You are on page 1of 10

JURISDICTION Jurisdiction of the ordinary courts.

There is here a
simple action for damages for tortuous acts
CBA; Implementation & Interpretation allegedly committed by the defendant. Such
being the case, the governing statute is the Civil
How are cases arising from the Interpretation or Code and not the Labor Code. (Medina v. Castro-
implementation of collective Bartolome, 116 SCRA 597)
bargaining agreements handled and
disposed? 2. According to the Labor Code (in Article 217
(a) 4), the Labor Arbiter has original and
Through the grievance machinery and if not exclusive jurisdiction to hear and decide,
resolved by the grievance machinery, through among others, claims for actual, moral,
voluntary arbitration. exemplary and other forms of damages arising
from the employer- employee relations.
Bureau of Labor Relations; Compromise
Agreement The claim for damages in the case in question
arose from the fact that the President of the
May the NLRC or the courts take jurisdictional Company shouted invectives at the employee in
cognizance over compromise the presence of employees and visitors for a
agreements/settlements involving labor matters? minor infraction she committed. If the infraction
has something to do with her work, then, the
No, any compromise agreement, including those claim for damages could be considered as
involving labor standards laws, voluntary agreed arising from employer-employee relations. Thus,
upon by the parties with the assistance of the the claim is under the exclusive jurisdiction of
Bureau or the regional office of the Department of the Labor Arbiter.
labor, shall be final and bidding upon the parties.
The national Labor Relations Commission or any Dismissal; Intl Agency
court shall not assume jurisdiction over issues
involved therein except in case of non- 1. The defense that I will put up will be to claim
compliance thereof or if there is prima facie that being an international agency, the ILO
evidence that the settlement was obtained enjoys immunity, namely functional
through fraud, misrepresentation, or coercion independence and freedom from control of the
(Art. 227, Labor Code). state in whose territory its office is located and
is thus beyond the jurisdiction of the Labor
Damages; Absence of E-E Arbiter. (Southeast Asian Fisheries Development
Relationship Center - Aqua Culture Department, et al vs.
National Labor Relations Commission, et al G.R
The damage suit filed by the manager against No, 86773, 14 February 1992)
Pablo does not arise from employer-employee 2. If I were the Labor Arbiter. I will grant the
relationship. While the case involves an employer motion to dismiss. The ILO being an International
and his employee, it is not the employer- agency, the same is beyond the jurisdiction of
employee relationship between the two that gives the Labor Arbiter and immune from the legal
rise to the damage suit. Instead, it is based solely writs and processes of the administrative
on an alleged tort which could give rise to a agencies of the country, where it is found, for
damage suit under the Civil Code. Thus, the the reason that the subjection of such an
Labor Arbiter has no jurisdiction over the damage organization to the authority of the local
suit. agencies would afford a convenient medium
through which the host government may
Damages; Not arising from the E-E interfere in its operations or even influence or
Relations control its policies and decisions, and besides,
such subjection to local jurisdiction would
1. It is a regular court and not a Labor Arbiter that Impair the capacity of such body to impartially
has jurisdiction on the suit for damages.The discharge its responsibilities.
damages are not arising from the employer- Intra-corporate Matters/Officers
employee relations which would have placed the
suit under the jurisdiction of a Labor Arbiter. The The dismissal of an Executive Vice-president of a
suit arises from the fact that the President of the Corporation, who is a corporate officer, by the
company shouted invectives at the employee in Board of Directors of the corporation is not a
the presence of employees and visitors. Her termination dispute under the Jurisdiction of a
complaint for damages is against an officer of the Labor Arbiter. It is an intra-corporate dispute that
