Carlos Ranara vs.

NLRC
G.R. No. 100969
August 14, 1992
Facts:
Petitioner filed a complaint with the Department of Labor and Employment for illegal
dismissal. The private respondents denied the charges, contending that the petitioner had not been
illegally dismissed. Chang said that he had not authorized Leonar, or even his mother who was the
officer-in-charge during his absence, to terminate Ranara's employment. The truth was that it was
Ranara who abandoned his work when he stopped reporting. The Labor Arbiter held that petitioner had
not been illegally dismissed.
The Solicitor General disagreed with the NLRC on the legality of the petitioner's dismissal. He
said that the challenged decision was based on an event subsequent to the illegal dismissal, to wit, the
offer of reinstatement, and that such offer did not validate the dismissal.
The NLRC argued that the petitioner had not filed a motion for reconsideration of its decision
and should therefore not be allowed to file his petition for certiorari with this Court.
Issue: Whether or not procedural lapses may be disregarded in labor cases.
Ruling:
Yes. The failure of the petitioner to file a motion for reconsideration of the NLRC decision
before coming to this Court was not a fatal omission. In the interest of substantial justice, and
especially in cases involving the rights of workers, the procedural lapse may be disregarded to enable
the Court to examine and resolve the conflicting rights and responsibilities of the parties. This liberality
is warranted in the case at bar, especially since it has been shown that the intervention of the Court was
necessary for the protection of the dismissed laborer.

Amalgamated Laborers' Association vs. CIR

GR No. L-23467
March 27, 1968
Facts:
Petitioner won a case of unfair labor practice against Biscom. Upon motion of the complainants,
CIR sent the Chief Examiner to go to Biscom and compute the backwages. Respondent Atty.
Fernandez, in the same case, filed a Notice of Attorneys Lien over the amount to be awarded,
alleging that he had been the attorney of record for the said case since the inception of the preliminary
hearings of said case up to the Supreme Court in Appeal, as chief counsel. He claimed that the
labourers have voluntarily agreed to give him as attorneys fees on contingent basis 25% of the award.
He further averred that this is already a discounted fee out of the plea of the unions president to reduce
it from 30% for them to also satisfy Atty. Jose Ur Carbonell. CIR decided the appeals still in favour of
the petitioners and ordered Biscom to deposit the amount representing 25% to be awarded to Atty.
Fernandez.
Atty. Carbonell and ALA appealed from the decision contending that CIR is bereft of
jurisdiction to adjudicate contractual disputes over attorneys fees averring that a dispute arising from
contracts for attorneys fees is not a labor dispute and is not one among the cases ruled to be within
CIRs authority and to consider such a dispute to be a mere incident to a case over which CIR may
validly assume jurisdiction is to disregard the special and limited nature of said courts jurisdiction.
Issue: Whether or not CIR has jurisdiction over claims for attorneys fees.
Ruling:
The Court may be expressly granted the incidental powers necessary to effectuate its
jurisdiction. In the absence of such express grant, and in the absence of prohibitive legislation, it shall
also be impliedly granted.
In this case, to direct that the present dispute be lodged in another court as petitioners advocate
would only result in multiplicity of suits, a situation abhorred by the rule. Since the court of Industrial
Relations obviously had the jurisdiction over the main cases, it likewise had jurisdiction to consider and
decide all matters collateral thereto, such as claims for attorneys fees made by the members of the bar
who appeared therein.

Kapisanan ng mga Maggagawa sa Manila Railroad Co. vs. Atty. Gregorio Fajardo
G.R. No. L-33493 August 18, 1988
Facts:
CIR directed petitioner to pay attomey's fees, which is 25% of the money awarded, to Attorney
Gregorio Fajardo for winning their labor case. Petitioner filed a Motion for Partial Reconsideration on
the ground that Attorney Fajardo is entitled to claim attorney's fees from the 400 complainants only
who signed the complaint but not from the other union members who did not sign the complaint,
because there was no lawyer-client relationship between them and Attorney Fajardo. Respondent
argued that all members of the respondent union who will benefit from the decision, regardless of
whether they signed the complaint or not, should pay his attorney's fees. No distinction should be made
between those who signed the petition and those who did not because under Section 17 of Republic Act
875, a complaint against the union by its members has to be signed by only 10% of the membership.
Issue: Whether or not lawyers of labor cases are entitled to set their fees above 10%.
Ruling:
No. Section 11, Rule VIII, Book III of the Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor Code fixes
the attorney's fees in judicial and administrative proceedings at 10% of the amount awarded. This is the
same percentage allowed by law to lawyers prosecuting workmen's compensation cases that reach the
appellate court. Moreover, considering the low economic status of their clientele, the slice that labor
lawyers should take from the avails of their clients' suit should not be too large as to leave the latter
with only a pittance for themselves.

