Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 25


Existence of ER-EE Relationship

Existence of ER-EE relationship between the party-litigants, or a reasonable causal
connection to such relationship is a jurisdictional prerequisite for the exercise of
jurisdiction over a labor dispute by the Labor Arbiters or any other labor tribunals.
The cause of action must arise from the ER-EE relationship Even if there is ER-EE
relationship if the cause of action did not arise or was not incurred in connection
with ER-EE relationship, Labor Arbiters have no jurisdiction thereover. Actions
between ERs and EEs where the ER-EE relationship is merely incidental is within the
original jurisdiction of the regular courts.
Reasonable Causal Connection Rule
Under this rule, if there is a reasonable causal connection between the claim
asserted and the ER-EE relations, then the case is within the jurisdiction of the labor
courts. In the absence of such nexus, it is the regular courts that have jurisdiction
Power to determine existence of ER-EE relationship
1) Labor Arbiters and the NLRC
2) DOLE Secretary and the DOLE Regional Directors - in the exercise of their visitorial
and enforcement power under Art. 128(b) of the LC to the exclusion of the Labor
Arbiter and the NLRC (Peoples Broadcasting Service vs The Secretary of DOLE)
3) Med-Arbiter necessary and indispensable in the exercise of his jurisdiction (MY San
Biscuits, Inc. vs Laguesma)
4) Social Security Commission involving issues of coverage of owners-members of
respondent Cooperative under the SSS (RP vs Asiapro Cooperative)

In cases filed by OFWs, Labor Arbiters may exercise jurisdiction even absent the EREE relationship (Santiago vs CF Sharp Management, Inc.)
A seafarer who has already signed a POEA-approved employment contract
but was not deployed overseas and, therefore, there is no ER-EE relationship,
may file his monetary claims case with the Labor Arbiter
Absent ER-EE relationship, Labor Arbiters have jurisdiction even if the case is filed
by the heirs of the OFW (Medline Management, Inc. vs Roslinda)
As heirs, the wife and son of Juliano Roslinda, the deceased OFW, have the
personality to file the claim for death compensation, reimbursement of
medical expenses, damages and attorneys fees before the Labor Arbiter of
the NLRC
Labor disputes not subject to Barangay Conciliation
Requiring conciliation of labor disputes before the barangay courts would
defeat the very salutary purposes of the law. Instead of simplifying labor
proceedings designed at expeditious settlement or referral to the proper
courts or offices to decide them finally, the conciliation of the issues before
the Barangay Lupong Tagapayapa would only duplicate the conciliation
proceedings and unduly delay the disposition of labor cases


a) Original and exclusive (to hear and decide cases involving all
workers, whether agricultural or non-agricultural):
1) Art. 124 of the Labor Code, as amended by RA 6727: disputes involving
legislated wage increases and wage distortion in unorganized
establishments not voluntarily settled by the parties
2) Art. 128(b) of the Labor Code, as amended by RA 7730: contested cases
under the exception clause
The Secretary or his duly authorized representatives shall issue
writs of execution to the appropriate authority for the
enforcement of their orders, except in case where the ER
contests the findings of the labor employment and enforcement
officer and raises issues supported by documentary proofs which
were not considered in the course of inspection
3) Art. 217 of the Labor Code:
Unfair labor practice cases (administrative and civil aspects)
- Arts. 247, 248, 249, 261, 263(c)
Termination disputes
Those cases that workers may file involving wages, rates of pay,
hours of work and other terms and conditions of employment, if
accompanied with a claim for reinstatement
Claims for actual, moral, exemplary and other forms of damages
arising from ER-EE relations
Cases arising from any violation of Art. 279 (264) of the Labor Code,
as amended, including questions involving the legality of strikes
and lockouts
Authority to conduct compulsory arbitration
All other claims arising from ER-EE relations, including those of
persons in domestic or household service, involving an amount
exceeding P5,000, whether or not accompanied with a claim for
reinstatement (except claims for employees compensation, social
security, PhilHealth and maternity benefits
4) Art. 227 (Labor Code): Enforcement of compromise agreement when there
is non-compliance by any parties thereto and To nullify it if there is prima
facie evidence that the settlement was obtained through fraud,
misrepresentation, or coercion
5) Art. 262-A (Labor Code): Issuance of writ of execution to enforce decisions
of Voluntary Arbitrators or panel of Voluntary Arbitrators, in case of their
absence or incapacity, for any reason
6) Section 10, RA 8042, as amended by RA 10022: Money claims arising out
of ER-EE relationship or by virtue of any law or contract, involving Filipino
workers for overseas deployment, including claims, death and disability
benefits and for actual, moral, exemplary and other forms of damages
7) Other cases as may be provided by law
b) Exceptions:

1) When the DOLE Secretary or the President exercises his power under Art.
263(g) to assume jurisdiction over national interest cases and decide
them himself
2) When the NLRC exercises its power of compulsory arbitration over similar
national interest cases that are verified to it by the DOLE Secretary
pursuant to the exercise by the latter of his certification power under Art.
3) When cases arise from the interpretation or implementation of CBA and
from interpretation or enforcement of company personnel policies which
shall be disposed of the Labor Arbitrator by referring the same to the
grievance machinery and voluntary arbitration
4) When the parties agree to submit the cease to voluntary arbitration before
a Voluntary Arbitrator or panel of Voluntary Arbitrators who, under Arts.
261 and 262 of the Labor Code, are also possessed of original and
exclusive jurisdiction to hear and decide cases mutually submitted to
them by the parties for arbitration and adjudication
a. Issues and cases over which Labor Arbiters HAVE Jurisdiction
Illegal Dismissal / Termination Cases (for just cause or authorized
In case of conflict of jurisdiction between Labor Arbiter and the
Voluntary Arbitrator over termination cases, the formers
jurisdiction shall prevail.
The Voluntary Arbitrator will only have jurisdiction over illegal
dismissal cases when there is express agreement of the parties
to the CBA, i.e. the ER and the bargaining agent, to submit the
termination case to voluntary termination. Absent the mutual
agreement of the parties, Voluntary Arbitrator cannot acquire
jurisdiction over termination cases.
The SC has categorically declared that termination cases fall
under the original and exclusive jurisdiction of Labor Arbiters
and not of Voluntary Arbitrators.
Jurisdiction over Money Claims
Original and exclusive (limited only to those arising from statutes or
contracts other than CBA
1. Any money claim accompanied with a claim for reinstatement
(regardless of amount) presupposes that it proceeds from a
termination case
2. Any money claim exceeding the amount of P5,000 per claimant
(regardless of whether accompanied with a claim for
reinstatement) does not necessary arise from termination case
but because the amount exceeds P5,000, it falls within the
jurisdiction of the Labor Arbiter
Money claims must arise from ER-EE relationship, otherwise,
jurisdiction is with the regular courts
Award of statutory benefits even if not prayed for is valid
The money claims lodged by an EE are not to be properly offset by
his unpaid subscription of stocks