Company based on slanderous language is under the jurisdiction of the Securities and
allegedly made by the latter. This falls under the Exchange Commission.
2. By perfecting an appeal, through the filing an
Intra-corporate Matters/Officers Appeal Memorandum within 10 days from receipt
of such decision, verified by the appellant and
The election of as Vice President of New Wave accompanied by his Non-Forum Certification,
Beauty Shop, Inc, made him a corporate officer. proof of service on the other party, proof of
payment of the appeal fee and cash or surety
His subsequent dismissal as such corporate bond in the amount equivalent to the monetary
officer is considered an intra-corporate matter. award of the judgment appeal from bond issued
Thus, the dismissal is not a case of a termination by a reputable bonding company duly accredited
dispute which is under the Jurisdiction of a by the Commission in the amount equivalent to
Regional Branch of the NLRC. Instead, it is under the m onetary award in the judgment appealed
the Jurisdiction of the Securities and Exchange from (Art. 223, Labor Code).
Commission, it having jurisdiction over intra-
corporate matters. 3. By perfecting an appeal, through the filing an
Appeal Memorandum within 10 days from receipt
Labor Arbiter of such decision, verified by the appellant and
accompanied by his Non-Forum Certification,
Labor Arbiters have original and exclusive proof of service on the other party, proof of
jurisdiction over: payment of the appeal fee and cash or surety
1. unfair labor practices; bond in the amount equivalent to the monetary
2. termination disputes; award of the judgment appeal from
3. cases accompanied with a claim for Reinstatement is immediately executor (Art. 223,
reinstatement, and involving wages, rates Labor Code).
of pay, hours of work, and other terms and
conditions of employment;
4. claims for actual, moral, exemplary and Labor Arbiter; Compromise Agreement
other forms of damages arising from
employer-employee relations: May a decision of the Labor Arbiter which has
5. cases arising from any violation of Article become final and executory be novated through a
264 of the Labor Code, including questions compromise agreement of the parties?
involving the legality of strikes and lockout;
and 1. Yes, although Article 221 of the Labor Code
6. except claims of Employees Compensation, requires the Labor Arbiter to exert all efforts to
Social Security. Medicare and maternity amicably settle the case before him on or
benefits, all other claims arising from before the first hearing, it must be noted that
employer-employee relations including neither the Labor Code nor its implementing rule
those persons in domestic or household as well as the NLRC Rules prohibit the amicable
service, Involving an amount exceeding five settlement of cases during the pendency of the
thousand pesos (P5,000 00) regardless of proceeding or after a judgment is issued
whether accompanied with a claim for thereupon.
reinstatement.
The established rule is that the compromise
Labor Arbiter; Appeals agreement or amicable settlement may still be
made even after the judgment has become final
Procedurally, how do you stay a decision, award and executor. Settlement of case is encourage
or order of the Labor Arbiter? abs authorized by law. Article 2040 of the Civil
Code impliedly authorizes this. It is even
1. Decisions, awards, or orders of the Labor encourage by express provision of law.
Arbiter may be stayed by filing an appeal to the
Commission by any or both parties within ten (10) 2. Yes, provided that the same is not
calendar days from receipt of such decisions, unconscionable, and the agreement was
awards, or orders.In case of appeal of on approved by the Labor Arbiter, the NLRC or the
judgment involving a monetary award, it may Court of Appeals, before whom the case is
only be stayed upon the posting of a cash or pending.
surety bond issued by a reputable bonding
company duly accredited by the Commission in 3. Yes, provided that the new agreement is not
the amount equivalent to the monetary award in tainted with fraud duress or undue influence.
the judgment appealed from (Art. 223, Labor
Code). Labor Arbiter; Execution Order; Appeal
(2007)
Cite two instances when an order of execution Labor Arbiter; Labor Disputes; Barangay
may be appealed Lupong Tagapamayapa

