

appealed decision. The case was elevated to the Court of

pay separation pay. This, petitioner failed to do. Petitioner

Appeals

did not exercise the option of either reinstatement or

paying the separation pay of respondents. Back wages are

CA: decided that [NLRC] correctly held that even if

to be computed from the time of illegal dismissal until

disappointing to the School Administrator, termination it is

pay

definitely too harsh and having been illegally dismissed,

The backwages due respondents must be computed from

respondents are entitled to back wages from the time of

the time they were unjustly dismissed until their actual

their termination until reinstatement, and if reinstatement is

reinstatement to their former position or upon petitioner's

one (1) month for every year of service. However, in this case

no longer feasible.

participation in the protest picket is rather improper or

no longer possible, the grant of separation

reinstatement or upon petitioner's payment of separation

pay equivalent to

to respondents if reinstatement is no longer possible.

payment of separation pay to them if reinstatement is

since the Labor Arbiter did not order reinstatement, the NLRC
correctly excluded the period of the appeal in the computation

(52) Buenviaje v. CA, November 12, 2002

of back wages due to respondents. Hence, appeal to Supreme

Court.

FACTS: Petitioners were former employees of Cottonway

Marketing Corp. (Cottonway), hired as promo girls for their

Petitioner claims that Labor Arbiter exceeded his jurisdiction in

garment products. In October, 1994, after their services were

issuing the writ of execution despite the fact that his decision

terminated as the company was allegedly suffering business

did not order reinstatement. The petitioner further avers that

losses, petitioners filed with the National Labor Relations

the NLRC that the award of backwages goes beyond the

of salary, and non-payment of premium pay for rest day,

period 15 May 1998 to 25 May 1999 on the supposition that

service incentive leave pay and thirteenth month pay against

reinstatement is self executory and does not need a writ of

Cottonway Marketing Corp. and Network Fashion Inc./JCT

execution for its enforcement. Petitioner vehemently raises the

International Trading.

is limited to the period prior to the appeal and does not include

On December 19, 1995, Labor Arbiter Romulus S. Protasio issued

the period during the pendency of the appeal

a Decision finding petitioners' retrenchment valid and ordering

the Court of Appeals erred in upholding the Labor Arbiter and

Commission (NLRC) a complaint for illegal dismissal, underpayment

argument that the award of backwages subject to execution

Cottonway to pay petitioners' separation pay and their

proportionate thirteenth month pay. NLRC reversed the decision
ISSUES:

and ordered the reinstatement of petitioners with payment of

(1) whether reinstatement in the instant case is self

executory

full wages and proportionate 13th month pay. On August 30,

and does not need a writ of execution for its

1996 Cottonway filed a manifestation with NLRC claiming that

enforcement

the petitioners have lost their employment for failing to

(2) whether the continuing award of backwages is proper.

comply with the return to work order. On November 6, 1997,

petitioners filed with the NLRC a motion for execution of its

Decision on the ground that it had become final and executory.

HELD:
36

Cottonway filed another manifestation on march 4, 1997

only five days to report to their posts and when the

informing NLRC that petitioners have found work elsewhere.

petitioners failed to do so, it lost no time in serving them their

individual termination.

LA - Nonetheless, on April 8, 1998, Labor Arbiter Romulus S.

We are, therefore, not impressed with the claim of respondent

Protasio issued an Order declaring that the award of

company that petitioners have been validly dismissed on August

backwages and proportionate thirteenth month pay to

1, 1996 and hence their backwages should only be computed up

petitioners should be limited from the time of their illegal

to that time. We hold that petitioners are entitled to receive

dismissal up to the time they received the notice of

full backwages computed from the time their compensation

for work despite the order of reinstatement.

reinstatement is no longer possible, until the finality of the

termination sent by the company upon their refusal to report

was actually withheld until their actual reinstatement, or if

He cited the

fact that petitioners failed to report to their posts without

decision, in accordance with the Decision of the NLRC dated

justifiable reason despite respondent's order requiring them to

March 26, 1996 which has attained finality

return to work immediately. The Labor Arbiter ordered the

Research and Investigation Unit to recompute the monetary

(52) Buenviaje v. CA, November 12, 2002

award in accordance with its ruling.

Version #2

The April 8 Order of the Labor Arbiter, however, was set aside

NERISSA BUENVIAJE VS THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS

by the Commission in its Resolution dated September 21, 1998.

G.R. No. 147806; November 12, 2002

The Commission ruled that its Decision dated March 26, 1996

FACTS: Petitioners were former employees of Cottonway

has become final and executory and it is the ministerial duty

Marketing Corp. (Cottonway), hired as promo girls for their

of the Labor Arbiter to issue the corresponding writ of

garment products. In October, 1994, after their services were

execution to effect full and unqualified implementation of said

terminated as the company was allegedly suffering business

decision. The Commission thus ordered that the records of the

case be remanded to the Labor Arbiter for execution.

losses, petitioners filed with the National Labor Relations

avail.

of salary, and non-payment of premium pay for rest day,

CA granted Cottonways petition for certiorari ruling that

Arbiter issued a Decision finding petitioners' retrenchment valid

Commission (NLRC) a complaint for illegal dismissal, underpayment

Cottonway moved for reconsideration of said resolution, to no

service incentive leave pay and thirteenth month pay. Labor

petitioners' reinstatement was no longer possible as they

and ordering Cottonway to pay petitioners' separation pay and

by Cottonway.

in its Decision dated March 26, 1996, reversed the Decision of

their proportionate thirteenth month pay. On appeal, the NLRC,

deliberately refused to return to work despite the notice given

The Court of Appeals thus held that the

the Labor Arbiter and ordered the reinstatement of petitioners

amount of backwages due them should be computed only up to

the time they received their notice of termination.

without loss of seniority rights and other privileges. It also

ISSUES: WON the Honorable Court of Appeals gravely abused

thirteenth month pay and their full back wages inclusive of

ordered Cottonway to pay petitioners their proportionate

allowances and other benefits, or their monetary equivalent

its discretion amounting to lack of and/or in excess of

computed from the time their salaries were withheld from

jurisdiction in reinstating the irregular and illegal April 8, 1998

Order of Honorable Arbiter Romulus Protasio

them up to the date of their actual reinstatement.

HELD: Petitioners' alleged failure to return to work cannot be

by the Commission. Cottonway filed a petition for certiorari

made the basis for their termination.

Cottonway filed a motion for reconsideration which was denied

with the Court of Appeals seeking the reversal of the ruling of

Such failure does not

the NLRC. The court of appeals denied the petition. It ruled

amount to abandonment which would justify the severance of

that petitioners' reinstatement was no longer possible as they

their employment. To warrant a valid dismissal on the ground

deliberately refused to return to work despite the notice given

of abandonment, the employer must prove the concurrence of

two elements: (1) the failure to report for work or absence

by Cottonway. The Court of Appeals thus held that the

sever the employer-employee relationshipIf Cottonway were

to the time they received their notice of termination.

amount of back wages due them should be computed only up

without valid or justifiable reason, and (2) a clear intention to

really sincere in its offer to immediately reinstate petitioners

ISSUE: Whether or not the computation of petitioners' back

to their former positions, it should have given them reasonable

time to wind up their current preoccupation or at least to

wages whether it should be limited from the time they were

once.

sent by Cottonway on August 1, 1996 as argued by respondent

illegally dismissed until they received the notice of termination

explain why they could not return to work at Cottonway at

Cottonway did not do either.

Instead, it gave them

37

company, or whether it should be computed from the time of

days from receipt of such decisions, awards, or orders. In any

their illegal dismissal until their actual reinstatement as argued

event, the decision of the Labor Arbiter reinstating a dismissed

by the petitioners?

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

HELD: The court agreed with the petitioners. Under R.A. 6715,

same terms and conditions prevailing prior to his dismissal or

employees who are illegally dismissed are entitled to full back

separation or, at the option of the employer, merely reinstated

wages, inclusive of allowances and other benefits or their

in the payroll. The posting of a bond by the employer shall not

monetary equivalent, computed from the time their actual

stay the execution for reinstatement provided herein. IN

compensation was withheld from them up to the time of

VIEW WHEREOF, the petition is GRANTED. The Decision of the

their actual reinstatement. If reinstatement is no longer

Court of Appeals REVERSED and SET ASIDE.

possible, the back wages shall be computed from the time of

their illegal termination up to the finality of the decision.

(53) Pfizer Inc. v. Velasco, March 9, 2011 (new rule )

Also Cottonway, before finally deciding to dispense with their

services, did not give the petitioners the opportunity to explain
why they were not able to report to work. The records also

do not bear any proof that all the petitioners received a copy

Title:

Pfizer vs Velasco

Facts:

Geraldine L. Velasco was employed with

petitioner PFIZER, INC. as Professional Health Care

of the letters. Cottonway merely claimed that some of them

Representative since 1 August 1992. Sometime in April

have left the country and some have found other

2003, Velasco had a medical work up for her high-risk

employment. This, however, does not necessarily mean that

pregnancy and was subsequently advised bed rest which

petitioners were no longer interested in resuming their

resulted in her extending her leave of absence.

employment at Cottonway as it has not been shown that

their employment in the other companies was permanent. It

On 26 June 2003, while Velasco was still on

should be expected that petitioners would seek other means of

leave, PFIZER through its Area Sales Manager, herein petitioner

income to tide them over during the time that the legality of

Ferdinand Cortez, personally served Velasco a "Show-cause

their termination is under litigation. Furthermore, petitioners

Notice" dated 25 June 2003. Aside from mentioning about an

never abandoned their suit against Cottonway. While the case

investigation on her possible violations of company work rules

was pending appeal before the NLRC, the Court of Appeals and

regarding "unauthorized deals and/or discounts in money or

this Court, petitioners continued to file pleadings to ensure

samples and unauthorized withdrawal and/or pull-out of stocks"

that the company would comply with the directive of the

and instructing her to submit her explanation on the matter

NLRC to reinstate them and to pay them full back wages in

within 48 hours from receipt of the same, the notice also

case said decision is upheld. Moreover, in his reply to the

advised her that she was being placed under "preventive

companys first letter, petitioners counsel expressed willingness to

suspension" for 30 days or from that day to 6 August 2003

meet with the companys representative regarding the

and consequently ordered to surrender her accountabilities

satisfaction of the NLRC decision.

Velasco sent a letter addressed to Cortez dated 28 June 2003

It appears that the supposed notice sent by Cottonway to

denying the charges||| and claimed that the transaction with

the petitioners demanding that they report back to work

Mercury Drug, Magsaysay Branch covered by her check (no.

immediately was only a scheme to remove the petitioners for

1072) in the amount of P23,980.00 was merely to

good. Petitioners failure to instantaneously abide by the

accommodate two undisclosed patients of a certain Dr. Renato

directive gave them a convenient reason to dispense with their

Manalo.

services. This the Court cannot allow. Cottonway cited Article

223 of the Labor Code providing that the decision ordering the

On 12 July 2003, Velasco received a "Second Show-cause Notice"

reinstatement of an illegally dismissed employee is immediately

informing her of additional developments in their investigation.

executory even pending appeal as basis for its decision to

According to the notice, a certain Carlito Jomen executed an

terminate the employment of petitioners. We are not

affidavit pointing to Velasco as the one who transacted with

convinced. Article 223 of the Labor Code provides:

a printing shop to print PFIZER discount coupons. She was given

48 hours to respond

ART. 223. Appeal. Decisions, awards, or orders of the Labor

Arbiter are final and executory unless appealed to the

On 16 July 2003, Velasco sent a letter to PFIZER via Aboitiz

Commission by any or both parties within ten (10) calendar

courier service asking for additional time to answer the second

38

Show-cause Notice. That same day, Velasco filed a complaint

of the appeal, then the employee is entitled to the

for illegal suspension with money claims before the Regional

compensation received for actual services rendered without need

Arbitration Branch. The following day, 17 July

of refund

hearing to be held on 22 July 2003. Velasco received it under

serious but reversible error when it ordered Pfizer to

protest and informed PFIZER via the receiving copy of the

pay Velasco wages from the date of the Labor Arbiter's

said letter that she had lodged a complaint against the latter

decision ordering her reinstatement until November 23, 2005,

and that the issues that may be raised in the July 22

when the Court of Appeals rendered its decision

2003, PFIZER sent her a letter inviting her to a disciplinary

Issue:

hearing "can be tackled during the hearing of her case" or at

Whether or not the Court of Appeals committed a

declaring Velasco's dismissal valid.

the preliminary conference set for 5 and 8 of August 2003.