Radiowealth Finance Co. vs. International Corporate Bank

G.R. No. 77042-43 February 28, 1990
Facts:
Petitioner entered into a Credit Facilities agreement with Interbank. This is secured by a
promissory note, trust receipts, security arrangements, which included provisions on payment of
attorneys fees and costs of collection in case of default. However, petitioner failed to pay. A
compromise agreement was entered into by the parties but this agreement failed to include the
attorneys fees and costs of collection.
Issue: Whether or not courts can modify attorney's fees previously agreed upon.
Ruling:
Yes. They may modify if the amount appears to be unconscionable and unreasonable. For
the law recognizes the validity of stipulations included in documents such as negotiable
instruments and mortgages with respect.

Chong Guan Trading vs. NLRC

G.R. No. 81471
April 26, 1989
Facts:
Private respondent filed a complaint for illegal dismissal. The Labor Arbiter rendered a decision
finding that there was no illegal dismissal since private respondent was never dismissed by petitioner.
The Labor Arbiter held that the altercation that occurred between private respondent and the Lim
brothers because of the broken top-glass cannot be construed as the dismissal of the private respondent
because it was only a minor incident. No pronouncement on the issue of the alleged abandonment by
private respondent was made but the Labor Arbiter ordered the reinstatement of private respondent but
without backwages. Private respondent elevated the decision of the Labor Arbiter to the NLRC,
however it was dismissed the appeal for being filed out of time. However, the NLRC reconsidered its
Resolution and gave due course to the appeal, and decided in favor of the private resondent.
Issue: Whether or not NLRC has jurisdiction over cases filed out of time.
Ruling:
Article 223 of the Labor Code [Pres. Decree 442, as amended] provides for a reglementary
period of ten (10) days within which to appeal a decision of the labor arbiter to the NLRC. The ten-day
period has been interpreted by this Court as ten (10) "calendar" days and not ten (10) "working" days.
In the instant case, while the appeal was filed within ten (10) working days from receipt of the decision,
it was filed beyond the (10) calendar days prescribed by law.
It is true that the perfection of an appeal in the manner and within the period prescribed by law
is not only mandatory but jurisdictional, and failure to perfect an appeal has the effect of rendering the
judgment final and executory. However, as correctly pointed out by the Solicitor General, the NLRC
may disregard the procedural lapse where there is an acceptable reason to excuse tardiness in the taking
of an appeal.
In this case, the appeal was filed out of time because the counsel of private respondent relied on
the footnote of the notice of the decision of the Labor Arbiter which stated that "the aggrieved party
may appeal ... within ten (10) working days. Thus, private respondent's late filing of the appeal
notwithstanding, the Court finds that public respondent did not commit grave abuse of discretion in
giving due course to the appeal.

John Clement Consultants, Inc. vs. NLRC

G.R. No. 72096
January 29, 1988
Facts:
Private respondent wanted to resign but failed to submit any resignation letter. Petitioner issued
a memorandum announcing Flores' resignation and ordering the supervisors theretofore serving under
Flores to report directly to him, in order to protect the competitive status of the firm. Flores thereupon
ceased to come to the company premises; and he failed to appear at the meetings scheduled to discuss
the terms of the severance of his ties with the JCCI. He also failed to return the company car assigned
for his use, eventually doing so only after receipt of a series of telegrams demanding such return.
Three months after his resignation, Flores filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against JCCI
and EDI with the Ministry of Labor & Employment. The Labor Arbiter dismissed his complaint for
lack of merit. Flores appealed to the National Labor Relations Commission, asserting that it had been
filed beyond the reglementary period of ten (10) days from notice. The NLRC reversed the Labor
Arbiter's decision.
Issue: Whether or not the NLRC has jurisdiction to an appeal filed after 10 calendar days.
Ruling:
In taking cognizance of Flores' appeal, notwithstanding the recorded actuality that it was filed
15 days after notice of the judgment sought to be appealed and therefore, beyond the 10-day period of
appeal set by law, the NLRC had acted without jurisdiction, in deliberate disregard of this Court's
holding in the aforecited Vir-Jen case that the ten-day period of appeal set out in Article 223 of the
Labor Code, as amended, meant calendar and not working days.

LABOR RELATIONS
Case Digests

1. Carlos Ranara vs. NLRC, G.R. No. 100969, August 14, 1992
2. Amalgamated Laborers' Association vs. CIR, GR No. L-23467, March 27, 1968
3. Kapisanan ng mga Maggagawa sa Manila Railroad Co. vs. Atty. Gregorio Fajardo, G.R. No. L33493, August 18, 1988
4. Radiowealth Finance Co. vs. International Corporate Bank, G.R. No. 77042-43, February 28,
1990
5. Chong Guan Trading vs. NLRC, G.R. No. 81471, April 26, 1989
6. John Clement Consultants, Inc. vs. NLRC, G.R. No. 72096
January 29, 1988

Submitted by: Celina May R. Tang, Block A

Professor: Atty Mila Raquid-Arroyo