NOVA vs. Judge Sancho Dames II Facts: Gregorio Nova filed with the NLRC Reg.

Arbitration, Legaspi city, a complaint for illegal dismissal, underpayment of wages, non-payment of holipay pay, rest day, overtime pay, 13th mo. Pay and other allowances, backwages, separation pay and damages against the R.A. Broadcasting Corp. Station DZRM represented by VP for Operations Vilma Barcelona and Station Manager Deo Trinidad. Labor Arbiter rendered a judgment in favor of Nova. Respondents appealed the decision to the NLRC in QC who dismissed the deal, MR was likewise denied as it was filed out of time. Aggrieved by the resolution, respondent filed with SC a petition for certiorari. SC dismissed the petition and also denied the MR thereafter filed. The decision having become final, NLRC issued an alias writ of execution. Sheriff levied on real property belong to Sps. Barcelona and scheduled auction sale. Sps. Barcelona filed with RTC, Cam. Norte a civil action for damages with TRO due to wrongful attachment of their property. Respondent Judge issued TRO restraining Sheriff from conducting public auction hence complainant Nova filed administrative charge against Judge Sancho Dames II alleging that issuance of TRO constituted a violation of Art. 254 of the Labor Code Issue: W/N RTC has jurisdiction to issue a TRO in labor cases. Ruling: A regular court has no jurisdiction to hear and decide questions which arise and are incidental to the enforcement of decisions, orders or awards rendered in labor cases by appropriate officers and tribunals of the DOLE. Corollarily, any controversy in the execution of the judgment shall be referred to the tribunal which issued the writ of execution since it has the inherent power to control its own processes in order to enforce its judgments and orders. True, an action for damages lies within the jurisdiction of a RTC. However, RTC has no jurisdiction to issue a TRO in labor cases. Indeed, respondent Judge restrained the execution of a final decision of the

labor arbiter which he cannot lawfully do.

YUPANGCO Cotton Mills, Inc. vs. CA Facts: A third-party whose property has been levied upon by a sheriff to enforce a decision against a judgment debtor is afforded with several alternative remedies to protect its interests. The third party may avail himself of alternative remedies cumulatively, and one will not preclude the third party from availing himself of the other alternative remedies in the event he failed in the remedy first availed of. Thus, a third party may avail himself of the following alternative remedies: a) File a third party claim with the Sheriff or the labor arbiter; and b) If the third party claim is denied, the third party may appeal the denial to the NLRC. Even if a third party claim was denied, a third party may still file a proper action with a competent court to recover ownership of the property illegally seized by the sheriff. Issue: Whether CA erred in ruling that petition was guilty of forum shopping 2) whether CA erred in dismissing the petitioners accion reivindicatoria on the ground of lack of jurisdiction of trial court. Ruling: The filing of a third-party claim with the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC did not preclude the petitioner from filing a subsequent action for recovery of property and dates with the RTC. And, the institution of such complaint will not make petitioner guilty of forum shopping. The RTC where the reinvindicatory action is filed can issue an injunction or temporary restraining order against the execution ordered by a labor arbiter or the NLRC.

by the evidence on record. The Maritime Industry Authority (Marina) administrator wrote the parties in two separate letters, which said that the registration of the disputed vessel under petitioners name had not been effected, and that the Certificates of Ownership and Vessel Registry covering the motor tanker M/T Petron 7-CI had not been released. Insofar as third persons like herein respondents were concerned, the ownership of the disputed vessel remained with Olizon and CAYCO; thus, the CA correctly held that the NLRC could proceed with the levy and the sale on execution. TANONGON vs. SAMSON, et al. Facts: Cayco Marine Service (CAYCO) is engaged in the business of hauling oi. It is owned and operated by Iluminada Cayco Olizon. Four employees (respondents) won in their illegal dismissal case against their employer. In due time the Labor Arbiter issued a writ of execution. When the sheriff levied upon a tanker purportedly belonging to the employer, petitioner Tanongon filed a third-party claim, alleging that he was the owner of the tanker because it had been sold to her. Issue: Can the execution proceed? Ruling: The CA correctly ruled that the act of Olizon was a cavalier attempt to evade payment of the judgment debt. The appellate that the disputed merely rescissible; fictitious and, thus, court ruled further contract was not it was simulated or void ab initio.