Claim for notarial fees by a lawyer employed by a company is

within the jurisdiction of the Labor Arbiter

Jurisdiction over Claims for Damages

Claims for damages as well as attorneys fees in labor cases are
cognizable by the Labor Arbiters, to the exclusion of all other courts
Claims for actual, moral, exemplary and other forms of damages
that may be lodged by OFWs are cognizable by the Labor Arbiters
Jurisdiction over Legality of Strikes and Lockouts - not affecting
national interest
Jurisdiction over Cases involving Legislated Wage Increases and
Wage Distortion
In establishments where there are no certified collective bargaining
unions or existing CBA, the Labor Arbiters have jurisdiction to hear
and decide wage distortion cases after the parties and the National
Conciliation and Mediation Board (NCMB) failed to correct the
Disputes arising from wage distortion resulting from wage orders
issued by the Regional Tripartite Wages and Productivity Board
(RTWPB) which are alleged in the notice of strike or notice of
lockout, should be referred to the Labor Arbiter if not settled within
ten (10) calendar days of conciliation by the NCMB
Jurisdiction over Execution and Enforcement of Decisions of
Voluntary Arbitrators
Art. 262-A of the Labor Code prescribes the procedures that
Voluntary Arbitrators or panel of Voluntary Arbitrators should follow
in adjudicating cases filed before them. Once a decision has been
rendered in a case and subsequently becomes final and executory,
it may be enforced through the writ of execution issued by the
same Voluntary Arbitrator or panel of Voluntary Arbitrators who
rendered it, addressed to and requiring certain public officers to
execute the final decision, order or award.
However, where the Voluntary Arbitrator or the panel of Voluntary
Arbitrators who rendered the decision is absent or incapacitated for
any reason, Art. 262-A grants jurisdiction to any Labor Arbiter in the
region where the winning party resides, to take cognizance of a
motion for the issuance of writ of execution filed by such party and
accordingly issue such writ addressed to and requiring the public
officers mentioned above to execute the final decision, order or
award of the Voluntary Arbitrator or panel of Voluntary Arbitrators.
Jurisdiction over Cases of OFWs
RA 8042 conferred original and exclusive jurisdiction upon Labor
Arbiters to hear and decide all claims arising from ER-EE relationship or
by virtue of any law or contract involving Filipino workers for overseas
deployment, including claims for actual, moral, exemplary and other
forms of damages.

Other Issues over which Labor Arbiters have Jurisdiction

Jurisdiction over Cases involving EEs in Government-owned and/or
controlled corporations (GOCCs)
Hiring and firing of EEs of GOCCs without originals
Jurisdiction over Disputes involving Alien Parties
When Philippine law prevails:
The relationship is much affected with public interest and
that the otherwise applicable Philippine laws and
regulations cannot be rendered illusory by the parties
agreeing upon some other law to govern their
When the contract was not only executed in the
Philippines, it was also performed here, at least, primarily.
Private respondents are Philippine citizens and residents,
while petitioner, although a foreign corporation, is
licensed to do business (and is actually doing business in
the Philippines) and hence, is a resident in the Philippines.
Lastly, private respondents were based in the Philippines
in between their assigned flights to the Middle East and
Europe. (Pakistan International Airlines Corporation vs
Jurisdiction over Labor Cases involving Priests and Ministers
- Labor Arbiters have jurisdiction: If what is involved is a
labor case, say illegal dismissal, the relationship of the
church, as employer, and the priest or minister, as
employee is a Purely Secular matter not related to the
practice of faith, worship or doctrines of the church.
- Ecclesiastical Affair: one that concerns doctrine, creed, or
form of worship of the church, or the adoption and
enforcement within a religious association of needful laws
and regulations for the government of its membership,
and the power of excluding from such association those
deemed unworthy of membership. Based on this
definition, it involves the relationship between the church
and its members and relates to matters of faith, religious
doctrines, worship and governance of the congregation;
activities with attached religious significance.
Jurisdiction over Cases of Domestic Workers or Kasambahay
- Labor Arbiters have jurisdiction: If the amount of the claim
exceeds P5,000
Jurisdiction over Cases of Employees of Cooperatives
- Labor Arbiters have jurisdiction: Only over monetary
claims and illegal dismissal/termination cases involving
employees of cooperatives, but not claims or termination
of membership of members thereof
Jurisdiction over Counterclaims of Employers against Employees
- Can the ER assert counter-claims against EEs before the
Labor Arbiters? SC answered in the affirmative.