She likewise opted to withhold answering the Second Show-

Held: The petition is without merit. Article 223 is clear that an

award [by the Labor Arbiter] for reinstatement shall be

cause Notice. On 25 July 2003, Velascoreceived a "Third Show-

immediately executory even pending appeal and the posting of

cause Notice," together with copies of the affidavits of two

a bond by the employer shall not stay the execution for

Branch Managers of Mercury Drug, asking her for her comment

reinstatement. The legislative intent is quite obvious, i.e., to

within 48 hours. Finally, on 29 July

2003, PFIZER informed Velasco of its "Management Decision"

make an award of reinstatement immediately enforceable,

terminating her employment.|||

even pending appeal.

It cannot be said that with PFIZER's June 27, 2005 Letter,

On 5 December 2003, the Labor Arbiter rendered its decision

in belated fulfillment of the Labor Arbiter's reinstatement

reinstatement with backwages and further awarding moral

her former position under the same terms and conditions nor

and exemplary damages with attorney's fees. On appeal, the

to a substantially equivalent position considering

NLRC affirmed the same but deleted the award of moral and

that PFIZER ordered respondent to report to its main office

exemplary damages

in Makati City while knowing fully well that respondent's

declaring the dismissal of Velasco illegal, ordering her

order, it had shown a clear intent to reinstate respondent to

PFIZER moved for reconsideration but its motion was denied

previous job had her stationed in Baguio City.

for lack of merit in a NLRC Resolution 9 dated December 14,

2004.|||

Recent milestone case of Garcia v. Philippine Airlines,

PFIZER moved for certiorari under Rule 65 with the CA. In a

in Genuino. Garcia Case states [E]ven if the order of

Inc., 35 the Court wrote finis to the stray posture

Decision dated November 23, 2005, the Court of Appeals upheld

reinstatement of the Labor Arbiter is reversed on appeal, it is

the validity of respondent's dismissal from employment.

obligatory on the part of the employer to reinstate and pay

the wages of the dismissed employee during the period of

Respondent filed Petition for Review but was dismissed. But CA

appeal until reversal by the higher court. On the other hand, if

modified its earlier ruling by directing PFIZER to pay

the employee has been reinstated during the appeal period and

Decision dated December 5, 2003 up to the Court of Appeals

employee is not required to reimburse whatever salary he

Decision dated November 23, 2005.

received for he is entitled to such, more so if he actually

respondent her wages from the date of the Labor Arbiter's

such reinstatement order is reversed with finality, the

rendered services during the period

PFIZER implores the Court to annul the award of backwages

and separation pay as well as to require respondent to refund

In sum, the Court reiterates the principle that reinstatement

the amount that she was able to collect by way of

pending appeal necessitates that it must be immediately self-

garnishment from PFIZER as her accrued salaries by virtue of

executory without need for a writ of execution during the

the Genuino case where it was held that If the decision of

pendency of the appeal, if the law is to serve its noble

the labor arbiter is later reversed on appeal upon the finding

purpose, and any attempt on the part of the employer to

that the ground for dismissal is valid, then the employer has

evade or delay its execution should not be allowed.

reinstatement to refund the salaries s/he received while the

reinstatement entitles an employee to receive his accrued

case was pending appeal, or it can be deducted from the

backwages from the moment the reinstatement order was

accrued benefits that the dismissed employee was entitled to

issued up to the date when the same was reversed by a

receive from his/her employer under existing laws, collective

higher court without fear of refunding what he had received.

if the employee was reinstated to work during the pendency

jurisprudential framework, respondent is entitled to payment of

the right to require the dismissed employee on payroll

Furthermore, we likewise restate our ruling that an order for

bargaining agreement provisions, and company practices.However,

It cannot be denied that, under our statutory and

39

her wages for the period after December 5, 2003 until the

On January 30, 2002, the NLRC issued a resolution

Court of Appeals Decision dated November 23, 2005,

affirming LA Bartolabacs decision with modifications.

notwithstanding the finding therein that her dismissal was legal

Instead of ordering the respondents reinstatement,

and for just cause.

the NLRC directed Wenphil to pay the respondents

their respective separation pay at the rate of one

(1) month salary for every year of service. Also, the
(54) Wenphil Corp. v. Abing, April 7, 2014

NLRC found that while the respondents had been

illegally dismissed, they had not been illegally suspended.

WENPHIL CORP. VS. ABING

Thus, the period from February 3 to February 28,

G.R. NO. 207983

2000 during which the respondents were on

APRIL 07, 2014

preventive suspension was excluded by the NLRC in

the computation of the respondents backwages.
Labor Arbiter

Petitioner:

Wenphil Corporation

Petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the

Rules of Court

NLRC

Respondent:

Almer R. Abing

Anabelle M. Tuazon

respondents, under the terms of the compromise

agreement, were entitled to backwages only up to
the finality of the NLRC decision.

On December 8, 2000, LA Geobel A. Bartolabac ruled

CA

that the respondents had been illegally dismissed by

of discretion when it affirmed the LAs computed

and legal basis. Consequently, LA Bartolabac ordered

November 8, 2002. In arriving at this conclusion, the

Wenphil to immediately reinstate the respondents to

CA cited the case of Pfizer v. Velasco where this

their respective positions or to equivalent ones,

Court ruled that even if the order of reinstatement

whether actuall or in the payroll. Also, the LA ordered

of the Labor Arbiter is reversed on appeal, it is

February 3, 2000 until the date of their actual

and pay the dismissed employees wages during the

reinstatement.

period of appeal until reversal by the higher court. The

period which was from February 15, 2002 to

Wenphil to pay the respondents their backwages from

obligatory on the part of the employer to reinstate

Because of the unfavorable LA decision, Wenphil

CA construed this "higher court" to be the CA, not the

appealed to the NLRC on April 16, 2001 In the

SC.

meantime, the respondents moved for the immediate

ISSUE: Whether or not the decision of the LA reinstating a

execution of the LAs December 8, 2000 decision.

The CA ruled that the NLRC committed grave abuse

Wenphil. According to the LA, the allegation of serious

misconduct against the respondents had no factual

NLRC modified the LAs ruling by ordering the payment

of separation pay in lieu of reinstatement, then the

FACTS:

Respondents had been illegally dismissed by Wenphil.

dismissed employee is immediately executory even pending the

On October 29, 2001, Wenphil and the respondents

appeal.

entered into a compromise agreement before LA

HELD:

Bartolabac. They agreed to the respondents payroll

reinstatement while Wenphils appeal with the NLRC

YES. Under Article 223 of the Labor Code, "the decision

of the Labor Arbiter reinstating a dismissed or

was ongoing. Wenphil also agreed to pay the

separated employee, insofar as the reinstatement

accumulated salaries of the respondents for the

aspect is concerned, shall immediately be executory,

payroll period from April 5, 2001 until October 15,

even pending appeal. The employee shall either be

2001. As for the remaining payroll period starting

admitted back to work under the same terms and

October 16, 2001, Wenphil committed itself to credit

conditions prevailing prior to his dismissal or separation,

the respective salaries of the respondents to their

or at the option of the employer, merely reinstated

ATM payroll accounts until such time that the

in the payroll. The posting of a bond by the employer

questioned decision of LA Bartolabac is either modified,

shall not stay the execution for reinstatement."

amended or reversed by the Honorable National Labor

Relations Commission.
40

In authorizing execution pending appeal of the

dismissal and impleaded Fairland and its manager, Debbie

reinstatement aspect of a decision of the Labor

Manduabas (Debbie), as additional respondents.

Arbiter reinstating a dismissed or separated employee,

the law itself has laid down a compassionate policy

A Notice of Hearing was thereafter sent to Weesan requesting

which, once more, vivifies and enhances the provisions

it to appear before Labor Arbiter Reyes on April 3, 2003, at

of the 1987 Constitution on labor and the working-

10:00 a.m. On said date and time, Atty. Geronimo appeared as

man. These provisions are the quintessence of the

counsel for Weesan and requested for an extension of time to

aspirations of the workingman for recognition of his

file his clients position paper.

the protection of his rights, and the promotion of his

On May 16, 2003, Atty. Geronimo filed two separate position

welfare. These duties and responsibilities of the State

papers one for Fairland and another for Susan/Weesan.

are imposed not so much to express sympathy for the

Atty. Geronimo then filed a Consolidated Reply verified both by

workingman as to forcefully and meaningfully

Susan and Debbie.

which the Constitution also expressly affirms with

LA: On November 26, 2003, Labor Arbiter Reyes rendered his

equal intensity. Labor is an indispensable partner for

Decision, dismissing the complaint for lack of merit; and ordering

the nation's progress and stability.

the respondents to pay each complainant P5,000.00 by way of

Since the decision is immediately executory, it is the

financial assistance.

role in the social and economic life of the nation, for

underscore labor as a primary social and economic force,

duty of the employer to comply with the order of

reinstatement, which can be done either actually or

NLRC: The workers filed their appeal which was granted by the

through payroll reinstatement. As provided under

NLRC, ruling that the dismissal of complainants is declared illegal.

Article 223 of the Labor Code, this immediately

Respondents are ordered to reinstate complainants with full

executory nature of an order of reinstatement is not

backwages with legal interests. Atty. Geronimo filed a Motion

affected by the existence of an ongoing appeal. The

for Reconsideration. However, Fairland filed another Motion for

the interim period until a reversal is decreed by a

the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC over it, claiming that it was

higher court or tribunal.

never summoned to appear, attend or participate in all the

employer has the duty to reinstate the employee in

Reconsideration through Atty. Tecson assailing the jurisdiction of

proceedings conducted therein. It also denied that it engaged

the services of Atty. Geronimo. The NLRC however, denied both

Art. 230 (224) Execution of Decisions, orders or Awards

motions for lack of merit.

(55) Syet. al., v. Fairland Knitcraft Co., December 12, 2011

In-affirm ng CA ung NLRC na may illegal dismissal na naganap.

Sabi ng CA, solidarily liable si Weeson with Fairland as labor-only

Sy, et. al., vs Fairland Knitcraft Co.

contractor and principal respectively. Nag-file ang Fairland ng

MoR claiming na independent contractor ang Weesan at nag-

file din sila ng Motion for Voluntary Inhibition of two CA Assoc.

FACTS: a domestic corporation engaged in garments business,

Justices. Na-grant ung Inhibition, hence, the case was

while Susan de Leon (Susan) is the owner/proprietors of

transferred to CAs Special Ninth Division for resolution ng MoR

Weesan Garments (Weesan). The complaining workers are

ng Fairland.

sewers, trimmers, helpers, a guard and a secretary who were

hired by Weesan.

On May 9, 2008, the CAs Special Ninth Division reversed the

First Divisions ruling. It held that the labor tribunals did not

On December 23, 2002 and on January 2003, workers filed

acquire jurisdiction over the person of Fairland, and even

with the Arbitration Branch of the NLRC a Complaint for

assuming they did, Fairland is not liable to the workers since

underpayment and/or non-payment of wages, and other

Weesan is not a mere labor-only contractor but a bona fide

monetary benefits against Susan/Weesan.

independent contractor. The Special Ninth Division thus annulled

and set aside the assailed NLRC Decision and Resolution insofar

On February 5, 2003, Weesan filed before the DOLE-NCR a

as Fairland is concerned and excluded the latter therefrom.

report on its emporary closure for a period of not less than six
months. The workers filed an Amended Complaint, as they are

Syempre, nag-appeal mga workers. Sabi nila, among others, may

not allowed to work anymore, to include the harge of illegal

jurisdiction over the person of Fairland.