VELOSO and Liguaton vs. DOLE, Noahs Ark Facts: The controversy began when the petitioners, along with several coemployees, filed a complaint against the private respondent for unfair labor practices, underpayment and nonpayment of overtime, holiday and other benefits. This was decided in favor of the complainants. Private respondent Noahs Ark filed MR and recomputation of the amount awarded to petitioners. While Motion as pending, Veloso through his wife, signed a Quitclaim and Release for and in consideration of Php25k. On same day, his counsel manifested a Satisfaction of Judgment because Veloso had received said amount. Liguaton filed also same action for Php20k. These releases were later impugned by petitioners alleging that they were constrained to sign the document because of extreme necessity which the USEC of Labor rejected hence this petition for certiorari w/ SC. Issue: W/N there was a valid compromise and quitclaim? Ruling: The law looks with disfavor upon quitclaims and releases by employers who are inveigled or pressured into signing them by unscrupulous employers seeking to evade their legal responsibilities. On the other hand, there are legitimate waivers that represent a voluntary settlement of a laborers claims that

A third party claim on a levied property does not automatically prevent execution. When a third-party claim is filed, the sheriff is not bound to proceed with the levy of the property unless the judgment creditor posts an indemnity bond. Where the bond is filed, the remedy of the thirdparty claimant is to file an independent reivindicatory action against the judgment creditor or the purchaser of the property at public auction. The NLRC should not have automatically lifted the levy and restrained execution, just because a third-party claim had been filed. Further, judicial rescission is not necessary in the case at bar. Petitioners claim of ownership over the disputed tanker is not supported

should be respected by the courts as the law between the parties. The Court has deliberated on the issues and the arguments of the parties and finds that the petition must fail. The exception and not the rule shall be applied in this case. Dire necessity is not an acceptable ground for annulling the releases, especially since it has not been shown that the employees had been forced to execute them. It has not even been proven that the considerations for the quitclaims were unconscionable low and that the petitioners had been tricked into accepting them. Applicable law is Article 227 of the Labor Code. Petitioners cannot renege on their agreement simply because they may now feel they made a mistake in not awaiting the resolution of the private respondents motion for reconsideration and recomputation. The possibility that the original award might have been affirmed does not justify the invalidation of the perfectly valid compromise agreements they had entered into in good faith and with full voluntariness. PROGRESSIVE DEVT. CORP.-PIZZA HUT vs. Laguesma and NLMKATIPUNAN Facts: The Union, Nagkakaisang Lakas ng Manggagawa (NLM)-Katipunan, filed a petition for certification election with the Dept. of Labor in behalf of the rank-and-file employees of the Progressive Devt. Corp. (Pizza Hut). Petitioner employer filed a Motion to Dismiss the petition alleging fraud, falsification and misrepresentation in the respondent Unions registration, making it void and invalid. The motion specifically alleged that: a) respondent Unions registration was tainted with false, forged, double or multiple signatures of those who allegedly took part in the ratification of the respondent Unions constitution and by-laws and in the election of its officers; thus, there were serious falsities in the dates of the issuance of the charter certification and the organization meeting of the alleged chapter. Petitioner also filed a petition seeking the cancellation of the Unions registration on the grounds of fraud

and falsification. Petitioner also filed with the Med-Arbiter a motion requesting suspension of proceedings in the certification election case until after the prejudicial question of the Unions legal personality is determined in the proceedings for cancellation of registration. Med-Arbiter directed the holding of a certification election among petitioners rank and file employees. An appeal to the office of the Secretary of Labor was denied, as well as a MR. In DOLE Resolution, the suggestion is made that once a labor organization has filed the necessary documents and papers and the same have been certified under oath and attested to, said organization necessarily becomes clothed with the character of a legitimate labor organization. In other words, recognition by the Bureau of Labor Relations becomes merely a ministerial function. Issues: W/N the public respondent committed grave abuse of discretion in affirming the Med-Arbiters order to conduct a certification election among petitioners rank and file employees Ruling: We do not agree. In the first place, the public respondents views as expressed in his Resolution miss the entire point behind the nature and purpose of proceedings leading to the recognition of unions as legitimate labor organizations under Art. 234 of the Labor Code. A more than cursory reading of the aforecited provisions clearly indicates that the requirements embodied therein are intended as preventive measures against the commission of fraud. After a Labor Organization had filed the necessary papers and documents for registration, it becomes mandatory for the BLR to check if the requirements under Art. 234 have been sedulously complied with. If its application for registration is vitiated by falsification and serious irregularities, especially those appearing on the face of the application and the supporting documents, a labor organization should be denied recognition as a legitimate labor organization. Amd if a certificate of recognition has been issued, then propriety of the labor organization registration could be

assailed directly through cancellation of registration proceedings in accordance with Arts. 238 and 239 of the Labor Code, or indirectly, by challenging its petition for the issuance of an order for certification election. Furthermore, the Labor Code itself grants the BLR a period of thirty (30) days within which to review all applications for registration under Art. 235. The thirty day period in the aforecited provision ensures that any action taken by the BLR is made in consonance with the mandate of the Labor Code; which, it bears emphasis, specifically requires that the basis for the issuance of a certificate of registration should be compliance with the requirements for recognition under Art. 234. Obviously, recognition of a labor union or labor organization is not merely a ministerial function.

the company did, and at the same time expelled them from membership in the mother federation. Issues: W/N the dismissal of the complaining employees, was justified or not? Ruling: The resolution of this case hinged on the status of the contract between the local union and PAFLU, the mother federation. In the CBA, it appeared that PAFLU had been recognized as the sole bargaining agent for all the employees of the company except the supervisors and security guards. PAFLU, acting for and in behalf of its affiliate, had the status of an agent while the local union remained the basic unit of the association, free to secure the common interest of all its members including the freedom to disaffiliate when the circumstances warrant. This was clearly stated in its constitution and by laws which provided that the local union should remain an affiliate as long as 10 or more of the members evidence their desire to continue the affiliation. As only 4 did not sign the resolution for disaffiliation, the intent to disaffiliate was manifest. Hence, the dismissal from employment was not justified. As to the liability of the company, it was limited only to reinstatement of the employees, the dismissal having been made at the instance of the national Union. The latter was liable for backwages.