1. An Order of Execution may be appealed: 1. Requiring conciliation of labor dispute before


the Barangay Lupon Tagapamayapa would defeat
a. Where the Order of Execution varies or goes the salutary purposes of the law. Instead of
beyond the terms of the judgment it seeks to simplifying labor proceedings designed at
enforce or the terms of the judgment are expeditious settlement or referral to the proper
ambiguous (DBP v. Union Bank, 419 SCRA 131 courts or office to decide it finally, the conciliation
[2004]); of the issues before the Barangay Lupong
Tagapamayapa would only duplicate the
b. Where the implementation of the Order was conciliation proceedings and would unduly delay
irregular (Metrobank v. C.A. 356 SCRA 563 the disposition of labor cases (Montoya v. Escayo,
[2001]). 171 SCRA 446 [1989]).

Or; a. When its execution becomes impossible or 2. Under Article 217 of the Labor Code, the Labor
unjust, it may be modified or altered on appeal or Arbiter exercises original and exclusive
harmonize the same with justice and the facts jurisdiction to hear and decide cases involving all
(Torres v. NLRC, 339 SCRA 311 [2001]). workers, whether agricultural or non-agricultural.

b. Supervening events may warrant modification 3. P.D. 1508 does not apply to labor dispute
in the execution of the judgment, as when because labor cases have their own grievance
reinstatement is no longer possible because the and mediation processes.
position was abolished as a cost-cutting measure
due to losses (Abalos v. Philex Mining Corp., 393 Labor Arbiter; Money Claims (2009)
SCRA 134 [2000]).
1. The Labor Arbiter has jurisdiction. Section 10,
R.A. No. 8042, reads:

Money Claims. Notwithstanding any provision


Labor Arbiter; Execution, Orders or Awards of law to the contrary, the Labor Arbiters of the
National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) shall
How do you execute a labor judgment which, on have the original and exclusive jurisdiction to
appeal, had become final and executory? Discuss hear and decide, within ninety (90) calendar days
fully. after the filing of the complaint, the claims arising
out of an employer employee relationship or by
Execution shall issue upon an order, resolution or virtue of any law or contract involving Filipino
decision that finally disposes of the action or workers for overseas deployment including claims
proceedings after the counsel of record and the for actual, moral, exemplary and other forms of
parties shall have been furnished with copies of damages.
the decision in accordance with these Rules but
only after the expiration of the period of appeal if 2. The Labor Arbiter has no jurisdiction over the
no appeal has been duly perfected. case. The failure to deploy a worker within the
prescribed period without valid reason is a
The Labor Arbiter, the Regional Director, or his recruitment violation under the jurisdiction of the
duly authorized hearing officer of origin shall, POEA.
motu proprio or upon motion of any interested
party, issue a writ of execution on a judgment Labor Arbiter; Reinstatement Pending
only within five (5) years from the date it Appeal
becomes final and executory, so requiring the
sheriff or duly deputized officer to execute the 1. The posting of the bond of the employer does
same. No motion for execution shall be not have the effect of staying the execution of the
entertained nor a writ be issued unless the labor reinstatement aspect of the decision of the Labor
Arbiter is in possession of the records of the case Arbiter (Pioneer Texturizing Corp. v. NLRC,280
which shall include an entry of judgment in case SCRA 806 [1997]).
of appeal except hat, as provided for in Section
10 Rule VI, and in those cases where partial 2. Art. 223. Appeal xxx In any event, the
execution is allowed by law, the Labor Arbiter decision of the Labor Arbiter reinstating a
shall restrain duplicate original copies thereof for dismissed or separated employee, insofar as the
the purpose of its immediate enforcement. reinstatement aspect is concerned shall be
immediately executor, even pending appeal and
the posting of a bond. Labor Arbiter; Voluntary Arbitration

Labor Arbiter; ULP; Damages and Reliefs Can a dispute falling within the exclusive
jurisdiction of the Labor Arbiter be submitted to
Article 247 of the Code, the civil aspects of all voluntary arbitration? Why or why not?
cases involving unfair labor practices, which may
include claims for damages and other affirmative Yes, provided that the parties to the dispute
relief, shall be under the jurisdiction of the labor falling within the exclusive jurisdiction of the
arbiters. (National Union of Labor Arbiter states in unequivocal language that
they conform to the submission of said dispute to
Bank Employees v. Lazaro, G.R. No. 56431, the voluntary arbitration (Vivero v. CA, G.R. No .
January 19, 1988). Besides, what the parties have 138938, October 24, 2000).
is a labor dispute as defined in Article 212 (I) of
the LaborCode regardless of whether the
disputants stand in the proximate relation of
employer and employee.

Being so, the RTC is prohibited by Art. 254 of the


Code from excercising jurisdiction over the case.