41

The Workers Arguments

latter one, the NLRC Rules of Procedure being specifically

The workers contend that the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC

applicable to labor cases. As Atty. Geronimo consistently

properly acquired jurisdiction over the person of Fairland because

indicated his PTR and IBP numbers in the pleadings he filed,

proceedings below when Atty. Geronimo submitted on its behalf

Atty. Geronimo the presumption that he is authorized to

a Position Paper verified by its manager, Debbie. As manager,

represent Fairland.

the latter voluntarily appeared and actively participated in the

there is no reason for the Labor Arbiter not to extend to

Debbie knew of all the material and significant events which

transpired in Fairland since she had constant contact with the

The CA likewise emphasized that in labor cases, both the party

Fairlands Arguments

the order, decision or resolution unlike in ordinary proceedings

In gist, Fairland contests the labor tribunals acquisition of

where notice to counsel is deemed notice to the party, quoting

jurisdiction over its person either through service of summons or

Article 224 of the Labor Code.

people in the day-to-day operations of the company.

and his counsel must be duly served their separate copies of

voluntary appearance. It denies that it engaged the services

of Atty. Geronimo and asserts that it has its own legal

The Court disagrees.

counsel, Atty. Tecson, who would have represented it had it

Article 224 of the Labor Code does not govern the procedure

known of the pendency of the complaints against Fairland. In

for filing a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals

the absence, therefore, of a valid service of summons or

from the decision of the NLRC but rather, it refers to the

voluntary appearance, the proceedings conducted and the

execution of final decisions, orders or awards and requires the

judgment rendered by the labor tribunals are null and void as

sheriff or a duly deputized officer to furnish both the parties

Susan/Weesan.

purpose. There is no reference, express or implied, to the period

against it. Hence, Fairland cannot be held solidarily liable with

and their counsel with copies of the decision or award for that
to appeal or to file a petition for certiorari as indeed the

Supreme Court: Grant ang Petition ng Workers

caption is execution of decisions, orders or awards. Taken in

"It is basic that the Labor Arbiter cannot acquire jurisdiction

proper context, Article 224 contemplates the furnishing of copies

served with summons. However, "if there is no valid service of

intended to refer to the period for computing the period for

summons, the court can still acquire jurisdiction over the person

appeal to the Court of Appeals from a non-final judgment or

of the defendant by virtue of the latters voluntary

order. The period or manner of appeal from the NLRC to the

appearance."

Court of Appeals is governed by Rule 65 pursuant to the ruling

over the person of the respondent without the latter being

of final decisions, orders or awards and could not have been

of the Court in the case of St. Martin Funeral Homes vs. NLRC.

Fairland argued before the CA that it did not engage Atty.

Section 4 of Rule 65, as amended, states that the petition

Geronimo as its counsel.

may be filed not later than sixty (60) days from notice of
the judgment, or resolution sought to be assailed.

The fact that Atty. Geronimo entered his appearance for

Fairland and Debbie and that he actively defended them

Corollary, Section 4, Rule III of the New Rules of Procedure

before the Labor Arbiter raised the presumption that he is

of the NLRC expressly mandates that (F)or the purposes of

authorized to appear for them. As held in Santos, it is unlikely

computing the period of appeal, the same shall be counted from

that Atty. Geronimo would have been so irresponsible as to

receipt of such decisions, awards or orders by the counsel of

represent Fairland and Debbie if he were not in fact

record. Although this rule explicitly contemplates an appeal

presumed to have acted with due propriety. Moreover, "[i]t

cogent reason why the same rule should not apply to petitions

strains credulity that a counsel who has no personal interest in

for certiorari filed with the Court of Appeals from decisions of

the case would fight for and defend a case with persistence

the NLRC. This procedure is in line with the established rule

and vigor if he has not been authorized or employed by the

that notice to counsel is notice to party and when a party is

party concerned.

represented by counsel, notices should be made upon the counsel

The presumption of authority of counsel to appear on behalf of

emanating from the court should be sent. It is to be noted

a client is found both in the Rules of Court and in the New

also that Section 7 of the NLRC Rules of Procedure provides

Rules of Procedure of the NLRC.

that (A)ttorneys and other representatives of parties shall

authorized. As an officer of the Court, Atty. Geronimo is

before the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC, we do not see any

of record at his given address to which notices of all kinds

have authority to bind their clients in all matters of

Between the two provisions providing for such authority of

procedure.

counsel to appear, the Labor Arbiter is primarily bound by the

42

To stress, Article 224 contemplates the furnishing of copies of

It filed an Affidavit of Adverse Claim with the National Labor

final decisions, orders or awards both to the parties and their

Relations Commission (NLRC) on July 4, 1995, which was

counsel in connection with the execution of such final decisions,

dismissed on August 30, 1995, by the Labor Arbiter.

period for filing an appeal from the NLRC to the CA, same shall

NLRC: It appealed to the NLRC the order of the Labor Arbiter

be counted from receipt of the decision, order or award by the

dated August 13, 1995 which dismissed the appeal for lack of

counsel of record pursuant to the established rule that notice

merit on December 8, 1995.

orders or awards. However, for the purpose of computing the

to counsel is notice to party. And since the period for filing of

an appeal is reckoned from the counsels receipt of the decision,

It filed an original petition for mandatory injunction with the

order or award, it necessarily follows that the reckoning period

NLRC on November 16, 1995. This was docketed as Case No.

for their finality is likewise the counsels date of receipt

NLRC-NCR-IC. 0000602-95. This case is still pending with that

thereof, if a party is represented by counsel. Hence, the date

Commission.

of receipt referred to in Sec. 14, Rule VII of the then in

force New Rules of Procedure of the NLRC which provides that

RTC: It filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition with the

decisions, resolutions or orders of the NLRC shall become

Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 49, docketed as Civil Case

executory after 10 calendar days from receipt of the same,

No. 95-75628 on October 6, 1995. The Regional Trial Court

refers to the date of receipt by counsel. Thus contrary to the

dismissed the case on October 11, 1995 for lack of merit.

CAs conclusion, the said NLRC Decision became final, as to

Fairland, 10 calendar days after Atty. Tecsons receipt thereof.

It filed a complaint in the Regional Trial Court in Manila which

jurisdiction over Fairland and its manager, Debbie, through the

case by public respondent triggered the filing of the instant

appearance of Atty. Geronimo as their counsel and likewise,

petition.

In sum, we hold that the Labor Arbiter had validly acquired

was docketed as Civil Case No. 95-76395. The dismissal of this

through the latters filing of pleadings on their behalf.

CA: On March 29, 1996, the Court of Appeals promulgated a

(56) Yupangco Cotton Mills v. CA, January 16, 2002

decision dismissing the petition on the ground of forum shopping

and that petitioners remedy was to seek relief from this

Yupangco Cotton Mills v. CA

Court.

G.R. No. 126322; January 16, 2002

PARDO, J.:

On April 18, 1996, petitioner filed with the Court of Appeals a

motion for reconsideration of the decision.

Petitioner: YUPANGCO COTTON MILLS, INC.

Respondents: COURT OF APPEALS, HON. URBANO C. VICTORIO,

On August 27, 1996, the Court of Appeals denied petitioners

SR., RODRIGO SY MENDOZA, SAMAHANG MANGGAGAWA NG

motion for reconsideration.

ARTEX (SAMAR-ANGLO), & WESTERN GUARANTY CORPORATION

Petitioners Contention: Petitioner argued that the filing of a

complaint for accion reinvindicatoria with the Regional Trial

FACTS: From the records before us and by petitioners own

allegations and admission, it has taken the following actions in

Court was proper because it is a remedy specifically granted to

connection with its claim that a sheriff of the National Labor

an owner (whose properties were subjected to a writ of

Relations Commission erroneously and unlawfully levied upon

execution to enforce a decision rendered in a labor dispute in

certain properties which it claims as its own.

which it was not a party) by Section 17 (now 16), Rule 39,

Revised Rules of Court and by the doctrines laid down in Sy v.

Petitioner raised a common issue, which is that it is the owner

Discaya, Santos v. Bayhon and Manliguez v. Court of Appeals.

of the properties located in the compound and buildings of Artex

Development Corporation, which were erroneously levied upon by

ISSUES: (1) Whether the Court of Appeals erred in ruling that

the sheriff of the NLRC as a consequence of the decision

petitioner was guilty of forum shopping, and (2) Whether the

NLRC-NCR Case No. 00-05-02960-90.

reinvindicatoria on the ground of lack of jurisdiction of the trial

Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the petitioners accion

rendered by the said Commission in a labor case docketed as

court.
Labor Arbiter: It filed a notice of third-party claim with the
Labor Arbiter on May 4, 1995.

HELD: 1) FORUM SHOPPING. There is NO forum-shopping where

two different orders were questioned, two distinct causes of

action and issues were raised, and two objectives were sought.
43

In the case at bar, there was no identity of parties, rights

Resppondent:

and causes of action and reliefs sought.

Andresito Y. Campo, et al- hired by PACSI as pilers or haulers

tasked to manually carry bags of sugar from the warehouse of

The case before the NLRC where Labor Arbiter Reyes issued a

Victorias Milling Company and load them on trucks

writ of execution on the property of petitioner was a labor

dispute between Artex and Samar-Anglo. Petitioner was not a

Facts:

party to the case. The only issue petitioner raised before the

In June 1998, respondents were dismissed from employment.

NLRC was whether or not the writ of execution issued by

They filed a case for illegal dismissal and some money claims

petitioner, not a party to the labor case.

Arbitration Branch No. VI, Bacolod City.

the labor arbiter could be satisfied against the property of

with the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), Regional

LA:

On the other hand, the accion reinvindicatoria filed by

PACSI and Ando were directed to pay a total of P422,702.28,

petitioner in the trial court was to recover the property

representing respondents' separation pay and the award of

action in these cases were different.

NLRC:

illegally levied upon and sold at auction. Hence, the causes of

attorney's fees

petitioner failed to perfect his appeal because he did not pay

2) THIRD PARTY CLAIM. A third party whose property has

the supersedeas bond. It also affirmed the Labor Arbiter's

been levied upon by a sheriff to enforce a decision against a

decision with modification of the award for separation pay to

judgment debtor is afforded with several alternative remedies

four other employees who were similarly situated. Upon finality

alternative remedies cumulatively, and one will not preclude

To answer for the monetary award, NLRC Acting Sheriff

the third party from availing himself of the other alternative

Romeo Pasustento issued a Notice of Sale on Execution of

remedies in the event he failed in the remedy first availed of.

Personal Property over the property in the name of

to protect its interests. The third party may avail himself of

of the decision, respondents moved for its execution.

"Paquito V. Ando . . . married to Erlinda S. Ando."

Thus, a third party may avail himself of the following

alternative remedies:

THEN

a) File a third party claim with the sheriff of the Labor

Ando fled an action for prohibition and damages with prayer for

Arbiter, and

the issuance of a temporary restraining order (TRO) before the

b) If the third party claim is denied, the third party may

Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 50, Bacolod City.

appeal the denial to the NLRC.

Petitioner claimed that the property belonged to him and his

wife, not to the corporation, and, hence, could not be subject

The remedies above mentioned are cumulative and may be

of the execution sale. Since it is the corporation that was the

resorted to by a third-party claimant independent of or

judgment debtor, execution should be made on the latter's

separately from and without need of availing of the others.

properties.

vindicate his claim of ownership, he must institute an action,

RTC:

distinct and separate from that in which the judgment is being

RTC issued an Order denying the prayer for a TRO, holding

enforced, with the court of competent jurisdiction even before

that the trial court had no jurisdiction to try and decide

If a third-party claimant opted to file a proper action to

or without need of filing a claim in the court which issued the

the case. The RTC ruled that, pursuant to the NLRC Manual

former. In such proper action, the validity and sufficiency of

file a third-party claim with the NLRC Sheriff. Despite lack

on the Execution of Judgment, petitioner's remedy was to

writ, the latter not being a condition sine qua non for the

the title of the third-party claimant will be resolved and a

of jurisdiction, however, the RTC went on to decide the

writ of preliminary injunction against the sheriff may be issued.

merits of the case.

(57) Ando v. Campo, February 16, 2011

CA: (Ando, filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65)

CONTENTION:

that the RTC acted without or in

Ando v. Campo

excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion

G.R. No. 184007, [February 16, 2011]

amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in issuing the

NACHURA, J

Order

Petitioner:

CA affirmed the RTC Order in so far as it dismissed the

Services, Inc. (PACSI), an independent labor contractor

case, and nullified all other pronouncements in the same Order.