The jurisdiction of Labor Arbiters and the NLRC is

comprehensive enough to include claims for all forms of
damages arising from the ER-EE relations. By this
clause, Art. 217 should apply with equal force to the claim
of employer for actual damages against its dismissed
employee, where the basis for the claim arises from or is
necessarily connected with the fact of termination, and
should be entered as a counter-claim in the illegal
dismissal case. (Banez vs Hon. Valdeviila). But such
counter-claim, being a factual issue, must be asserted
before the Labor Arbiter; otherwise, it cannot be passed
upon by a reviewing court.
b. Issues and Cases over which Labor Arbiters HAVE NO Jurisdiction
Claims for damages arising from breach of a non-compete clause and
other post-employment prohibitions jurisdiction is lodged with the
regular courts
Claims for payment of cash advances, car loans, appliance loans, loans
from retirement fund, and other loans availed of by employees from
their employers which are in the nature of simple collection of a sum of
money brought by the employer, as creditor, against the employee, as
debtor jurisdiction is lodged with the regular courts which requires
the application of the general civil law
Dismissal of corporate officers and their monetary claims cognizable
by the RTC
Matling Doctrine:
Under this doctrine, the following rules shall be observed:
The dismissal of regular EEs falls under the
jurisdiction of Labor Arbiters; while that of
corporate officers fall within the jurisdiction of the
regular courts
The term corporate officers refers only to those
expressly mentioned in the Corporation Code (to
wit, President, secretary and Treasurer) and such
other officers as may be provided for in the ByLaws; all other officers not mentioned therein are
deemed employees
Corporate officers are elected or appointed by the
Directors or Stockholders, and those who are given
that character either by the Corporation Code or by
the corporations By-Laws; employee occupies no
office and generally is employed not by the action
of the Directors or Stockholders but by the
managing officers of the corporation who also
determines the compensation to be paid to such
The BOD can no longer create corporate offices
because the power of the BOD to create a
corporate office cannot be delegated
Because o the Matling Doctrine, the rulings in
Tabang and Nacpil are no longer controlling

because they are too sweeping and do not accord

with reason, justice and fair play.
The status of an employee as Director and
Stockholder does not atomically convert his
dismissal into an intra-corporate dispute hence,
Labor Arbiter, not regular courts, has jurisdiction
over the case
2 elements to determine whether a dispute is intra
corporate or not: 1) the status of relationship of the
parties; and 2) the nature of the question that is
the subject of their controversy (Nature of
controversy test). In the absence of any one of
these factors, the RTC will not have jurisdiction.
The criteria do not depend on the services
performed but on the manner of creation of office
Issues involving suspension of payment of debts (rehabilitation
receivership) lodged with RTC
Cases involving entities immune from suit
In this jurisdiction, the generally accepted principles of
international law are recognized and adopted as part of the law
of the land. Immunity of a State and international organizations
from suit is one of these universally recognized principles. It is
no this basis that Labor Arbiters or other labor tribunals have no
jurisdiction over immune entities.
- Department of Foreign Affairs vs NLRC
ADB enjoys immunity;
- Lasco vs UN Revolving Fund for Natural Resources
Exploration specialized agency of UN enjoys
- Jusmag Philippines vs NLRC Jusmag, an entity
performing a governmental function on behalf of
US, enjoys immunity
- Larkins vs NLRC lack of jurisdiction; suit was
against US government
- United States vs Hon. Rodrigo -- When the
function of the foreign entity otherwise immune from suit
partakes of the nature of a proprietary activity, such as
the restaurant services offered at John Hay Air Station
undertaken by the US government as a commercial
activity for profit and not in its governmental capacity, the
case for illegal dismissal filed by a Filipino cook working
therein is well within the jurisdiction of Philippine courts.
- Estoppel does not confer jurisdiction over an
immunity suit an entity immune from suit cannot be
estopped from claiming such diplomatic immunity since
estoppel does not operate to confer jurisdiction to a
tribunal that has none over a cause of action
Cases falling under the doctrine of forum non conveniens
Requisites for applicability:

a. that the Philippine court is one to which the parties

may conveniently resort;
b. that the Philippine court is in a position to make an
intelligent decision as to the law and the facts; and
c. that the Philippine court has or is likely to have power
to enforce its decision
Case where doctrine was applied:
The Manila Hotel Corp and Manila Hotel International
Limited vs NLRC
This is not to say that Philippine courts and agencies have
no power to solve controversies involving foreign
employers. Neither could it be said that the SC does not
have power over an employment contract executed in a
foreign country. If the respondent employee were an
overseas contract worker, a Philippine forum,
specifically the POEA, not the NLRC, would protect him. He
is not an overseas contract worker, a fact which he
admits with conviction
Case where doctrine was rejected:
Pacific Consultants International Asia vs Schonfeld
Doctrine does not apply for the ff reasons:
a. the Labor Code does not include forum non
conveniens as a ground for the dismissal of the
b. the propriety of dismissing a case based on this
principle requires a factual determination; hence
it is properly considered a s a defense
Quasi delict or tort cases
Tolosa case: Labor Arbiter has no jurisdiction over the case
because it was established that the same was in the nature of
an action based on quasi delict; recovery of damages based on
quasi delict; the death of the husband was due to gross
negligence of Captain Tolosas shipmates
Criminal and civil liabilities arising from violations of certain provisions
(penal provisions) of the Labor Code regular courts have jurisdiction
Art. 241: criminal and civil liabilities arising from violations
of rights and conditions of union membership
Art. 247: jurisdiction over criminal aspect of unfair labor
Art. 272: criminal violation f its provision
Art. 288: criminal offense; under the concurrent
jurisdiction of MTC/MCTC and the RTC
Constitutionality of CBA provisions/labor contract stipulations
Halaguena Doctrine Pal and FASAP; compulsory retirement for
female flight attendant sis 55; 60 for male counterpart; RTC has
The case is an ordinary civil action, hence beyond the
jurisdiction of the labor tribunals
The issue cannot be resolved solely by applying the Labor
Code. Rather it requires the application of the