Labor Arbiter; Appeals Development Corporation vs. Court of


Appeals, G.R. No. 112139. January 31, 2000, the
1. The NLRC should dismiss the appeal outright Supreme Court, ruled:
because the same was filed beyond the "It is well settled in law and jurisprudence
reglementary period of appeal. Article 223 of the that where NO employer-employee
Labor Code reads: relationship exists between the parties
"Decisions, awards, or orders of the and no issue is involved which may be
Labor Arbiter are final and executory resolved by reference to the Labor Code,
unless appealed to the Commission by other labor statutes or any collective
any or both parties within ten (10) bargaining agreement, it is the Regional
calendar days from, receipt of such Trial Court that has jurisdiction."
decisions, awards, or orders."
Med-arbiter
2. The NLRC could dismiss outright the appeal
for being filed out of time. But if there are good The complaint will not prosper before the Labor
reasons that may justifiably explain why there Arbiter because there is here an intra-union
was a delay in the filing of the appeal, conflict which is under the Jurisdiction of the Med-
substantial justice may be the basis for the NLRC Arbiter. (See Art, 226 and Rule V of Book V of the
to take cognizance of the appeal. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Labor
Code).
Labor Dispute ( 2001)
DOLE Regional Director; Visitorial and
1. In the case of Delta Ventures Resources vs. Enforcement Power; Compliance Order
Hon. Fernando P. Labato, G.R. No. 118216, March
9, 2000, the Supreme Court ruled that the 1. The Regional Director exercises only visitorial
regular courts have no jurisdiction to act on and enforcement power over the labor standard
labor cases or various incidents arising cases, and the power to adjudicate uncontested
therefrom, including the execution of decisions, money claims of employees. The Regional
awards or orders. Director has no power to rule on SDSs 5-month
term policy.
2. The action before the Regional Trial Court is
tenable if said action is limited to the filing of a 2. The Secretary of Labor and Employment or his
damage suit against the Labor Arbiter because duly authorized representatives has the power to
there exists no employer-employee relationship issue compliance orders to give effect to the
between "B" and the Labor Arbiter, and there is labor standards based on the findings of labor
no labor dispute between them. In Agricultural
employment and enforcement officers or 4. power to issue a labor injunction.
industrial safety engineers
made during inspection. The Secretary ot his duly Natl Labor Relations Commission
authorized representatives may issue writs of
execution to the appropriate authority for the 1. The Supreme Court, in many cases, has ruled
enforcement of their orders (Art. 128, Labor that decisions made by the NLRC may be based
Code; V.L. Enterprises and/or Visitacion v. CA, G.R. on position papers. In the question, it is stated
No. 167512, March 12, 2007). that the parties agreed to submit the case for
resolution after the submission of position
papers and evidence. Given this fact, the striker-
DOLE Regional Director; Visitorial and members of B cannot now complain that they
Enforcement Power; Money Claims (2009) were denied due process. They are in estoppel.
After voluntarily submitting a case and
The visitorial and enforcement power of the DOLE encountering an adverse decision on the merits,
Regional Director to order and enforce it is too late for the loser to question the
compliance with labor standards laws can be jurisdiction or power of the court. A party cannot
exercised even when the individual claims adopt a posture of double dealing. (Marquez vs.
exceeds P5,000.00 the authority under Article Secretary of Labor, 16 March 1989).
128 may be exercised regardless of the monetary
value involved. Under Article 129, however the 2. In CMP Federal Security Agency vs. NLRC, G.R.
authority is only for claims not exceeding No. 125298, February 11, 1999, the Supreme
P5,000.00 per claimant. Court ruled:
"The standard of due process that must be
Money Claims; Reinstatement met in administrative tribunals allows a
certain degree of latitude as long as fairness
Art. 128 is not applicable because the case did is not ignored. Hence, it is not legally
not arise as a result of the exercise of visitorial objectionable for being violative of due
and enforcement powers by the Regional process, for the labor arbiter to resolve a case
Director, as the duly authorized representative based solely on the position papers, affidavits
of the Secretary of Labor and Employment. or documentary evidence submitted by the
Instead, the case is a simple money claim under parties. The affidavits of witnesses in such
Art. 129, which could be under the jurisdiction of case may take the place of direct testimony."
the Regional Director if the claim does not Natl Labor Relations Commission
exceed P5,000.
But the claim exceeds P5,000.00. Thus, it is the In Barles vs. Bitonio, G.R. No. 120220, June 16,
Labor Arbiter who has jurisdiction under Art. 1999, the Supreme Court ruled:
217(a) of the Labor Code. 'Appellate authority over decisions of the
Regional Director involving examination of
It is the Labor Arbiter that has jurisdiction. It is union accounts is expressly conferred on the
true that the money claim no longer exceeds BLR under the Rule of Procedure on
P5,000. But there is a claim for reinstatement. Mediation- Arbitration.
Thus, this claim is under the jurisdiction of a xxx
Labor Arbiter, per Art. 129 of the Labor Code. Section 4. Jurisdiction of the Bureau (b)
The Bureau shall exercise appellate
Natl Labor Relations Commission jurisdiction over all cases originating from
the Regional Director involving ....
Jurisdiction of the NLRC: Complaints for examination of union books
1. exclusive appellate jurisdiction over all of accounts.
cases decided by Labor Arbiter;
2. exclusive appellate jurisdiction over all The language of the law is categorical. Any
cases decided by Regional Directors or additional explanation on the matter is
hearing officers involving the recovery of superflous."
wages and other monetary claims and
benefits arising from employer-employee Natl Labor Relations Commissions
relations where the aggregate money claim
of each employee or househelper does not 1. Art. 223 of the Labor Code reads:
exceed five thousand pesos (P5,000.00); "In case of a judgment involving a monetary
3. original Jurisdiction to act as a compulsory award, an appeal by the employer may be
arbitration body over labor disputes perfected only upon the posting of cash or
certified to NLRC by the Secretary of Labor surety bond... In the amount equivalent to
and Employment; and the monetary award in the judgment
appealed from." NO. Art. 22 of the Labor Code provides that it
shall be mandatory for all Filipino workers abroad
In ABA vs. NLRC, G.R. No. 122627. July 18, 1999, to remit a portion of their foreign exchange
the Supreme Court ruled: earnings to their families, dependents, and/or
"An appeal bond is necessary......the appeal beneficiaries in accordance with the rules and
may be perfected only upon the posting of regulations prescribed by the Secretary of Labor
cash or surety bond issued by a reputable and Employment. Executive Order No. 857
bonding company duly accredited by the prescribes the percentage of foreign exchange
Commission in the amount equivalent to the remittance from 50% to 80% of the basic salary,
monetary award in the judgment appealed depending on the worker's kind of job.
from."
Hence, an overseas worker cannot refuse to remit
2. It is true that the Labor Code (in Art. 223) his earnings. Otherwise, he shall be suspended or
provides that appeal is perfected only upon the excluded from the list of eligible workers for
posting of a cash or surety bond. But if overseas employment and in cases of subsequent
Company A filed a motion for the reduction of violations; he shall be repatriated at his own
the bond, and said motion was only acted upon expense or at the expense of his employer as the
after the reglementary period, then, the NLRC, case may be.
in the interest of substantial justice, may still
take cognizance of the appeal. Recovery of Wages