Paquito V. Ando- President of Premier Allied and Contracting

complaint on the ground that it had no jurisdiction over the

44

Moreover, the power of the NLRC, or the courts, to execute

SC (CONTENTION): He argues that he was never sued in his

its judgment extends only to properties unquestionably belonging

personal capacity, but in his representative capacity as

to the judgment debtor alone.

body of the Decision that he was solidarily liable with the

of the judgment debtor. Likewise, there is no showing that the

corporation.

sheriff ever tried to execute on the properties of the

president of PACSI. Neither was there any indication in the

A sheriff, therefore, has no

authority to attach the property of any person except that

corporation
ISSUE:

Whether or not Sheriff can validly issue a Notice of Sale on

Art. 232 (226)

Execution of Personal Property of Ando

(58) Employees Union of Bayer Phils. v. Bayer Phils, Dec. 6, 2010

Held:

(ART 232) EMPLOYEES UNION OF BAYER PHIL vs. BAYER

NO.

PHILIPPINES, INC.

which arise from and are incidental to the enforcement of

VILLARAMA, JR.,

Regular courts have no jurisdiction to hear and decide questions

G.R. No. 162943 December 6, 2010

decisions, orders, or awards rendered in labor cases by

appropriate officers and tribunals of the Department of Labor

DOCTRINE: An intra-union dispute refers to any conflict

and Employment. The NLRC Manual on the Execution of

between and among union members, including grievances arising

Judgment governs any question on the execution of a judgment

from any violation of the rights and conditions of membership,

of that body, Petitioner need not look further than that. The

violation of or disagreement over any provision of the unions

Rules of Court apply only by analogy or in a suppletory

constitution and by-laws, or disputes arising from chartering or

character. NLRC Manual on the Execution of

disaffiliation of the union.

Judgment deals specifically with third-party claims in cases

brought before that body. It defines a third-party claim as

FACTS: Petitioner EUBP is the exclusive bargaining agent of all

or right to the possession of the property levied upon.

of the Federation of Free Workers. EUBP, headed by its

Petitioner's complaint is a third-party claim within the

president Juanito S. Facundo, negotiated with Bayer for the

cognizance of the NLRC. Petitioner may indeed be considered a

signing of CBA. Pending the resolution of the dispute, respondent

one where a person, not a party to the case, asserts title to

rank-and-file employees of Bayer Philippines, and is an affiliate

"third party" in relation to the property subject of the

Avelina Remigio and 27 other union members, without any

execution vis--vis the Labor Arbiter's decision. There is no

authority from their union leaders, accepted Bayers wage-

question that the property belongs to petitioner and his wife,

increase proposal.

and not to the corporation. It can be said that the property

belongs to the conjugal partnership, not to petitioner alone.

Barely six months from the signing of the new CBA, during a

Thus, the property belongs to a third party, i.e., the conjugal

company-sponsored seminar, Remigio solicited signatures from

partnership.

union members in support of a resolution containing the decision

The subject matter of petitioner's complaint is the execution of

of the signatories to:

the NLRC decision. Execution is an essential part of the

proceedings before the NLRC. Jurisdiction, once acquired, continues

(1) disaffiliate from FFW, (2) rename the union as

until the case is finally terminated, and there can be no end

Reformed Employees Union of Bayer Philippines

of the commission's directives. Since Ando was sued in a

for the union, (4) abolish all existing officer positions in

representative capacity, and not in his personal capacity, the

the union and elect a new set of interim officers,

property could not be made to answer for the judgment

and (5) authorize REUBP to administer the CBA

obligation of the corporation.

between EUBP and Bayer. The said resolution was

Even if we consider petitioner as an agent of the corporation

signed by 147 of the 257 local union members.

to the controversy without the full and proper implementation

(REUBP), (3) adopt a new constitution and by-laws

and, therefore, not a stranger to the case such that

the provision on third-party claims will not apply to him, the

A tug-of-war then ensued between the two rival groups,

property was registered not only in the name of petitioner

with both seeking recognition from Bayer and demanding

but also of his wife. She stands to lose the property subject of

remittance of the union dues collected from its rank-and-file

execution without ever being a party to the case. This will be

members.

tantamount to deprivation of property without due process.

45

EUBP filed a complaint for unfair labor practice (first ULP

Thus, as to Bayer, Lonishen and Amistoso the question was

complaint) against Bayer for non-remittance of union dues.

whether they were liable for unfair labor practice, which issue

While the first ULP case was still pending and despite EUBPs

was within the jurisdiction of the NLRC. The dismissal of the

repeated request for a grievance conference, Bayer decided to

second ULP complaint was therefore erroneous.

turn over the collected union dues amounting to P254,857.15 to

the Treasurer of REUBP. Aggrieved by the said development,

However, as to respondents Remigio and Villareal, we find that

EUBP lodged a complaint against Remigios group before the

petitioners complaint was validly dismissed. Petitioners ULP

Industrial Relations Division of the DOLE praying for their

complaint cannot prosper as against respondents Remigio and

life of the union.

an intra-union dispute based on Section 1 (n) of DOLE

expulsion from EUBP for commission of acts that threaten the

Villareal because the issue, as against them, essentially involves

Department Order No. 40-03.

Labor Arbiter - dismissed the first ULP complaint for lack of

jurisdiction

WHEREFORE, the petition for review on certiorari is PARTLY

GRANTED

Petitioners filed a second ULP complaint against respondents.

(59) Montano v. Verceles, July 26, 2010
Meanwhile, the Regional Director of the Industrial Relations
Division of DOLE issued a decision dismissing the issue on expulsion

ATTY. ALLAN S. MONTAO VS. ATTY. ERNESTO C. VERCELES

filed by EUBP against Remigio and her allies. EUBP seasonably

G.R. No. 168583

(BLR) which reversed the Regional Directors ruling and ordered

of FFW Legal Center on October 1, 1994. Subsequently, he joined the

the management of Bayer to respect the authority of the

union of rank-and-file employees, the Federation of Free Workers

duly-elected officers of EUBP in the administration of the

(FFW) Staff Association, and eventually became the employees union

prevailing CBA.

president in July 1997. In November 1998, he was likewise designated

appealed the said decision to the Bureau of Labor Relations

July 26, 2010

FACTS: Atty. Montao worked as legal assistant

officer-in-charge of FFW Legal Center.

st

The Labor Arbiter dismissed EUBPs second ULP complaint for lack

During the 21 National Convention and Election of National

of jurisdiction and observed that the case involves intra-union

Officers of FFW, Atty. Montao was nominated for the position of

disputes and thus is bereft of any jurisdiction pursuant to

National Vice-President. In a letter dated May 25, 2001, however,

Article 226 of the LC.

the Commission on Election (FFW COMELEC), informed him that he is

NLRC - The NLRC denied the appeal.

Constitution and By-Laws, particularly Section 76 of Article XIX and

not qualified for the position as his candidacy violates the 1998 FFW

Section 25 (a) of Article VIII, both in Chapter II thereof. Atty.

Court of Appeals CA affirmed the NLRCs decision

Montao thus filed an Urgent Motion for Reconsideration praying that

his name be included in the official list of candidates.

ISSUE: Whether or not the LABOR ARBITER and THE NLRC

Election ensued on May 26-27, 2001 in the National

correctly rule that they are bereft of jurisdiction for it is the

Convention held at Subic International Hotel, Olongapo City. Despite

BLR who should take cognizance of the case, it being an

the pending motion for reconsideration with the FFW COMELEC, and

intra-union conflict.

strong opposition and protest of respondent Atty. Ernesto C. Verceles

(Atty. Verceles), a delegate to the convention and president of

RULING: Partly correct

University of the East Employees Association (UEEA-FFW) which is an

affiliate union of FFW, the convention delegates allowed Atty.

An intra-union dispute refers to any conflict between and

Montaos candidacy. He emerged victorious and was proclaimed as the

among union members, including grievances arising from any

National Vice-President.

violation of the rights and conditions of membership, violation of

or disagreement over any provision of the unions constitution

Bureau of Labor Relations: On July 13, 2001, Atty. Verceles, as

of the union.

filed before the BLR a petition for the nullification of the election of

and by-laws, or disputes arising from chartering or disaffiliation

President of UEEA-FFW and officer of the Governing Board of FFW,

Atty. Montao as FFW National Vice-President. He alleged that, as

Here, the issue raised pertained only to the validity of the

already ruled by the FFW COMELEC, Atty. Montao is not qualified to

acts of management in light of the fact that it still has an

run for the position because Section 76 of Article XIX of the FFW

existing CBA with EUBP.

Constitution and By-Laws prohibits federation employees from sitting

in its Governing Board. Claiming that Atty. Montaos premature
46

assumption of duties and formal induction as vice-president will cause

ISSUE: Whether or not the CA gravely erred in upholding

serious damage, Atty. Verceles likewise prayed for injunctive relief.

the jurisdiction of the BLR.

Atty. Montao filed his Comment with Motion to Dismiss on

Whether or not the CA errerd in not finding the petition violated

the grounds that the Regional Director of the Department of Labor

the rule on non-forum shopping.

and Employment (DOLE) and not the BLR has jurisdiction over the

Whether or not the CA errerd in not dismissing the case for being

case; that the filing of the petition was premature due to the

moot in view of the appointment of Atty. Verceles as NLRC

pending and unresolved protest before the FFW COMELEC; and that,

Commissioner; and in granting the petition to annul his election as FFW

Atty. Verceles has no legal standing to initiate the petition not being

National Vice-President on the ground that FFW Staff Association is

the real party in interest.

not a legitimate labor organization.

On May 8, 2002, the BLR rendered a Decision dismissing the

petition for lack of merit. While it upheld its jurisdiction over the

HELD: The petition is devoid of merit.

The BLR has jurisdiction over intra-union disputes involving a federation.

intra-union dispute case and affirmed, as well, Atty. Verceles legal

personality to institute the action as president of an affiliate union of
FFW, the BLR ruled that there were no grounds to hold Atty.

We find no merit in petitioners claim that under Section 6

Montao unqualified to run for National Vice-President of FFW. It held

of Rule XV in relation to Section 1 of Rule XIV of Book V of the

that the applicable provision in the FFW Constitution and By-Laws to

Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor Code, it is the Regional

determine whether one is qualified to run for office is not Section 76

Director of the DOLE and not the BLR who has jurisdiction over

of Article XIX but Section 26 of Article VIII thereof. The BLR

election protests.

opined that there was sufficient compliance with the requirements

Section 226 of the Labor Code clearly provides that the BLR

laid down by this applicable provision and, besides, the convention

and the Regional Directors of DOLE have concurrent jurisdiction over

delegates unanimously decided that Atty. Montao was qualified to run

inter-union and intra-union disputes. Such disputes include the conduct

for the position of National Vice-President. Atty. Verceles filed a

or nullification of election of union and workers association officers.

Motion for Reconsideration but it was denied by the BLR.

There is, thus, no doubt as to the BLRs jurisdiction over the instant
dispute involving member-unions of a federation arising from

Court of Appeals: Atty. Verceles thus elevated the matter to the

disagreement over the provisions of the federations constitution and

CA via a petition for certiorari, arguing that the Convention had no

by-laws.

authority under the FFW Constitution and By-Laws to overrule and

The petition to

set aside the FFW COMELECs Decision rendered pursuant to the

annul Atty.

latters power to screen candidates. On May 28, 2004, the CA set

Montaos election as

aside the BLRs Decision. The CA ruled that Atty. Montao did not

VP was not

possess the qualification requirement under paragraph (d) of Section 26

prematurely filed.

that candidates must be an officer or member of a legitimate labor

organization. According to the CA, since Atty. Montao, as legal assistant
employed by FFW, is considered as confidential employee, consequently,

There is likewise no merit to petitioners argument that the

he is ineligible to join FFW Staff Association, the rank-and-file union of

petition should have been immediately dismissed due to a pending and

FFW. The CA, thus, granted the petition and nullified the election of

unresolved protest before the FFW COMELEC pursuant to Section 6,

Atty. Montao as FFW National Vice-President.

Rule XV, Book V of the Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor Code.