Constitution, law on contracts and the Convention on the

elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women
(CEDAW). The power to apply and interpret the
Constitution and the CEDAW is within the jurisdiction of
the trial courts.
Actions between EEs and ER where the ER-EE relationship
is merely incidental and the cause of action proceeds from
a different source of obligation are within the exclusive
jurisdiction of the regular courts
Pioneer Texturing Doctrine: an order of reinstatement issued by the Labor
Arbiter under Art. 223 of the Labor Code is immediately executory even
pending appeal, no writ of execution required. As a consequence of this
doctrine, the rulings in earlier cases, that the reinstatement aspect of the
Labor Arbiters decision needs a writ of execution as it is not self-executory,
are deemed abandoned.
If the reinstatement order is issued by the NLRC on appeal, or by the Court of
Appeals, or by the Supreme Court, there is a need to secure a writ of
execution from the Labor Arbiter of origin to enforce the reinstatement of the
employee whose dismissal is declared illegal.
Two (2) options of the employer for implementation:
1) Actual reinstatement: the EE be reinstated to his position which he
occupies prior to his illegal dismissal under the same terms and
conditions prevailing prior to his dismissal or separation or, if no
longer available, to a substantially-equivalent position; or
2) Payroll reinstatement: the EE be reinstated in the payroll of the
company without requiring him to report back to work
Writ of Execution NOT required:
In case the decision of the labor Arbiter includes an order of reinstatement, it
should contain:
1) A statement that the reinstatement aspect is immediately
executory; and
2) A directive for the employer to submit a report of compliance within
ten (10) calendar days from receipt of the said decision.
Disobedience of this directive clearly denotes a refusal to reinstate.
The employee need not file a motion for the issuance of writ of
execution since the Labor Arbiter is mandated thereafter to
motu propio issue the writ.
Liabilities of Employer for Disobeying the Order:
1) to pay the accrued salaries of the reinstated employee as a
consequence of such reinstatement in the amount specified in the
decision; and
2) be cited for contempt, in accordance with the 2011 NLRC Rules of
Procedure, for his refusal to comply with the writ of execution
ordering the reinstatement
In No.1 above, the entitlement of the dismissed employee to his
salaries occasioned by the unjustified refusal of the employer to

reinstate him becomes effective from the time the employer failed to
reinstate him despite the issuance of a writ of execution.
In No. 2 above, the remedy available to the employee whose
reinstatement ordered by the labor Arbiter was not implemented by
the employer is to file for contempt against the latter and certainly not
the institution of a separate action in the regular court or with the
Labor Arbiter. Such recourse will violate the well-settled principle of re
judicata. It would give rise to multiplicity of actions which the law
abhors and exerts every effort to eschew.
Instances when writ of execution of Labor Arbiters Reinstatement
Order (even pending appeal) still required (under 2011 NLRC Rules
of Procedure):
1) when the employer disobeys the prescribed directive to submit a report of
compliance within ten (10) calendar days from receipt of the decision; or
2) when the employer refuses to reinstate the dismissed employee.
N.B. The Labor Arbiter shall motu propio issue a corresponding writ to
satisfy the reinstatement wages as they accrue until actual
reinstatement or reversal of the order of reinstatement.
Some Principles of Reinstatement Pending Appeal:
1) Employer has no way of staying execution of immediate reinstatement. He
cannot post bond to prevent its execution.
2) Reinstatement pending appeal applies to all kinds of illegal dismissal
cases, regardless of the grounds thereof.
3) Reinstatement pending appeal does not apply when the dismissal is legal
but reinstatement is ordered for some reasons like equity and
compassionate justice.
4) The failure of employee ordered reinstated pending appeal to report back
to work as directed by the employer does not give the employer the right
to remove him, especially when there is a reasonable explanation for his
5) When former position is already filled up, the employee should be
reinstated to a substantially equivalent position
6) Reinstatement to a position lower in rank is not proper.
7) In case of two successive dismissals, the order of reinstatement pending
appeal under Art 223 issued in the first case shall apply only to the first
case and should not affect the second dismissal.
8) Reinstatement pending appeal is not affected by the reinstated
employees employment elsewhere.
9) The issuance of TRO by the CA of by the SC, as the case may be, merely
suspends the implementation and the enforcement of the reinstatement
order but it does not have the effect of nullifying the right of the employee
to his reinstatement and to be paid his reinstatement wages.
Some Principles on Appeal:
Appeals under Art 223 apply only to appeals from the Labor Arbiters
decisions, awards or orders to the Commission (NLRC).


There is no appeal from the decisions, awards or orders of the NLRC.

Art. 223 is not the proper basis for elevating the case to CA or to SC.
The proper remedy from the decisions, awards or orders of the NLRC to
the CA is a Rule 65 petition for certiorari and from the CA to the SC, a
Rule 45 petition for review on certiorari.
Appeal from the NLRC to the DOLE Secretary and to the President had
long been abolished.
Appeal is not a constitutional right but a mere statutory privilege.
Hence, parties who seek to avail of it must comply with the statutes or
rules allowing it.
A MR is unavailing as a remedy against a decision of the Labor Arbiter.
The Labor Arbiter should treat the motion as an appeal to the NLRC.
A petition for relief should be treated as appeal.
Affirmative relief is not available to a party who failed to appeal. A
party who des not appeal from a decision of a court cannot obtain
affirmative relief other the ones granted in the appealed decision.
Grounds for Appeal to the NLRC:
1) Prima facie evidence of abuse of discretion on the part of Labor Arbiter;
NLRC has certiorari power; the NLRC is possessed of the power to
rectify any abuse of discretion committed by the Labor Arbiter
2) If the decision, award or order was secured through fraud or coercion,
including graft and corruption;
3) If made purely on questions of law; and/or
4) If serious errors in findings of fact are raised which, if not corrected, would
cause grave or irreparable damage or injury to the appellant
Perfection of Appeal to the NLRC:
The perfection of an appeal shall stay the execution of the decision of
the Labor Arbiter except execution for reinstatement pending appeal
The perfection of appeal within the period and in the manner
prescribed by law is jurisdictional and non-compliance with the legal
requirements is fatal and has the effect of rendering the judgment final
and executory, hence, unappealable
1) Observance of the reglementary period
2 Kinds:
a. Ten (10) calendar days in the case of appeals from
decisions of the Labor Arbiter under Art. 223 Labor
b. Five (5) calendar days in the case of appeals from
decisions of the DOLE regional Director under Art. 129
Labor Code
Calendar days, not working days: Saturdays,
Sundays, and legal holidays are included in
reckoning and computing the reglementary period
Exceptions to 10-day/5-day:




10th days or 5th day falling on a Saturday, Sunday or holiday,

in which case, the appeal may be filed in the next working
reliance on erroneous notice of decision as when the notice
expressly states working days and not calendar days
appeal from decisions of the Labor Arbiters in direct
contempt cases five (5) calendar days
filing of petition for extraordinary remedies from orders or
resolutions of Labor Arbiters or on third party claims ten
(10) calendar days
when NLRC exercises its power to correct, amend, or waive
any error, defect, or irregularity whether in substance or
form in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction, as
provided under Art. 218(c) of the Labor Code, in which case,
the late filing of the appeal is excused
when technical rules are disregarded under Art. 221
when there are some compelling reasons that justify the
allowance of the appeal despite its late filing such as when
it is granted in the interest of substantial justice

Some Principles on Reglementary Period:

1. It is mandatory and not mere technicality
2. The failure to appeal within the reglementary period
renders the judgment appealed from final and
executory by operation of law; consequently, the
prevailing party is entitled, as a matter of right, to a
writ of execution and the issuance thereof becomes a
ministerial duty which may be compelled through the
remedy of mandamus
3. The date of receipt of decisions, resolutions or orders
by the parties is of no moment. For purposes of
appeal, the reglementary period shall be counted from
receipt of such decisions, resolutions, or orders by the
counsel or representative of record.
4. Miscomputation of the reglementary period will not
forestall the finality of the judgment. It is in the
interest of everyone that the date when judgments
become final and executory should remain fixed and
5. Date of mailing by registered mail of the appeal
memorandum is the date of its filing.
6. Prohibited pleadings:
a. Motion for extension of time to perfect an
b. Motion for extension of time to file the
memorandum of appeal
c. Motion for extension of time to file appeal bond
2) Payment of appeal and legal research fee
Strict observance of the rule on appeal fee
Mandatory and jurisdictional


An appeal fee is perfected only when there is proof of

payment of the appeal fee. If not paid, the running of the
reglementary period for perfecting an appeal will not be
a. most persuasive and weighty reasons
b. to relieve a litigant from an injustice not
commensurate with his failure to comply with
the prescribed procedure
c. good faith of the defaulting party by
immediately paying within a reasonable time
from the time of the default
d. existence
e. merits of the case
f. cause not entirely attributable to the fault or
negligence of the party favored by the
suspension of the rules
g. lack of any showing that the review sought is
merely frivolous and dilatory
h. other party will not be unjustly prejudiced
i. fraud,
negligence without the appellants fault
j. peculiar, legal and equitable circumstances
attendant to each case
k. in the name of substantial justice and fair play
l. importance of the issues involved
m. exercise of sound discretion by the judge,
guided by all the attendant circumstances
3) Filing of Memorandum of Appeal
Requisites of a valid Memorandum of Appeal:
a. should be verified by the appellant himself in
accordance with the Rules of Court;
b. should be presented in three (3) legibly typewritten or
printed copies;
c. shall state the grounds relied upon and the arguments
in support thereof, including the relief prayed for;
d. shall contain a statement of the date the appellant
received the appealed decision, award or order; and
e. shall be accompanied by
proof of payment of the required appeal fee and
legal research fee
posting of a cash or surety bond (in case of
monetary awards); and
proof of service upon the other party
Some principles on Memorandum of Appeal:
a. Mere notice of appeal without complying with the
other requisites aforestated shall not stop the running
of the period for perfecting an appeal


b. Memorandum of appeal is not similar to motion for

c. Lack of verification in a memorandum of appeal is not
a fatal defect. It may easily be corrected by an oath
d. Supplemental appeal need not be verifies. Neither the
laws nor the rules require the verification of the
supplemental appeal. Verification is a formal, not
jurisdictional, requirement.
e. An appeal will be dismissed if signed only by an
unauthorized representative.
f. Only complainants who signed the memorandum of
appeal are deemed to have appealed the Labor
Arbiters decision.
g. Certification of non-forum shopping is no longer
provided in the 2011 NLRC Rules of Procedure. It is
only required in the initiatory complaint or petition
filed with the Labor Arbiter.
4) Proof of service to the other party
Failure to serve copy of the Memorandum of Appeal to adverse
party, not fatal. While it is required in all cases, the appellant
shall furnish a copy of a Memorandum of Appeal to the other
party, con-compliance herewith, however, will not be an obstacle
to the perfection of the appeal; nor will it amount to a
jurisdictional defect on the NLRCs taking cognizance thereof.
5) Posting of cash, property or surety bond, in case of
monetary awards
Rules on posting of bond have been liberally construed and
relaxed considering the substantial merits of the case and the
existence of exceptional circumstances justifying the same
Rule on reduction of appeal bond
GR: the appeal bond should be posted should be equivalent
to the monetary award of the Labor Arbiter. Its reduction is
neither provided for in the Labor Code nor in its
implementing rules.
Except: reduction of the bond allowed on meritorious grounds
Requisites: a Motion to Reduce Bond may be allowed
provided the ff conditions are complied with:
Motion should be filed within the reglementary
Motion should be based on meritorious grounds
Motion should be accompanied by a partial bond,
the amount of which would be reasonable in
relation to the monetary awards
When case meritorious:
o There was substantial compliance with the Rules
o Surrounding facts and circumstances constitute
meritorious grounds to reduce the bond