Natl Labor Relations Commission The provisions of P.D. No. 1508 requiring the
submission of disputes before the Barangay
1. The review power of the NLRC in perfected Lupong Tagapayapa prior to their filing with the
appeals is limited only to those issues raised on court or other government offices are not
appeal. Hence, it is grave abuse of discretion for applicable to labor cases.
the NLRC to resolve issues not raised on appeal
(United Placement International v. NLRC, 221 Article 129 of the Labor Code empowers the
SCRA 445 [1993]). Regional Director to hear and decide any matter
involving the recovery of wages and other
2. In the exercise of its jurisdiction, the NLRC is monetary claims and benefits owing to an
empowered to determine even the issues not employee or person employed in domestic or
raised on appeal in order to fully settle the issues household service, provided that the money
surrounding the case [See: Art. 218(e), now Art. claim does not exceed P5.OOO.OO.
224(e)]. (Montoya vs .Escayo, G.R. Nos, 82211-12,
March 21. 1989)
Overseas Employment; Claim; Torts
Remedies; illegal dismissal
In Tolosa v. NLRC, (G.R. 149578, April 10,2003),
the Supreme Court held that what we have in this An employee can file a Motion for
case is a claim arising from tort or quasi-delict. In Reconsideration with the NLRC after ten (10)
such a situation, the seaman who died on calendar days from receipt of the decision.
November 18, 1992, cannot sue before the Labor
Arbiter. But this will not apply now, as under Sec. If the NLRC denies the Motion for
10, R.A. 8042, [effective June 7, 1995], what we Reconsideration, BOI can file a petition for
have is a claim "arising out of an employer- certiorari with the Court of Appeals under Rule
employee relationship or by virtue of any law or 65 of the Rules of Court since the decision of the
contract involving Filipino workers for overseas NLRC is final and executory.
deployment including claims for actual, moral,
exemplary and other forms of damages", The same remedy is available to a party to the
cognizable by the "Labor Arbiters of the National case, pursuant to the Labor Code (Article 223)
Labor Relations Commission" (NLRC) who have and the Rules of Court (Rule 65). If one did not
the original and exclusive jurisdiction thereon. appeal, he cannot avail of the remedy.
Overseas Employment; Mandatory
Remittance; Foreign Exchange Secretary of Labor; Authority