Atty. Montao moved for reconsideration claiming that the

It is true that under the Implementing Rules, redress must first be

CA seriously erred in granting Atty. Verceles petition on the ground

sought within the organization itself in accordance with its

not a legitimate labor organization. He asserted that the legitimacy

but yields to exception under varying circumstances.

that FFW Staff Association, of which he is an officer and member, is

constitution and by-laws. However, this requirement is not absolute

of the union was never raised as an issue. In addition, he claimed

A day or two after the election, Atty. Verceles made his

violation of the mandatory requirement on certification against forum

written/formal protest over Atty. Montaos candidacy/proclamation

shopping and mootness of the case due to the appointment of Atty.

with the FFW COMELEC. He exhausted the remedies under the

Verceles as Commissioner of the National Labor Relations Commission

constitution and by-laws to have his protest acted upon by the

to his affiliation with FFW. Believing that it will be prejudiced by the

matter. Still, the FFW COMELEC failed to timely act thereon. Thus,

CA Decision since its legal existence was put at stake, the FFW Staff

Atty. Verceles had no other recourse but to take the next available

Association, through its president, Danilo A. Laserna, sought intervention.

remedy to protect the interest of the union he represents as well

On June 28, 2005, the CA issued a Resolution denying both Atty.

as the whole federation, especially so that Atty. Montao, immediately

for intervention/clarification.

duties of the position. Consequently, Atty. Verceles properly sought

(NLRC), thereby divesting himself of interest in any matters relating

proper forum and even asked for a formal hearing on the

Montaos motion for reconsideration and FFW Staff Associations motion

after being proclaimed, already assumed and started to perform the

47

redress from the BLR so that the right to due process will not be

Montaos candidacy in violation of the FFW Constitution is therefore

violated. To insist on the contrary is to render the exhaustion of

correct. We, thus, concur with the CA that Atty. Montao is not

remedies within the union as illusory and vain.

qualified to run for the position but not for failure to meet the

regarding

Constitution and By-Laws. We note that the CAs declaration of the

The allegation

requirement specified under Section 26 (d) of Article VIII of FFW

certification against

illegitimate status of FFW Staff Association is proscribed by law, owing

forum shopping was

to the preclusion of collateral attack. We nonetheless resolve to

belatedly raised.

affirm the CAs finding that Atty. Montao is disqualified to run for the
position of National Vice-President in view of the proscription in the

Atty. Montao accuses Atty. Verceles of violating the rules on forum

FFW Constitution and By-Laws on federation employees from sitting

shopping. We note however that this issue was only raised for the

in its Governing Board. Accordingly, the election of Atty. Montao as

first time in Atty. Montaos motion for reconsideration of the Decision

FFW Vice-President is null and void. The Federation/Unions Constitution

of the CA, hence, the same deserves no merit. It is settled that

and By-Laws govern the relationship between and among its

for reconsideration.

have obligatory force upon the federation/ union and its

new issues cannot be raised for the first time on appeal or on motion

members. They are akin to ordinary contracts in that their provisions

member. What has been expressly stipulated therein shall be strictly

There is necessity

binding on both.

to resolve the case

despite the issues

WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The assailed May 28, 2004

moot.

election of Atty. Allan S. Montao as FFW National Vice-President and

having become

Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 71731 nullifying the

the June 28, 2005 Resolution denying the Motion for Reconsideration

During the pendency of this case, the challenged term of

are AFFIRMED.

office held and served by Atty. Montao expired in 2006, thereby

rendering the issues of the case moot. In addition, Atty. Verceles

(59) Montano v. Verceles, July 26, 2010

appointment in 2003 as NLRC Commissioner rendered the case moot as

Version # 2

such supervening event divested him of any interest in and affiliation

with the federation in accordance with Article 213 of the Labor

LABREL CASE # 2 [Article 232 (226)]

Code. However, in a number of cases,

Montao vs. Verceles

[37]

we still delved into the

merits notwithstanding supervening events that would ordinarily

G.R. No. 168583, July 26, 2010, Del Castillo, J.

render the case moot, if the issues arecapable of repetition, yet

evading review, as in this case. We find it necessary and imperative

Petitioner:

to resolve this issue not only to prevent further repetition but also

Atty. Allan S. Montao

to clear any doubtful interpretation and application of the provisions of

FFW Constitution & By-laws in order to ensure credible future

elections in the interest and welfare of affiliate unions of FFW.

Legal assistant of FFW Legal Center

Subsequently, he joined

the union of rank-and file employees,

the FFW Staff Association

Atty. Montao is not

qualified to run as

Eventually became the employees union president

Later on, he was designated OIC of FFW Legal

FFW National Vice-

Center

President in view of
the prohibition

Respondent:

established in

Section 76, Article

Atty. Ernesto C. Verceles

o

XIX of the 1998

a delegate to the convention and president of

University of the East Employees Association

FFW Constitution

(UEEA-FFW) which is an affiliate union of FFW

and By-Laws.

FACTS:

The FFW Constitution and By-laws are clear that no

member of the Governing Board shall at the same time perform

st

During the 21 National Convention and Election of National

Officers of FFW, petitioner was nominated for the position

functions of the rank-and-file staff. The BLR erred in disregarding this

of National Vice-President.

clear provision. The FFW COMELECs ruling which considered Atty.

48

In a letter, the Commission on Election (FFW COMELEC),

dispute case and affirmed, as well, Atty. Verceles legal

informed him that he is not qualified for the position as his

personality to institute the action as president of an

candidacy violates the 1998 FFW Constitution and By-Laws

affiliate union of FFW

Petitoner thus filed an Urgent Motion for Reconsideration

praying that his name be included in the official list of

Montao unqualified to run for National Vice-President of

candidates.

FFW.

Election ensued in the National Convention

Despite the pending motion for reconsideration with the

Respondents Motion for Reconsideration was denied by the

BLR.

FFW COMELEC, and strong opposition and protest of

respondent, the convention delegates allowed the petitioners

Court of Appeals

candidacy.

the BLR ruled that there were no grounds to hold Atty.

CA via a petition for certiorari

He emerged victorious and was proclaimed as the National

Vice-President.

Through a letter to the Chairman of FFW COMELEC,

respodent reiterated his protest over petitioners candidacy

overrule and set aside the FFW COMELECs Decision

Respondent sent a follow-up letter to the President of

rendered pursuant to the latters power to screen

FFW requesting for immediate action on his protest.

candidates.

Bureau of Labor Relations (BLR)

Governing Board of FFW, filed before the BLR a petition for

legal standing to institute the petition, and that

the nullification of the election of petitioner as FFW

the applicable provision of FFW Constitution and

National Vice-President.

By-Laws is Section 26 of Article VIII and not

He alleged that, as already ruled by the FFW COMELEC,

Section 76 of Article XIX

o

possess the qualification requirement under

By-Laws prohibits federation employees from sitting in its

paragraph (d) of Section 26 that candidates must

Governing Board.

be an officer or member of a legitimate labor

Petitoner filed his Comment with Motion to Dismiss on the

organization. According to the CA, since Atty.

Montao, as legal assistant employed by FFW, is

the Regional Director of the Department of

considered as confidential employee, consequently,

Labor and Employment (DOLE) and not the BLR

he is ineligible to join FFW Staff Association, the

has jurisdiction over the case;

rank-and-file union of FFW.

that the filing of the petition was premature

due to the pending and unresolved protest before

o

President.

and that, Atty. Verceles has no legal standing to

motion for reconsideration and FFW Staff Associations

interest.

motion for intervention/clarification.

Bro. Ramon J. Jabar, in reference to the election protest

ISSUE: Whether or not the Bureau of Labor Relations

filed before it by Atty. Verceles

(BLR) has jursidiction over the case (YES)

the FFW COMELEC intimated its firm stand that

Atty. Montaos candidacy contravenes the FFWs

HELD: YES

Constitution

BLR did not give due course to Atty. Montaos Motion to

The BLR has jurisdiction over intra-union disputes

involving a federation.

Dismiss but ordered the latter to submit his answer to the

The CA issued a Resolution denying both Atty. Montaos

initiate the petition not being the real party in

FFW COMELEC sent a letter to FFW National President,

The CA, thus, granted the petition and nullified the

election of Atty. Montao as FFW National Vice-

the FFW COMELEC;

the CA however ruled that Atty. Montao did not

Section 76 of Article XIX of the FFW Constitution and

While it agreed that jurisdiction was properly

lodged with the BLR, that Atty. Verceles has

grounds that:

the CA set aside the BLRs Decision.

Respondent, as President of UEEA-FFW and officer of the

petitoner is not qualified to run for the position because

arguing that the Convention had no authority

under the FFW Constitution and By-Laws to

Respondent thus elevated the matter to the

Section 226 of the Labor Code clearly provides

petition pursuant to the rules.

that the BLR and the Regional Directors of DOLE

The parties thereafter submitted their respective pleadings

have concurrent jurisdiction over inter-union and

and position papers.

intra-union disputes. Such disputes include the

merit. While it upheld its jurisdiction over the intra-union

workers association officers. There is, thus, no doubt

BLR rendered a Decision dismissing the petition for lack of

conduct or nullification of election of union and

49

as to the BLRs jurisdiction over the instant

that he was not a member of FLAMES. Meanwhile, the

dispute involving member-unions of a federation

certificates of candidacy of Nardito C. Alvarez, Alfredo J. Escall,

arising from disagreement over the provisions of

and Jaime T. Valeriano were similarly rejected on the basis of

Rule XVI lays down the decentralized intra-union dispute

existing collective bargaining agreement (CBA). The employees

settlement mechanism.

assigned to the aforesaid department are allegedly deemed

the federations constitution and by-laws.

the exclusion of their department from the scope of the

Section 1 states that any complaint in this

disqualified from membership in the union for being confidential

regard shall be filed in the Regional Office where

employees.

The concept of domicile in labor relations regulation

On 24 April 2003, private respondents Jimmy S. Ong, Nardito C.

the union is domiciled.

o

Alvarez, Alfredo J. Escall, Jaime T. Valeriano (Ong, et al.), and a

is equivalent to the place where the union seeks

to operate or has established a geographical

certain Leandro M. Tabilog filed a Petition before the Med-

presence for purposes of collective bargaining or for

Arbitration Unit of the Department of Labor and Employment

conditions of employment.

order of the COMELEC which disallowed their candidacy.

(DOLE). They prayed, inter alia, for the nullification of the

dealing with employers concerning terms and

o

The matter of venue becomes

problematic when the intra-union

On 2 May 2003, petitioners filed a Petition with the COMELEC

dispute involves a federation, because

seeking the disqualification of private respondents Edgardo Daya,

the geographical presence of a federation

Pablo Lucas, Leandro Tabilog, Reynaldo Espiritu, Jose Vito, Antonio

administrative region.

Reyes, Evangeline Escall, Alberto Alcantara, Rogelio Cervitillo,

may encompass more than one

o

de Luna, Armando Yalung, Edwin Layug, Nards Pabilona, Reynaldo

Marcelino Morelos, and Faustino Ermino (Daya, et al.). Petitioners

Pursuant to its authority under Article

alleged that Daya, et al., allowed themselves to be assisted by

226, this Bureau exercises original

jurisdiction over intra-union disputes

non-union members, and committed acts of disloyalty which

involving federations.
o

are inimical to the interest of FLAMES. In their campaign,

It is well-settled that FFW, having

they allegedly colluded with the officers of the Meralco Savings

local unions all over the country,

and Loan Association (MESALA) and the Meralco Mutual Aid and

operates in more than one

Benefits Association (MEMABA) and exerted undue influence on

administrative region. Therefore, this

the members of FLAMES.

jurisdiction over disputes arising from any

On 6 May 2003, the COMELEC issued a Decision, declaring

Bureau maintains original and exclusive

Daya, et al., officially disqualified to run and/or to participate

violation of or disagreement over any

provision of its constitution and by-laws.

in the 7 May 2003 FLAMES elections. The COMELEC also resolved

to exclude their names from the list of candidates in the polls
or precincts, and further declared that any vote cast in their

favor shall not be counted. According to the COMELEC, Daya, et

al., violated Article IV, Section 4(a)(6) of the FLAMES

Constitution and By-Laws (CBL) by allowing non-members to

(60) Diokno et al., v. Cacdac, July 4, 2007

aid them in their campaign. Their acts of solicitation for support

G.R. No. 168475, July 4, 2007

of FLAMES.

from non-union members were deemed inimical to the interest

DIOKNO V CACDAC

On 8 May 2003, private respondents Daya, et al., along with

Ong, et al., filed with the Med-Arbitration Unit of the DOLE-

FACTS: The First Line Association of Meralco Supervisory Employees

(FLAMES) is a legitimate labor organization which is the

NCR, a Petition to: a) Nullify Order of Disqualification; b) Nullify

supervisory union of Meralco. Petitioners and private respondents

Election Proceedings and Counting of Votes; c) Declare Failure of

are members of FLAMES.