A liberal interpretation of the requirement of an appeal

bond would serve the desired objective of resolving
controversies on the merits
o The appellants, at the very least, exhibited their
willingness and/or good faith by posting a partial bond
during the reglementary period
Some Principles on reduction of Bond
Bond may be reduced when decision failed to specify the
exact amount of monetary award from which the amount of
the appeal bond is to be based.
Conversely, the reduction of the bond will not be warranted
not only when no meritorious ground is shown to justify the
same but when the appellant absolutely failed to comply with
the requirement of posting a bond, even if partial; or when
circumstances show the employers unwillingness to ensure
the satisfaction of its workers valid claims.
Monetary award running into millions is not justification to
reduce bond
Financial difficulties or financial incapacity is not sufficient
grounds to reduce bond.
The full amount of the monetary award should still be posted
within the reglementary period even of the appellant has
filed a motion to reduce bond.
Alternative remedy is to pay partial appeal bond while motion
to reduce bond is pending with the NLRC.
The partial bond must be posted within the reglementary
period. Late filing of the bond divests the NLRC of its
jurisdiction to entertain the appeal
Partial bond posted must not be inadequate


The NLRC is an administrative quasi-judicial body. It is an agency attached to
the DOLE solely for program and policy coordination only. It is in charge of
deciding labor cases through compulsory arbitration.
Composed of a Chairman and 23 members called Commissioners
Tripartite composition:
8 should be chosen from among the nominees of the workers
8 from the employees sector
Chairman and the 7 remaining members shall come from the
public sector, with the latter to be chosen preferably from
among the incumbent Labor Arbiters
Commission en banc
The Commission en banc does not sit to hear and decide cases. It has no
adjudicatory power. This function is reposed in the eight (8) divisions thereof.
The Commission sits only for the following purposes:


1) to promulgate rules and regulations governing the hearing and

disposition of cases before any of its division and regional branches
to formulate policies affecting its administration and operations
NLRCs 8 Divisions
The NLRC is divided into eight (8) divisions. Each division comprises of
3 members (1 from the public sector who shall act as its Presiding
Commissioner; 1 from workers sector and 1 from employers sector).
Of the eight (8) divisions, the First, Second, Third, Fourth, Fifth and
Sixth Divisions shall have exclusive territorial jurisdiction over
appealed cases coming from Luzon; Seventh Division, appealed cases
from the Visayas Region; and the Eight Division, appealed cases from
Mindanao including those from the ARMM. The various Divisions of the
Commission have exclusive appellate jurisdiction over cases within
their respective territorial jurisdictions.
However, the Commission sitting en banc may, on temporary or
emergency basis, allow cases within the jurisdiction of any division to
be heard and decided by any other division whose docket allows the
additional workload, provided that such transfer will not expose
litigants to unnecessary additional expenses.
Under its present legal set up, the Commission exercises adjudicatory
and all other powers, functions, and duties through its eight (8)
a. Exclusive original jurisdiction
1) Petition for injunction in ordinary labor disputes
- to enjoin or restrain any actual or threatened commission of any or
all prohibited or unlawful acts, or
- to require the performance of a particular act in any labor dispute
which, if not restrained or performed forthwith, may cause grave or
irreparable damage to any party
2) Petition for injunction in strikes or lockouts under Art. 264 Labor Code
3) Certified cases which refer to labor disputes causing or likely to cause a
strike or lockout in an industry indispensable to the national interest,
certified to it by the secretary of Labor and Employment for compulsory
arbitration by virtue of Art. 263(g) Labor Code
4) Petition to annul or modify the order or resolution (including those issued
during execution proceedings) of the Labor Code
b. Exclusive appellate jurisdiction
1) All cases decided by the Labor Arbiters if a claim does not fall within the
originals and exclusive jurisdiction of the Labor Arbiter, the NLRC cannot
have appellate jurisdiction thereover
2) Cases decided by the DOLE Regional Directors or hearing officers involving
money claims under Art. 129 of the Labor Code
3) Contempt cases decided by the Labor Arbiters




From the moment an employee is ordered reinstated by the Labor Arbiter
on the basis of the finding that his dismissal is illegal, up to the time that


an appellate tribunal like the NLRC, CA or SC, as the case may be,
REVERSES the said finding, the employee is generally entitled to his socalled reinstatement wages.
Doctrinal Rulings:
1) Roquero Doctrine
- Enunciates the rule that in cases where an employee is ordered
reinstated by the Labor Arbiter and the employer fails or refuses to
obey the reinstatement order but initiates an appeal, the employers
success in having the decision of the Labor Arbiters decision
reversed on appeal will not exculpate him from the liability to pay the
reinstatement wages of the employee reckoned and computed from
the time the employee was ordered reinstated by the Labor Arbiter
until the date of its reversal on appeal.
- Following Roquero, it is now the norm that even if the order of
reinstatement of the Labor Arbiter is reversed on appeal, it is
obligatory on the part of the employer to reinstate and pay the wages
of the dismissed employee during the period of appeal until its
reversal by the NLRC, or the CA, or the SC, as the case may be. If the
employee has been reinstated during the period of appeal and such
reinstatement order is subsequently reversed on appeal with finality,
the employee is not required to reimburse whatever salaries he has
received for he is entitled to such, more so if he actually rendered
services during the said period.
2) Genuino Doctrine
- The essence of this doctrine is that the employee who is
reinstated in the payroll, as distinguished from actual reinstatement,
should refund the salaries he received if the dismissal is finally found
legal on appeal. This doctrine however does not apply if the employee
was actually reinstated to his former position or not reinstated at all
pending appeal.
- In effect, the Genuino ruling qualified the earlier Roqero
doctrine on the issue whether the dismissed employee who is
reinstated in the payroll and not actually reinstated o his former
position has the obligation to refund what he has received as and by
way of salaries during his payroll reinstatement if and when his
dismissal is held valid and legal on appeal.
3) Garcia Doctrine
Modification of the Genuine Doctrine: the refund doctrine in
Genuino should no longer be observed it easily demonstrates how a
favorable decision by the Labor Arbiter could harm, more than help, a
dismissed employee. It is mirage of a stop-gap leading the employee to
a risky cliff of insolvency.
Modification of the Roquero doctrine: the Roquero Doctrine was
reaffirmed but with the modification that after the Labor Arbiters
decision is reversed by a higher tribunal, the employee may be barred
from collecting the accrued wages, if its shown that that the delay in
enforcing the reinstatement pending appeal was without fault on the
Two-Fold Test:


There must be actual delay or the fact that the order

of reinstatement pending appeal was not executed
prior to its reversal; and

The delay mist not be due to the employers

unjustified act or omission. If the delay is due to the
employers unjustified refusal, the employer may still
be required to pay the salaries notwithstanding the
reversal of the Labor Arbiters decision.
Subsequent cases after the Garcia Doctrine
1. College of Immaculate conception

2. Islriz Trading
3. Pfizer, Inc. vs Velasco
4. C. Alcantara & Sons, Inc.
To clarify, employees ordered reinstated by the Labor Arbiter are
entitled to accrued wages only from the time the employer
received a copy of the Labor Arbiters decision declaring the
employees termination illegal and ordering the reinstatement up to
the date of the decision of the appellate tribunal overturning
that of the Labor Arbiter. It is not accurate to say therefore that
such entitlement commences from the time the reinstatement order
was issued up to the date when the same was reversed by a higher
court without fear of refunding what he had received.
The manner of effecting the reinstatement and promptness of
compliance therewith by employer, immaterial (College of Immaculate
o Situation No. 1: If the Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of the
reinstatement, the employer did not immediately comply
with the directive, on appeal, the decision was reversed
and found that there was no illegal dismissal, it is ruled
that the employee is entitled to payment of his salaries
and allowances pending appeal
o Situation No. 2: If the Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of the
reinstatement, the employer complied with the directive,
on appeal, the decision was reversed and found that there
was no illegal dismissal, the ruling in no. 1 will still apply,
i.e., the employee is entitled to payment of his salaries
and allowances pending appeal
Thus, either way, the employee gets his salaries and
allowances pending appeal. The only difference lies as to the
time when the employee gets it.
Some Principles on Reinstatement Wages


Employer is not liable to pay any reinstatement backwages if reinstatement

is ordered NOT by the Labor Arbiter but by the NLCR on appeal and it was
not executed by writ and its finding of illegal dismissal is later reversed by
CA and/or SC
Payroll-reinstated employee is entitled not only to reinstatement wages but
also to other benefits during the period of payroll reinstatement until the
illegal dismissal case is reversed by a higher tribunal
Award of additional backwages and other benefits from the time the Labor
Arbiter ordered reinstatement until actual or payroll reinstatement is proper
and valid
Backwages include the period when the employee should have been
reinstated by order of Labor Arbiter
1. Appeal granted under Art. 223 Labor Code
2. Remedies under Art. 218 Labor Code
a. Administering of oaths
b. Summoning of parties to a controversy
c. Issuing subpoenas duces tecum and ad testificandum
d. Investigation a question, matter or controversy within it jurisdiction
e. Conduct own proceedings
f. Holding any person in direct or indirect contempt and impose
appropriate penalties therefore in accordance with law
g. Issuing TRO and prohibitory mandatory injunction
3. Additional Remedies:
h. Conciliation and mediation per Art. 221 Labor Code, NLRC Rules of
Procedure and RA 10396
i. Conduct of ocular inspection per Art. 219 Labor Code
j. Grant of extraordinary remedies per 2011 NLRC Rules of Procedure
Extraordinary Remedies:
power of the NLRC to grant extraordinary powers is newly
created remedy under Rule XII of the 2011 NLRC Rules of
Procedure. Since this is a newly minted remedy, there has
yet been no decision by the SC dwelling on its validity.
What is clear though is that the remedy is not equivalent
to nor a substitute for appeal.
a. if there is prima facie evidence of abuse on the part of
the Labor Arbiter
b. if serious errors in findings of facts are raised which, if
not corrected, would cause grave abuse or irreparable
damage or injury to the petitioner
c. if a party by fraud, accident, mistake, or excusable
negligence ha been prevented from taking an appeal
d. if made purely on questions of law
e. if the order or resolution will cause injustice if not
Initiation through verified petition:


To secure these extraordinary remedies, a party

aggrieved by any order or resolution of the Labor
Arbiter including those issued during execution
proceedings may file a verified petition to annul or
modify such order or resolution. The petition may be
accompanied by an application for the issuance of a
TRO and/or writ of preliminary or permanent injunction
to enjoin the Labor Arbiter, or any person acting under
his/her authority, to desist from enforcing the said
resolution or order.
The verified petition may be filed with the Commission
(NLRC) furnishing a copy thereof to the adverse party
not later than 10 calendar days from receipt of the
order or resolution of the Labor Arbiter
Requisites for validity of petition
a. accompanied by clear original or certified true copy
of the order or resolution assailed of
b. contain the arbitral docket number
c. state the material date showing the timeliness of
the petition
d. verified by the petitioner himself
e. be in the form of Memorandum (grounds relied
upon, arguments in support thereof and reliefs
prayed for)
f. be in 3 legibly printed copies
g. be accompanied by certificate of non forum
shopping, proof of service upon the other parties
and the Labor Arbiter who issued the order or
resolution assailed of and proof of payment of the
required fees
Petition constitutes exception to the rule that No appeal may be
instituted from Labor Arbiters order arising from execution
proceedings or incident thereof
Effect of filing petition:
The proceeding before the Labor Arbiter shall CONTINUE
unless restrained
In case of execution, the proceedings shall not be
suspended but no money collected or credit garnished
may be released or personal properties levied may be
sold by public auction within 15 calendar days from the
filing of the petition.
Issuance of TRO and writ of preliminary injunction
The Commission may issue a TRO ex parte effective
for a non-extendible period of 20 days from service on
the private respondent if it shall appear from the facts
shown by the verified application that great and
irreparable injury would result to the petitioner before
the petition can be resolved.
The Commission may issue a writ of preliminary
injunction based on any grounds provided for in