Can an overseas worker refuse to remit his The Secretary of Labor and Employment has the
earnings to his dependents and deposit the same authority to approve a policy dealing with the
in the country where he works to gain more retirement of flight attendants of airlines.
interests?
Article 132 (d) of the Labor Code provides that
the Secretary of Labor and Employment shall the dispute and decide it or certify it to the NLRC
establish standards that will ensure the safety for compulsory arbitration (Art. 263[g], Labor
and health of women employees, including the Code). This extraordinary authority given to the
authority to determine appropriate minimum age Secretary of Labor is aimed at arriving at a
and other standards for retirement or termination peaceful and speedy solution to labor disputes,
in special occupations such as those of flight without jeopardizing national interests (Steel
attendants and the like. Corporation v. SCP Employees Union, 551 SCRA
CAVEAT: 594 [2008]). Such assumption shall have the
It could be argued that Article 132 (d) effect of automatic enjoining an impending strike
may be unconstitutional because this or lockout, or an order directing immediate return
may constitute discrimination in violation to work and resume operations, if a strike
of the spirit of Section 14 of Article XIII already took place, and for the employer to re-
of the Constitution which provides that admit all employees under the same terms and
the State shall protect working women by conditions prevailing before the strike or lockout
providing safe and healthful working (Art. 263(g), Labor Code; Sec. 15, Rule XXII, Dept.
conditions, taking into account their Order No. 40-G-03).
maternal functions, and such facilities
and opportunities that will enhance their Sec. of Labor; Assumption over Labor
welfare and enable them to realize their Dispute (2010)
full potential in the service of the nation.
The Secretary of Labors order will be inconsistent
Secretary of Labor; Dismissal of Employees with the established policy of the State of
enjoining the parties from performing acts that
The Secretary of Labor and Employment has the undermine the underlying principles embodied in
authority to enjoin an employer from terminating Article 263(g) of the Labor Code.
the employment of workers.
In this case, excepting the employees terminated
The Labor Code (in Article 377(b) provides that due to redundancy form those who are required
the Secretary of Labor and Employment may to return-to-work, which was the very labor
suspend the effectivity of the termination of dispute that sparked the union to strike, the
workers pending the resolution of a labor dispute Secretary of Labor comes short of his duty under
in the event of a prima facie finding of an Article 263(g) to maintain status quo or the terms
appropriate official of the Department of Labor and conditions prevailing before the strike. In
and Employment before whom such dispute is fact, the Secretary could be accused of disposing
pending that the termination may cause a of the parties labor dispute without the benefit of
serious labor dispute or is in implementation of a a hearing, in clear derogation of due process of
mass lay off. law.
Sec. of Labor; Assumption over Labor
Sec. of Labor; Assumption over Labor Dispute
Dispute
There was a defiance of the assumption order of
The power of the Secretary of Labor under Article the Secretary of Labor by the union. The
263(g) is plenary. He can rule on all issues, assumption order is immediately executory.
questions or controversies arising from the labor Following an assumption order by the strikers is
dispute, including the legality of the strike, even not a matter of option or voluntarinesss but of
those over which the Labor Arbiter has exclusive obligation on their part (Marcopper Mining
jurisdiction (Bangong Pagkkaisa ng mga Corporation v. Brillantes, G.R. No. 119381, March
Manggagawa sa Triumph International v. 11, 1996; Art. 264[a], Labor Code).
Secretary, G.N. No. 167401 and 167407, July 5,
2010). Sec. of Labor; Assumption over Labor
Dispute; National Interest
Sec. of Labor; Assumption over Labor
Dispute Although the Secretary of Labor has wide
discretion in exercising jurisdiction over labor
The Secretary of Labor and Employment has dispute, he may not enjoin the strike because
plenary power to assume jurisdiction under SDSs is not indispensable to the national interest
Article 263(g) of the Labor Code. When in his (Art. 263[g], Labor Code).
opinion, there exists a labor dispute causing or
likely to cause a strike or lockout in an industry Voluntary Arbitrator
indispensable to the national interest, the
Secretary of Labor may assume jurisdiction over State the cases when a labor dispute would fall
under the Jurisdiction of voluntary arbitrators or personnel policies which were initially processed
panel of voluntary arbitrators. at the various steps of the plant-level Grievance
Procedure under the parties collective bargaining
A labor dispute falls under the jurisdiction of a agreements, fall within the original and exclusive
voluntary arbitrator or a panel of voluntary jurisdiction of the voluntary arbitrator pursuant to
arbitrator if a labor disputes arises from an Article 217 (c) of the Labor Code.
unresolved grievance which in turn arises from
the interpretation or implementation of a 2. The Regional Trial Court has jurisdiction to hear
Collective Bargaining Agreement or of company and decide the prohibitory injunction case filed by
personnel policies. [Art. 261) Union X against Company C to enjoin the latter
from implementing the memorandum-policy
Upon agreement of parties, a voluntary against use of cell phones in the factory. What is
arbitrator or panel of voluntary arbitrators may at issue in Union Xs challenge against the
also hear and decide all other labor disputes validity and constitutionality of the cell phone ban
including unfair labor practices and bargaining being implemented by Company C. the issue,
deadlock. (Art. 262) therefore, does not involve the interpretation of
the memorandum-policy, but its intrinsic validity
Voluntary Arbitrator (Haliguefla v. PAL, 602 SCRA 297 [2009]).