Election; and d) Declare Holding of New Election to be

Controlled and Supervised by the DOLE.

Private respondents Jimmy S. Ong, Nardito C. Alvarez, Alfredo J.

Escall, and Jaime T. Valeriano filed their respective certificates

Med-Arbiter Tranquilino B. Reyes, Jr. issued a Decision in favor

(COMELEC) rejected Jimmy S. Ongs candidacy on the ground

Jimenez, et al., was dismissed because it was premature, it

of private respondents, Daya, et al. However, the petition of

of candidacy. Subsequently, the Committee on Election

50

propriety of the disqualification of private respondents Daya, et

appearing that the COMELEC had not yet resolved their

al., by the FLAMES COMELEC in the 7 May 2003 elections. It

protest prior to their resort to the Med-Arbiter. Finally, the

Petition of Ong, et al., seeking to declare themselves as bona

must also be stressed that even as the dispute involves

fide members of FLAMES was ordered dismissed. Lastly, the

allegations that private respondents Daya, et al., sought the

Med-Arbiter defended his jurisdiction over the case. He concluded

help of non-members of the union in their election campaign to

that even as the election of union officers is an internal affair

the detriment of FLAMES, the same does not detract from

of the union, his office has the right to inquire into the merits

the real character of the controversy. It remains as one

and conduct of the election when its jurisdiction is sought.

which involves the grievance over the constitution and bylaws

The Director of the BLR issued a Resolution, affirming in

union. Moreover, the non-members of the union who were

of a union, and it is a controversy involving members of the

toto the assailed Decision of the Med-Arbiter.

alleged to have aided private respondents Daya, et al., are not

parties in the case.

The Court of Appeals found petitioners appeal to be bereft of

merit. It affirmed the finding of the BLR Director that the

(2) No. As aptly determined by the BLR Director, private

committed a procedural shortcut.

order of the COMELEC. They endeavored to seek reconsideration,

COMELEC, in disqualifying private respondents Daya, et al.,

respondents Daya, et al., were prejudiced by the disqualification

but the COMELEC failed to act thereon. The COMELEC was also
ISSUE/S:

(1) Does the Bureau of Labor Relations have

jurisdiction?

found to have refused to receive their written protest. The

foregoing facts sustain the finding that private respondents

(2) Did Daya, et al., prematurely sought the BLRs

Daya, et al., were deprived of due process. Hence, it becomes

incumbent upon private respondents Daya, et al., to seek the

jurisdiction on the ground that they failed to exhaust

administrative remedies within the union?

aid of the BLR. To insist on the contrary is to render their

exhaustion of remedies within the union as illusory and

HELD: (1) Yes. This Court in Bautista v. Court of Appeals,

vain. These antecedent circumstances convince this Court that

interpreting Article 226 of the Labor Code, was explicit in

there was proper application by the Med-Arbiter of the

declaring that the BLR has the original and exclusive jurisdiction

exception to the rule of exhaustion of administrative remedies,

on all inter-union and intra-union conflicts. We said that since

as affirmed by the BLR Director, and upheld by the Court of

Article 226 of the Labor Code has declared that the BLR shall

Appeals.

have original and exclusive authority to act on all inter-union

Art 233 (227)

its jurisdiction. As defined, an intra-union conflict would refer to

Petitioners:

and intra-union conflicts, there should be no more doubt as to

(61) Magbuana v. Uy, May 6, 2005

a conflict within or inside a labor union, while an inter-union

FELIPE O. MAGBANUA

controversy or dispute is one occurring or carried on between or

CARLOS DE LA CRUZ

among unions. More specifically, an intra-union dispute is defined

REMY ARNAIZ

under Section (z), Rule I of the Rules Implementing Book V

of the Labor Code, viz:

(z) Intra-Union Dispute refers to

any conflict between and among union

BILLY ARNAIZ

ROLLY ARNAIZ

DOMINGO SALARDA

JULIO CAHILIG and NICANOR LABUEN

Respondent:

members, and includes all disputes or

RIZALINO UY,.

grievances arising from any violation of or

Facts:

disagreement over any provision of the

The Supreme Court rendered its decision in the case of Rizalina

constitution and by-laws of a union, including

Uy vs NLRC. However, hearings were conducted in the NLRC

cases arising from chartering or affiliation of

Sub-Regional Arbitration Branch in Iloilo City to determine the

labor organizations or from any violation of

amount of wage differentials due the 8 complainants herein.

the rights and conditions of union membership

The awards amounted to Php 1,487,312.69.

provided for in the Code.

Thereafter, petitioners filed a Motion for Issuance of Writ of
Execution.
The controversy in the case at bar is an intra-union

On May 19, 1997, respondent Rizalino Uy filed a Manifestation,

dispute within or inside FLAMES, a labor union. At issue is the

terminated and closed. A Joint Affidavit was also included

dispute. There is no question that this is one which involves a

signed by the other petitioners, requesting that the cases be

51

therein attesting to the receipt of payment from respondent

In the present factual milieu, compliance with the elements

and waiving all other benefits due them in connection with

of a valid contract is not in issue. Petitioners do not challenge

their complaint.

the factual finding that they entered into a compromise

Issuance of Writ of Execution wherein they confirmed that

vitiated consent. Neither was there any proof that the

each of them received P40,000 from respondent.

agreement was defective or could be characterized as

On June 3, 1997, petitioners filed an Urgent Motion for

agreement with respondent. There are no allegations of

rescissible, voidable,unenforceable, or void.

Respondent opposed the motion on the ground that the

judgment award had been fully satisfied. In their Reply,

2. Yes. The waiver is still valid regardless of the absence of a

petitioners claimed that they received only partial payments of

lawyer or any labor arbiter in its execution.The presence or

the judgment award.

the absence of counsel or labor arbiter when a waiver is

On October 20, 1997, six (6) of the eight (8) petitioners filed a

executed does not determine its validity. There is no law

Manifestation requesting that the cases be considered closed

requiring the presence of a counsel to validate a waiver. The

have received (a total of P320,000). Together with said

intelligently; and whether the consideration for it was credible

Manifestation is a Joint Affidavit of the six (6) petitioners

and reasonable. Where there is clear proof that a waiver was

attesting that they have no more collectible amount from

wangled from an unsuspecting or a gullible person, the law

respondent and if there is any, they are abandoning and

must step in to annul such transaction.

waiving the same.

petitioners failed to present any evidence to show that their

and terminated as they are already satisfied of what they

test is whether it was executed voluntarily, freely and

In the present case,

consent had been vitiated.

Labor Arbiter: issued an order denying the motion for issuance

of writ of execution and considered the cases closed and

In Rule 5 of the New Rules of Procedure of the NLRC, it

terminated.

clearly states that:

"A compromise agreement entered into by the parties not in

NLRC: reversed the Labor Arbiter and directed the immediate

the presence of the Labor Arbiter before whom the case is

issuance of a writ of execution, holding that a final and

pending shall be approved by him, if after confronting the

executory judgment can no longer be altered and that

parties, particularly the complainants, he is satisfied that they

quitclaims and releases are normally frowned upon as contrary

understand the terms and conditions of the settlement and

to public policy.

that it was entered into freely and voluntarily by them and

CA: held that compromise agreements may be entered into

policy."

even after a final judgment.

The labor arbiter's absence when the waivers were executed

Hence, this Petition.

was remedied upon compliance with the above procedure. The

the agreement is not contrary to law, morals, and public

Court observes that the arbiter made searching questions

Issue/s:

during the pre-execution conference to ascertain whether

1. Whether or not the compromise agreement is valid

petitioners had voluntarily and freely executed the waivers.

2. Whether or not the waiver is valid despite the fact that

Likewise, there was evidence that they made an intelligent

there is no counsel nor labor arbiter while the waiver is being

choice, considering that the contents of the written waivers

signed.

had been explained to them. The labor arbiter's absence when

Held:

them.

those waivers were executed does not, therefore, invalidate

1. Yes. The compromise agreement is valid. There is no

justification to disallow a compromise agreement, solely because
it was entered into after final judgment. The validity of the
agreement is determined by compliance with the requisites and
principles of contracts, not by when it was entered into. As
provided by the law on contracts, a valid compromise must
have the following elements: (1) the consent of the parties to

(62) Solomon et . al. v. Powertech Corp., January 22, 2008

the compromise, (2) an object certain that is the subject

matter of the compromise, and (3) the cause of the obligation

Solomon, et. Al. Vs Powertech Corp and CA

that is established.

GR 150861 January 22, 2008

52

FACTS:

Focus of this case is the validity of a Quit Claim

NLRC denied the Joint Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Merit

o

based on a broad Special Power of Attorney affecting

cover the monetary claim of petitioners against

The case stems from a complaint for illegal dismissal

payment of awards due to other complainants in

and other money claims filed by the NAGKAKAISANG

the case

the rights of 22 employees.

That the P150k received by Gestiada did not

Powertech. Gestiada had never intervened in the

MANGGAGAWA NG POWERTECH CORPORATION in

behalf of the 52 individual members and non union

severance of Atty-Client relationship between

members against their employer, Powertech.

o

Evidence show that there was no voluntary

Gestiada representing the other complainants and

The case was dismissed as to 27 employees

Atty Evangelista

by virtue of duly executed affidavits of

The other complainants in the case have never

repudiation and quitclaim. The case proceeded

indicated any objection to the continued

with respect to the remaining 25 employees,

appearance of Atty Evangelista. Hence, it must

petitioners in this case

be presumed that Atty Evangelistas appearance

is with the consent of all the complainants

Labor Arbiter
-

on june 25, 1999, LA Dela Cruz rendered a decision

of P150k only as payment for his backwages

declaring illegal termination of 20 of petitioners and

and that the same has no reference to the

granting their monetary claims in the total amount of

claim of the other complainants in this case is

Powertech appealed to the NLRC. During its pendency,

Quitclaim and Release attached to the instant

Gestiada, for himself and on behalf of other petitioners,

Joint Motion to Dismiss was signed only by

executed a quitclaim, release, and waiver in favor of

Gestiada and that the other complainants never

Powertech in consideration of the amount of P150,000

took part in the execution thereof

P2,538,728.84
-

bolstered further by the fact that the

Earlier, Gestiada was appointed by his co-

petitioners as their atty-in-fact

-

Relying on the quitclaim and release, Powertech filed a

for a compromise dealing with their judgment to

Motion for the Withdrawal of the Appeal and Cash Bond

be validly entered into there must be personal

and specific individual consent given by the
workers

NLRC granted the motion, dismissed the appeal and

Granting in gratia argumenti that Gestiada had

ordered the release of the cash bond

the authority to enter into a compromise

The P150k check, however, bounced due to a stop

agreement in behalf of other complainants, the

payment order of Powertech

Quitclaim and release cannot be recognized as a

lack of consideration

thereof as opposed to the total monetary

NLRC declared the quitclaim, release and waiver VOID for

award in the amount equivalent to

lack of consideration

P2,538,728.84 is clearly unconscionable and is thus

Gestiada terminated the services of their counsel, Atty.

void for being contrary to public policy.

Petitioners moved to nullify the release and quitclaim for

valid and binding undertaking as the consideration

Evangelista and, instead retained Atty. Felipe of the PAO.