Section 3, Rule 58 of the Rules of Court for the

preservation of right of the parties pending resolution
of the petition. The writ shall be effective for a nonextendible period of 60 calendar days from service on
the private respondent
Effect: The issuance of the TRO and the writ of
preliminary injunction shall not suspend the
proceeding before the Labor Arbiter or stay the
implementation of the writ of execution but shall only
restrain or enjoin such particular acts as therein
decreed to be restrained or enjoined, unless otherwise
declared by the Commission.
Posting of a bond: In the issuance of TRO and the writ,
the Commission shall require the posting of a cash
bond in the amount of P50,000, or such higher amount
as may be determined by the Commission, to
recompense those enjoined for any loss, expenses or
damage issued by the improvident or erroneous
issuance of such order or injunction, including all
reasonable costs. The TRO or writ of preliminary
injunction shall become effective only upon the posting
of the required cash bond.
Resolution of the petition: dismissed or render judgment
Recovery from injunction bond amount of damages may be
recovered by the respondent from the injunction bond of the
petitioner shall be ascertained and awarded in the order finally
disposing of the issue on the application for injunction.
Certified labor disputes national interest cases certified by the DOLE
Secretary to the Commission for compulsory arbitration under Art 263(g) of the
Labor Code
Effects of Certification of Labor Disputes
1. on impounding strike or lockout automatically enjoined
2. on actual strike or lockout EEs immediately return to work; ERs resume
3. on cases already filed or maybe filed
4. on other pending cases
5. on which Division should take cognizance of the certified case in case
entity has several workplaces in different regions
Same effect of certification to the NLRC as in cases assumed directly by DOLE
Execution of Judgment in Certified Cases: it is the NLRC, and not the DOLE
Secretary, which has the authority to cause the execution of the judgment
rendered therein.



The Bureau of Labor Relations
Med-Arbiter or Mediator-Arbiter
Inter Union Disputes

Intra Union Disputes

Other Related Labor Disputes

a. Mediator-Arbiter: original and exclusive
Inter union disputes (Representation/Certification Election cases)

appealable directly to the DOLE Secretary

Rule on appeal in unorganized establishments
Rule on appeal in organized establishments

Intra union Disputes appealable to BLR Director in his appellate

jurisdiction which maybe elevated to the CA by way
of Rule 65 petition for certiorari

Other related labor relations disputes

appealable to BLR Director in his appellate
jurisdiction which maybe elevated to the CA by way
of Rule 65 petition for certiorari
Contempt Cases
Except: cancellation of union registration cases (lodged to DOLE
Regional Directors)
b. DOLE Regional Director: original and exclusive:
appealable to BLR Director in his appellate
jurisdiction which maybe elevated to the CA by way
of Rule 65 petition for certiorari
except when the BLR Director inhibited himself
from taking cognizance of the appeal from the
DOLE Regional Director because he was a former


counsel of respondent, or in the absence of the BLR

Director, the case shall be elevated to the DOLE
Secretary and may legally assume jurisdiction
Denial of application for union registration and Petition for
cancellation of registration of independent unions, local
chapters and workers associations
Petition for deregistration of CBAs / denial of registration of CBSs
Denial of registration of Single enterprise CBAs
Request for examination of books of accounts of independent
unions, local chapters and workers associations

c. BLR Director:
appealable to the DOLE Secretary in his appellate
jurisdiction which maybe elevated to the CA by way
of Rule 65 petition for certiorari
Complaints and petitions involving registration and
cancellation of registration of federations, national
unions, industry unions, trade union centers and their
local chapters, affiliates and member organizations
Denial of registration of multi-employer CBAs
Request for examination of books of accounts of
federations, national unions, industry unions, trade
union centers and their local chapters, affiliates and
member organizations
Intra union disputes involving federations, national
unions, industry unions, trade union centers and their
local chapters, affiliates and member organizations
Contempt cases
All decisions of Med-Arbiters in
o intra union disputes and
o other related labor relations disputes
o inter union disputes lodged with the DOLE Secretary
All decisions originating from the DOLE Regional Directors in
cases falling under their original and exclusive jurisdictions
Administrative functions of the BLRs and LRDs
1. Registration of labor unions
2. Keeping of registry of labor unions
3. Maintenance and custody of the files of CBAs and other related
4. Records of settlement of labor disputes
5. Copies of orders and decisions of Voluntary Arbitrators


1. Nature of Proceedings
NCMB is not a quasi-judicial agency
Read p. 832
Not being a quasi-judicial agency, NCMBs rulings cannot be elevated to, and
cognizable by, the CA
2. Conciliation vs. Mediation
Read p. 834
3. Preventive Mediation
The DOLE has 16 Regional offices nationwide each one of them is headed by
a Regional Director.
The DOLE Regional Directors are the duly authorized representatives of the
DOLE Secretary which grants to them both visitorial and enforcement powers.
1. Jurisdiction
Exclusive and Original:
a. Labor standard cases under Art. 128
b. Small money claims cases arising from labor standards violations in the
amount not exceeding Php5,000.00 and not accompanied with a claim
for reinstatement under Art. 129
c. Occupational safety and health violations
d. Registration of unions and cancellation thereof, cases filed against
unions and other labor relations related cases
e. Complaints against private recruitment and placement agencies for
local employment
f. Cases submitted to them for voluntary arbitration in their capacity as
ex-officio Voluntary Arbitrators
Powers: The DOLE Secretary, being the head of the DOLE, is possessed of a
number of powers, some of which are as follows:
1. Visitorial and enforcement powers
3 Kinds of Power:
a. Visitorial power original and excusive jurisdiction of DOLE
Regional Directors
b. Enforcement power - original and excusive jurisdiction of DOLE
Regional Directors


c. Appellate power or power of review appellate power of DOLE

Secretary in respect to any decision, award or order issued by
the DOLE Regional Directors
Nature: Quasi judicial in nature
Subject: Inspection of employer-establishment

Power to suspend/effects of termination

Assumption of jurisdiction
Appellate jurisdiction
Voluntary arbitration powers