1. A voluntary arbitrator chosen under the Voluntary Arbitrator; Conciliation;


Grievance Machinery of a CBA can exercise Mediation; Arbitration
jurisdiction not only on disputes involving
interpretation/implementation of a CBA and/or There is a DOLE official called a
company rules, personnel policies (Art. 261,
Labor Code) but also, upon agreement of the Conciliator Mediator. He is an officer of the
parties, "all other labor disputes including unfair NCMB whose principal function is to assist in the
labor practice' (Art. 262, Labor Code). As no settlement and disposition of labor
objection was raised by any of the parties when management disputes through conciliation and
'the dispute was referred to a voluntary preventive mediation. However, he does not
arbitrator who later ruled on the issues raised by promulgate decisions that settle controversies
the parties", it follows that what we have is about rights, which are demandable and
voluntary arbitration agreed upon by the parties. enforceable. The latter is called arbitration and is
His decision is binding upon the parties and may the function of a labor arbiter or a voluntary
be enforced through any of the sheriffs, arbitrator.
including those of the NLRC, he may deputize. or;

2. The award of voluntary arbitrators acting CONCILIATION is the process of dispute


within the scope of their authority determines the management whereby parties in dispute are
rights of the parties, and their decisions have the brought together for the purpose of: (1) amicably
same legal effects as a judgment of the Court. settling the case upon a fair compromise; (2)
Such decisions on matters of fact or law are determining the real parties in interest; (3)
conclusive, and all matters in the award are defining and simplifying the issues in the case;
thenceforth res judicata on the theory that the (4) entering into admissions or stipulations of
matter has been adjudged by the tribunal which facts; and (5) threshing out all other preliminary
the parties have agreed to make final as tribunal matters
of last resort. [Volkschel Labor Union v. NLRC. 98
SCRA 314 (1980). (Section 3, Rule V, 2005 NLRC Rules of
Procedure). In resolving labor disputes, this
comes before arbitration, as a mandatory
process, pursuant to the State policy of
promoting and emphasizing conciliation as modes
of settling labor disputes (Art. 211 (A)(a), Labor
Code).