-

A waiver of money claim must be regarded as a

personal right; hence, the protective rule that

NLRC
-

Gestiadas admission tha he received the amount

For failure of Powertech to post the required

A day later, Powertech paid P150k to Gestiada

cash or surety bond, the NLRC ruled that the

purportedly as a Compromise Amount for all petitioners

LA decision became Final and Executory

That same day, Gestiada, and Powertech filed a

Joint Motion to Dismiss with the NLRC based on

for certiorari (Rule 65)

the Compromise agreement

o

Atty Evangelista opposed the motion, alleging

CA

that the compromise agreement is unconscionable,

that he was illegally terminated as counsel

Powertech elevated the matter to the CA via petition

for

Ruled in favor of Powertech. Annuled and Set Aside the

resolution of the NLRC

the other petitioners without their consent, and

that the P150k was received by Gestiada as

Upheld the validity of the compromise agreement

between Petitioners and Powertech

payment solely for his backwages and other

monetary claims

53

As to NLRCs act of dismissing the appeal it is a grave

Whether or not, the CA erred in

abuse of discretion. There could be no legal basis for NLRC

1.

to dismiss the Appeal.

o

NLRC has already lost jurisdiction over the cash

2.

because the appeal was already considered

3.

ruling that the NLRC had already lost jurisdiction

assuming jurisdiction over the present petition

that the Resolution withdrawing the appeal has

considering that PR failed to perfect their appeal

become final and executory since the same has

with the NLRC.

not been the subject to a motion for

reconsideration

HELD:

Neither should the petitioners be required to post

any cash or surety bond for the simple reason

1.

that there is no more appeal to speak of. The

CA erred in upholding the compromise agreement between

resolution was issued, ipso facto, the filing of a

compromise agreement as void. The P150k was paid to Gestiada

bond is no longer warranted.

solely as payment for his backwages, not those of petitioners,

case having been amicably settled for which a

Powertech and Gestiada

when it dismissed the appeal of Private respondents

withdrawn and the cash bond was released. And

upholding the compromise agreement between

Powertech and GEstiada, the NLRC justifiably declared the

As to NLRCs act of declaring the compromise agreement

there is evident collusion between Powertech and Gestiada,

void the same is likewise a grave abuse of discretion

hence, the compromise agreement is Void.

amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.

o

Fundamental is the rule that a compromise

Petitioners contention: that the P150k paid to Gestiada was

agreement entered into in good faith by workers

payment solely for himself. As proof, they rely on the letter

and their employer to resolve a pending

written in by Gestiada to Atty. Evangelista Gestiada stated

controversy is valid and binding on the agreeing

that ang kinuha kong pera sa Powertech nahalagang P150k ay

parties.

bilang kabayaran sa aking backwages na iginagawad sa desisyon

involved in the compromise agreement except in

Gestiada further clarified that hindi ko naman po pinakialaman

case of non compliance thereof, or if there is a

ang kabayaran para sa aking mga kasalanan.

NLRC shall not assume jurisdiction over issues

ni Kagalang-galang LA dela Cruz. In the penultimate sentence,

prima facie evidence that the settlement was

obtained through fraud, misrepresentation or

Powertechs argument: that the P150k was given to Gestiada

NLRC. In taking cognizance of the MR by the

release and quitclaim signed by Gestiada indicating that he

complainants seeking o declare the compromise

signed for himself and atty-in-fact of all complainants. It is

agreement void on the ground of non-payment,

pointed that Gestiada was given a SPA to negotiate with

and declaring the same as being contrary to

Powertech on behalf of the petitioners. Pertinent portions of

procedure for acquiring jurisdiction over the case

petitioner (1) to represent petitioners in ccase against

was not properly observed.

powertech; (2) To enter into amicable settlement and

When NLRC made a pronouncement that the

compromise agreement under the terms and conditions he may

compromise agreement is valid and that the

deem just and reasonable; (3) to receive, collect, encash, deposit,

the law between the parties

based on judgements and/or compromise agreement or

Doctrine: that compromise agreements voluntarily

voluntary tender of payment by reason of the case; (4) to

agreed upon shall be final and binding upon the

sign and execute compromise agreement, waiver, quitclaims, etc

coercion.
o

as compromise amount for all the petitioners. It relies on the

law acted in excess of jurisdiction since the

the SPA authorize Gestiada to perform the following acts for

appeal has been withdrawn, the same because

o

and withdraw, in trust, cash, checks, etc. representing awards

parties. Hence, judgment in consonance with a

compromise agreement is consequently rendered in

If reliance is placed solely on the quitclaim and release and

enjoined to comply with, abide by, its terms and

inevitable conclusion that the P150k compromise covered the

conditions.

claims of Petitioners, not merely that of Gestiada, That us

accordance therewith and the parties are

waiver executed by Gestiada and the SPA, it would be an

Petitioners moved to reconsider the CA decision but their

apparent from the waiver and the SPA.

motion was denied. Hence, the present recourse.

But considering the circumstances in the execution and the

ISSUES:

payment of the amount, SC concluded that the P150k was

54

given to Gestiada solely as payment for his backwages and

We rebuke Powertechs unscrupulous and despicable act of using

other monetary claims:

an apparently valid compromise agreement to evade payment

a.

b.

the P150k compromise is rather small when

of its legal obligation to petitioners. We will not allow

judgment on appeal to the NLRC.

legal means to perpetrate fraud. This should serve as a warning

Even granting for mere sake of argument that

to parties in labor cases to endeavor to achieve a just and

the P150k was a fair and reasonable compromise

equitable resolution of heir disputes and to enter into

for all, petitioners failed to receive a single

compromise agreements in good faith.

SC gave credence to the admission of Gestiada

Furter, there would have been no opportunity for collusion

that he received the P150k as payment for his

between Powertech and GEstiada without the blanket

own backwages. In his letter to Atty

authority given by petitioners to Gestiada in the SPA. This

Evangelista, Gestiada said that he was pressured

should serve as a caveat to principals particularly to laborers in

for petitioners n order to receive his share in the

their agents.

taken in light of the more than P2.5mio

employers to make a mockery of our legal system by using

centavo form the compromise

c.

by Powertech to sign the waiver and quitclaim

labor dispute to be wary of giving too broad an authority to

P2.5mio judgment
d.

In executing the compromise agreement,

The powers of the agent may be circumscribed either by

Powertech negotiated in ba faith and coluded

putting in the SPA providing a minimum amount upon which

with Gestiada to defraud petitioners of their

the agent may compromise on behalf of the principal or by

share of the P2.5mio LA judgment.

providing that some acts of the agent are conditional and

subject to the approval of the principal

2.
Posting of surety bond is mandatory and jurisdictional. Failure to

These conditions may impose additional burden on the

post surety bond rendered the LA decision final and executory.

negotiating parties. But it will better protect them since the

the NLRC on this point:

predictably acceptable to the principal, and the third party will

We agree with the NLRC resolution dismissing its appeal. Said

agent will only be authorized to settle for an amount

An appeal is neither a natural right nor is it

have full knowledge of the terms and conditions the principal

part of due process but purely a statutory privilege

would not disown or disclaim.

and may be exercised only in the manner and in

accordance with the provisions of law considering that

Wherefore, the petiton is granted. The decision of the CA is

the joint motion to dismiss remains unacted upon at

reversed and Set Aside. The Resolution fo the NLRC dated July

the time respondents received a copy of our resolution

31, is reinstated.

dated May 24, 2000, respondents, in accordance with

said resolution and with Art 223 Labor Code and with

(62) Solomon et . al. v. Powertech Corp., January 22, 2008

Section 6, Rule VI, NLRC New Rules of Procedure

Version # 2

should have posted a cash and surety bond. Hence

failing to do so the appealed decision is deemed final

Solomon et al vs Powertech Corporation

and executory.

GR No. 150861, January 22, 2008,

Considering that Pwertech failed to post the required bond, its

Patitioner:

appeal was not deemed perfected and that the LA decision is

now final and executory.

Nagkakaisang Manggagawa ng Powertech

Corporation
o

3.

25 employees as members

Respondent:

Given the foregoing ruling , SC found it unnecessary to tackle

petitioners contention that the NLRC had lost jurisdiction over

Powertech Corporation alleged employer of

petitioner

the case when it dismissed Powertechs appeal. It has become

inconsequential, the crucial issue having been resolved in their

Facts:

favor.

A case of illegal dismissal was filed by the

Nagkakaisang Manggagawa ng Powertech

SC final note

Corporation.

55

On June 25, 1999, Labor Arbiter Renell Joseph R.

the complainants signified their individual consent

Dela Cruz rendered a Decision declaring illegal the

to the same by authorizing Carlos Gestiada

termination of twenty (20) of petitioners and

through a special power of attorney to act for

granting their monetary claims in the total

and in their behalf.

amount of P2,538,728.84.
-

I: WON the compromise agreement is valid

Powertech appealed to NLRC and during its

H: No. The compromise agreement is void. Powertech was

pendency it entered into a compromise agreement

negotiating in bad faith and, worse, it colluded with Gestiada in

with Gestiada
-

shortchanging, nay, fraudulently depriving petitioners of their

Carlos Gestiada was the appointed representative

just share in the award. Article 227 of the Labor Code

of his co-petitioners. The appointment was

empowers the NLRC to void a compromise agreement for fraud,

evidenced by a special power of attorney dated

thus: Any compromise settlement, including those involving labor

October 8, 1999.
-

standard laws, voluntarily agreed upon by the parties with the

It stated in their agreement that Powertech

assistance of the Bureau or the regional office of the

will pay them Php 150,000 as compromise amount

Department of Labor, shall be final and binding upon the

for all the petitioners.

-

parties. The National Labor Relations Commission or any court

Powertech imposed the dismissal of their current

shall not assume jurisdiction over issues involved

counsel Atty. Evangelista as a condition before

therein except in case of non-compliance thereof or if there is

Gestiada may receive the amount.

-

prima facie evidence that the settlement was obtained

A day after firing Atty. Evangelista, Gestiada

through fraud, misrepresentation, or coercion.

received the P150,000.00. That same day,

Gestiada, represented by Atty. Felipe, and

Petitioners already won on the arbiter level P2.5

million pesos. It is highly improbable that they

Powertech filed a joint motion to dismiss the case

would suddenly agree to accept P150,000 as

with the NLRC.

compromise for the P2.5 million.

NLRC

even granting for the mere sake of argument

NLRC denied the motion to dismiss

that the P150,000 was a fair and reasonable

It held that the Php 150 000 received by

compromise for all, petitioners failed to receive a

petitioners against Powertech and that the

conclusively indicates that Gestiada received

Motion to Dismiss was signed only by Gestiada

the P150,000 in payment of his backwages and

and the other complainants never took part in

no other

Gestiada did not cover the monetary claims of

single centavo from the compromise. This

the execution thereof

-

A waiver of money claims must be regarded as a

powertech to the detriment of petitioners

personal right; hence, the protective rule that for

(63) Philippine Journalists Inc., v. NLRC, September 5, 2006

a compromise dealing with their judgment to be

validly entered into there must be personal and

PHILIPPINE JOURNALISTS, INC., BOBBY DELA CRUZ, ARNOLD

specific individual consent given by the all

BANARES and ATTY. RUBY RUIZ BRUNO

petitioners
CA
-

Gestiada admitted that he colluded with

vs .
NATIONAL

CA rendered a decision in favor of Powertech and

LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, HON. COMMS. LOURDES

upheld the validity of the compromise agreement

JAVIER,

between petitioners and Powertech

TITO GENILO and ERNESTO VERCELES, JOURNAL EMPLOYEES

A compromise agreement can only be rescinded on

UNION, and THE COURT OF APPEALS

the ground of vitiated consent and this is true

G.R. No. 166421. September 5, 2006., CALLEJO, SR., J

unsatisfactory to either of the parties. In the

PETITIONERS:

even if the compromise turns out to be

instant case, there is no evidence to show that

PHILIPPINE JOURNALISTS, INC., (PJI) Domestic

the agreement was entered into by means of

corporation engaged in the publication and sale of

fraud, accident, mistake, or excusable negligence or

newspapers and magazines.

that the agreement was forged. The compromise

BOBBY DELA CRUZ,

agreement was voluntarily entered into, since

ARNOLD BANARES

56

both the company and its employees.

ATTY. RUBY RUIZ BRUNO

RESONDENTS:

Submitted for to NLRC for approval.

Everyone signed compromise agreement and

LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION,

Joint manifestation and Declaration of

HON. COMMS. LOURDES JAVIER,

TITO GENILO and

ERNESTO VERCELES,

Clarificatory Motion of complainants Floro Andrin Jr.