MEDIATION is a voluntary process of settling


Voluntary Arbitrators disputes whereby the parties elect a mediator to
facilitate the communication and negotiation
1. Termination cases arising in or resulting from between the parties in dispute for the purpose of
the interpretation and implementation of the assisting them in reaching a compromise. (Sec.
collective bargaining agreements, and 3(q), Rep. Act No. 9285 or the Alternative Dispute
interpretation and enforcement of company Resolution Law).
respected if the ends are to be achieved (Liberal
ARBITRATION is a system of dispute settlement Labor Union v. Phil. Can Co., G.R. No. L-4834,
that may be compulsory or voluntary, whereby March 28, 1952, cited in San Miguel Corporation
the parties are compelled by the government, or v, NLRC, G.R. No. 99266, March 02, 1999). Hence,
agree to submit their dispute before an arbiter, to submit a dispute falling within the jurisdiction
with the intention to accept the resolution of said of a voluntary arbitration to compulsory
arbiter over the dispute as final and binding on arbitration would be to trifle faith the express
them. (Luzon Development Bank v. Association of mandate of the law.
Luzon Development Employees, 249 SCRA 162 Voluntary Arbitrator
[1995]).
1. The decisions or awards of the Voluntary
Or; in this jurisdiction, compulsory arbitration in Arbitrator are not appealable because according
labor disputes are submitted to a labor arbiter, to Article 262-A of the Labor Code, they are final
whose powers and functions are clearly defined an executor after 10 calendar days from receipt
under Article 217(a) of the Labor Code; whereas of the copy of the award or decision by the
in voluntary arbitration, the powers and functions parties.
of the voluntary arbitrator or panel of voluntary
arbitrators elected to resolve the parties dispute But said award or decision can be brought to the
involve the interpretation and implementation of Supreme Court on certiorari on the ground that
the parties collective bargaining agreement, the Voluntary Arbitrator committed grave abuse
pursuant to Articles 260-262 of the Labor Code. of discretion amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction. The Supreme Court has taken
cognizance of petitions questioning decision of
Voluntary Arbitrator; Labor Disputes; Voluntary Arbitrator where want of jurisdiction,
Voluntary Arbitration grave abuse of discretion, violation of due
process, denial of substantial justice and
Disputes that may be subject of voluntary erroneous interpretation of the law were brought
arbitration are: to its attention.

1. Distortion of the wage structure within an Or; If his award has not yet become final and
executor within the 10 day period from receipt of
establishment arising from any prescribed wage
the copy of the award by the parties, the
increase because of a law or wage order which Voluntary Arbitrator could still modify his original
any Regional Board issues (Art. 124, Labor Code); award.
and
2. The Voluntary Arbitrator has no authority to
2. Interpretation and implementation of the modify his original award. Acting on a Motion for
parties collective bargaining agreement and Clarification, he could only clarify his award. It is
those arising from the interpretation or in excess of his jurisdiction to go beyond
enforcement of company personnel policies (Art. clarifying his award by radically modifying and in
217, as amended by R.A. 6715; Art. 260, Labor fact increasing the award.
Code; Navarro III v. Damasco, G.R. No. 101875,
July 14, 1995). Or; Such authority has disappeared upon
rendition of an award which is final, inappealable
Voluntary Arbitrator; Voluntary Arbitration; and executor by stipulation of the parties.
Compulsory Arbitration (2008)

A dispute falling within the jurisdiction of a


voluntary arbitrator cannit be submitted to
compulsory arbitration. Jurisdiction in compulsory
arbitration is conferred by law, not by agreement
of the parties (Veneracion v. Moncilla, G.R. No.
158238, July 20, 2006).

The law mandated that all grievances submitted


to the grievance machinery which are not settled
shall be referred to the voluntary arbitration
prescribed in the CBA Art. 260, Labor Code). This
procedure providing for a conclusive arbitration
clause in the CBA must be strictly adhered to and