JOURNAL EMPLOYEES UNION (JEU) Exclusive

and Jazen Jilhani had been mooted by compromise

the PJI

clarification.

Mutual Support and Cooperation

bargaining agent of all the rank-and-file employees in

agreement along with 7 other who filed motion for

THE COURT OF APPEALS

FACTS:

NLRC ruled there was no sufficient factual

Compromise agreement is approved.

CASE NO. 2

PJI was guilty of ULP for implementing a

retrenchment program due to over-staffing or

Union filed another Notice of strike for the following

claims:

bloated work force and continuing actual loses

1.

Outright dismissal of 29 employees

resulting in negative stockholders equity.

3.

Non-payment of allowances, meal, rice,

sustained by the company for the past 3 years

NLRC granted computation of their benefits

Union filed a notice of strike before the NCMB

(National Conciliation and Mediation Board), claiming

and legal basis to declare union guilty of ULP

CASE NO. 1

NLRC issued ANOTHER resolution declaring that

2.

Secretary of DOLE certified the labor dispute to NLRC

transportation, quarterly bonus, x-mas bonus,

for compulsory arbitration pursuant to Art. 263 (6) of

anniv. bonus, health insurance, dental to 29

labor code.

employees

PJI filed motion to dismiss Sec. of DOLE has no

4.

jurisdiction -> NLRC denied the motion

PJI filed motion to defer further proceedings

5.

Transpo allowance for 5 union members

position papers might jeopardize attempts to settle

6.

Non-payment of 1k increase per CBA

the matter extra judicially. -> NLRC also denied.

7.

Dimunition of Salary of 200 employees to

NLRC declared the 31 complainants were illegally

implementation of retrenchment program.

50%

DOLE Sec. certified to the commission for compulsory

arbitration

NLRC ordered reinstatement of 31 employees without

loss of seniority rights and other benefits.

Non-payment of back wages of 38

reinstated employees

dismissed and that there was no basis for the

violation of CBA benefits

NLRC:

Parties then executed a compromise agreement July

9, 2001
o

NLRC ruled that complainants were not illegally

dismissed.

PJI reinstated 31 employees without loss of

seniority rights and benefits

involved different sets of facts, hence, the

inapplicability of the doctrine of stare decisis. In the

17 agreed to be given full and

complete payment of their

first action,

respective monetary claims

The NLRC further declared that the two cases

14 - paid their monetary claims

the complainants as regular

minus what the received by way

employees were illegally retrenched;

of separation pay
o

ISSUE IN FIRST CASE whether

ISSUE IN RECENT CASE: whether

The agreement stated that the parties

the 29 complainants, contractual

effort at peace and reconciliation as well as

separate dates long after their

entered the agreement "[i]n a sincere

employees, were illegally dismissed on

to jointly establish a new era in labor

retrenchment.

management relations marked by mutual

trust, cooperation and assistance, enhanced

NLRC also declared that by their acts of entering

into fixed-term employment contracts with petitioner

by open, constant and sincere communication

after separation (retrenchment), they are deemed to

with a view of advancing the interest of

have admitted the validity of separation and are

57

thus estopped.

Thus second case was dismissed for lack of merit and

Here, the agreement was later approved by the NLRC. Thus,

further held that JEU has no personality to represent

the case was considered closed and terminated and the

employees (excluded from CBA)

mentioned the compromise agreement were concerned. Hence,

Complainants contend the PJI admitted 29 were

the CA was correct in holding that the compromise agreement

union members because they deducted union dues

pertained only to the "monetary obligation" of the employer to

from their wages. NLRC such deduction was due to

the dismissed employees, and in no way affected the Resolution

members

there was no basis for the implementation of petitioners'

the 29 complainants because theyre contractual

Resolution fully implemented insofar as the employees

misrepresentation of JEU that such emloyees are union

in NCMB where the NLRC made the pronouncement that

retrenchment program.

CA

Union filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 -

In any event, the compromise agreement cannot bind a party

CA held that NLRC gravely abused its discretion in

and gave specific individual consent. It must be remembered

ruling in favor of PJI.

that a compromise agreement is also a contract; it requires

The CA further held that the act of respondent in

the consent of the parties, and it is only then that the

hiring the retrenched employees as contractual

agreement may be considered as voluntarily entered into.

GRANTED

who did not voluntarily take part in the settlement itself

workers was a ploy to circumvent the latter's

security of tenure.

Therefore, the petition is DENIED and the assailed Resolution is

Another "telling feature" is the fact that the said

AFFIRMED.

employees were re-hired for five-month contracts

only, and were later offered regular employment with
salaries lower than what they were previously

Art 238 (232)

The CA also ruled that the dismissed employees were

(64) Colegio De San Juan De Letran v. Association of Employees

not barred from pursuing their monetary claims

and Faculty of Letranet. al, September 18, 2000

receiving.

despite the fact that they had accepted their

separation pay and signed their quitclaims.

Colegio de San Juan de Letran vs Association of Employees and

Faculties of Letran

Hence this petition.

G.R. No. 141471.

September 18, 2000

FACTS:

ISSUES: WON such a compromise agreement constitutes res

During the renegotiation of the respondent unions Collective

judicata to a new complaint later filed by other union

Bargaining Agreement with the petitioner, Eleonor Ambas

members-employees, not parties to the agreement, who

emerged as the newly elected President of the union. Ambas

likewise claim to have been illegally dismissed.

wanted to continue the renegotiation of the CBA but

petitioner, through Fr. Edwin Lao, claimed that the CBA was

HELD:

already prepared for signing by the parties. However, the union

Petition is denied.

members rejected the said CBA.

Thereafter, petitioner accused

the union officers of bargaining in bad faith before the NLRC.

Issue: Whether or not the execution and subsequent approval

The Labor Arbiter decided in favor of the petitioner.

by the NLRC of the agreement forged between it and the

This

decision was reversed on appeal with the NLRC. The parties

respondent Union rendered the NLRC resolution ineffectual,

later agreed to disregard the unsigned CBA and to start

moot and academic.

negotiation on new five-year CBA. During the pendency of

approval of proposals, Ambas was informed that her work

Ruling: No.

schedule was being changed.

Ambas protested and requested

management to submit the issue to a grievance machinery

The rule is that when judgment is rendered based on a

under the old CBA. After the petitioners inaction on the CBA,

compromise agreement, the judgment becomes immediately

the union filed a notice to strike.

executory, there being an implied waiver of the parties' right

After meeting with the

NCMB to discuss the ground rules for renegotiation, Ambas

to appeal from the decision. The judgment having become final,

received a letter dismissing her for alleged insubordination.

the Court can no longer reverse, much less modify it.

58

The

petitioner then ceased negotiations when it received news

G.R. No. 141471.

that another labor organization had filed a petition for

Facts:

certification. The union finally struck, but the Secretary of

During the renegotiation of the respondent unions Collective

for petitioner to accept them back.

emerged as the newly elected President of the union. Ambas

Labor and Employment ordered them to return to work and

September 18, 2000

Bargaining Agreement with the petitioner, Eleonor Ambas

The Secretary of Labor

and Employment later rendered judgement that the petitioner

wanted to continue the renegotiation of the CBA but

had been guilty of unfair labor practice. The Court of Appeals

petitioner, through Fr. Edwin Lao, claimed that the CBA was

affirmed the findings of the former.

already prepared for signing by the parties. However, the union

ISSUES:

the union officers of bargaining in bad faith before the NLRC.

Whether petitioner is guilty of unfair labor practice by refusing

The Labor Arbiter decided in favor of the petitioner.

to bargain with the union when it unilaterally suspended the

decision was reversed on appeal with the NLRC.

members rejected the said CBA.

ongoing negotiations for a new CBA; and

Thereafter, petitioner accused

This

Whether the termination of the union president amounts to

The parties later agreed to disregard the unsigned CBA and to

an interference of the employees right to self-organization.

start negotiation on new five-year CBA. During the pendency

of approval of proposals, Ambas was informed that her work

RULING:

schedule was being changed.

Ambas protested and requested

The Supreme Court found the petition unmeritorious.

management to submit the issue to a grievance machinery

under the old CBA.

The petitioners failure to act upon the submitted CBA proposal

within the ten-day period exemplified in Article 250 of the

After the petitioners inaction on the CBA, the union filed a

Labor Code is a clear violation of the governing procedure of

notice to strike.

collective bargaining. As the Court has held in Kiok Loy vs.

ground rules for renegotiation, Ambas received a letter dismissing

NLRC, the companys refusal to make counter-proposal to the

her for alleged insubordination. The petitioner then ceased

the succeeding events are obvious signs that the petitioner had

organization had filed a petition for certification.

unions proposed CBA is an indication of bad faith.

Moreover,

After meeting with the NCMB to discuss the

negotiations when it received news that another labor

merely been employing delaying tactics to the passage of the

proposed CBA.

Moreover, in order to allow the employer to

The union finally struck, but the Secretary of Labor and

validly suspend the bargaining process, there must be a valid

Employment ordered them to return to work and for

representation issue.

Employment later rendered judgement that the petitioner had

petition for certification election raising a legitimate

petitioner to accept them back.

Hence, the mere filing of a petition for

The Secretary of Labor and

certification election does not ipso facto justify the suspension

been guilty of unfair labor practice. The Court of Appeals

of negotiation by the employer.

affirmed the findings of the former.

The factual backdrop of the termination of Ambas led the

Hence, this petition.

Court to no other conclusion that she was dismissed in order to

strip the union of a leader who would fight for the right of
her co-workers in the bargaining table. While the Court

Issue:

recognizes the right of the employer to terminate the services

Whether or not there was a valid suspension of negotiation on

of an employee for a just or authorized cause, nevertheless,

the part of the petitioner when a new certification of

the dismissal of employees must be made within the

election was filed by another legitimate labor organization.

parameters of aw and pursuant to the tenets of equity and

fair play.

Even assuming arguendo that Ambas was guilty of

Held:

insubordination, such disobedience was not a valid ground to

No.

terminate her employment. When the exercise of the

bargaining process there must be a valid petition for

management to discipline its employees tends to interfere with

certification election raising a legitimate representation issue.

busting and is therefore a prohibited act.

does not ipso facto justify the suspension of negotiation by the

the employees right to self-organization, it amounts to union-

In order to allow the employer to validly suspend the

Hence, the mere filing of a petition for certification election

employer.

(64) Colegio De San Juan De Letran v. Association of Employees

The petition must first comply with the provisions of the Labor

and Faculty of Letranet. al, September 18, 2000

Code and its Implementing Rules.

Version #2

Foremost is that a petition

for certification election must be filed during the sixty-day

freedom period. The "Contract Bar Rule" under Section 3, Rule

59

XI, Book V, of the Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor

Code, provides that: " . If a collective bargaining agreement has
been duly registered in accordance with Article 231 of the Code,
a petition for certification election or a motion for intervention
can only be entertained within sixty (60) days prior to the
expiry date of such agreement." The rule is based on Article
232, in relation to Articles 253, 253-A and 256 of the Labor
Code.

No petition for certification election for any

representation issue may be filed after the lapse of the

sixty-day freedom period.

The old CBA is extended until a

new one is signed. The rule is that despite the lapse of the
formal effectivity of the CBA the law still considers the same
as continuing in force and effect until a new CBA shall have
been validly executed.

Hence, the contract bar rule still applies.

The purpose is to ensure stability in the relationship of the

workers and the company by preventing frequent modifications
of any CBA earlier entered into by them in good faith and for
the stipulated original period.
In the case at bar, the lifetime of the previous CBA was

from 1989-1994. The petition for certification election by ACEC,

allegedly a legitimate labor organization, was filed with the
Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) only on May 26,
1996.

Clearly, the petition was filed outside the sixty-day

freedom period.

Hence, the filing thereof was barred by the

existence of a valid and existing collective bargaining agreement.

Consequently, there is no legitimate representation issue and, as
such, the filing of the petition for certification election did not
constitute a bar to the ongoing negotiation.
Significantly, the same petition for certification election was

dismissed by the Secretary of Labor on October 25, 1996. The

dismissal was upheld by this Court in a Resolution, dated April
21, 1997.
In view of the above, there is no doubt that petitioner is
guilty of unfair labor practice by its stern refusal to bargain in
good faith with respondent union.

60