Liberty Cotton Mills Workers Union vs. Liberty Cotton Mills, Inc. Facts: A CBA was entered into by the company and the union represented by PAFLU whereby the local union was recognized as the sole bargaining agent. While the CBA was still in force, 32 out of 36 members of the union disaffiliated from the mother federation. PAFLU, alleging the disaffiliation to be contrary to the union security clause, requested the company to terminate the employment of the employees, which

Villar, et al. vs. Inciong, etc. Facts: Petitioners were members of the Amigo Employees Union-PAFLU and the existing bargaining agent of the employees in private respondent Amigo Mfg. Inc. The company and the

union had agreement relations.

a collective bargaining governing their labor

Petitioners insist that their disaffiliation from PAFLUY and filing a petition for certification election are not acts of disloyalty but an exercise of their right to self organization. They contend that these acts were done within the 60-day period when the questions of representation may freely be raised. Issues: Ruling: PAFLU acted when, after proper investigation and finding of guilt, it decided to remove the oppositors from the list of members of the Amigo Employees Union-PAFLU, and thereafter, recommended to the Amigo Mfg. Inc. the termination of the employment of the oppositors. When a union which is not independently registered disaffiliates from the federation, it is not entitled to the rights and privileges granted to a legitimate labor organization. It cannot file a petition for certification election.

the financial status of the KMP Labor Union, existing labor union at Franklin Baker Co. in San Pablo City was filed by res. Catalino Silvestre and 13 other employees who are members of the Union. Thereafter Union Account Examiner of Ministry of Labor & Employment conducted the necessary investigation and submitted a report with some revelations. A petition for the expulsion of the union officers on the ground that they committed gross violation of the labor code, and the constitution and by-laws of the Union which was denied by said union officers arguing that the disallowed expenditures were made in good faith; that the same conduced to the benefit of the members and that they are willing to reimburse the same from their own personal funds Issues: Whether to expel or suspend the union officers from their respective positions? Ruling: The court should never remove a public officer for acts done prior to his present term of office. To do otherwise would be to deprive the people of their right to elect their officers. When the people have elected a man to office, it must be assumed that they did this with knowledge of his life and character; and that they disregarded or forgave his faults of misconduct, if he had been guilty of any. It is not for the court, by reason of such faults or misconduct, to practically overrule the will of the people.

Kapisanan ng Manggagawang Pinagyakap (KMP) vs. Trajano Facts: On June 30, 1981 a written request for accounts examination of

Litton Mills Employees Asso.Kapatiran vs. Ferrer Calleja Facts: on August 14, 1986, without the knowledge and approval of the general membership of LMEA-K, Umali Affiliated petitioner-union with the federation of GATCORD (National Union of Garments, Textile Cordage and General Workers of the Phils. As a consequence, a majority of the union-members, numbering 725 3 out of a total membership of 1,100, more or less, opposed the affiliation of LMEA-K with GATCORD, and expressly manifested their intention to remain as an independent-union and authorized petitioner Abong to take appropriate steps against respondent Umali, including impeachment, should the latter continue the affiliation of the petitioner-union with GATCORD. Issues: Ruling: As to the impeachment of a union officer, Section 2, Article XV of the petitioner-union's Constitution and ByLaws provides the procedures to be followed, to wit: (1) Impeachment should be initiated by petition signed by at least 30% of all bona fide members of the union, and addressed to the Chairman of the Executive Board; (b) A general membership meeting shall be convened by the Board Chairman to consider the impeachment of an officer; (c) Before any impeachment vote is finally taken, the union officer against whom impeachment charges have been filed shall be given ample opportunity to defend himself , and (d) A majority of all the members of the union shall be required to impeach or recall union officers. It clearly appears that the above cited procedure was not followed by the petitioners when they impeached Umali. To be sure, there was difficulty on the part of the petitioners in complying with the required procedure for impeachment, considering that the petition to impeach had to be addressed to the Chairman of the Executive Board of the Union, and that the majority membership which would decide on the impeachment had to be convened only upon call of the Chairman of the Executive Board who, in the case at bar, happened to be respondent Umali himself.

Nevertheless, despite the practical difficulties in complying with the said procedure, petitioners should have shown substantial compliance with said impeachment procedure, by giving Umali ample opportunity to defend himself, as contrasted to an outright impeachment, right after he failed to appear before the first and only investigation. Alex Ferrer, et al. vs. Natl. Labor Relations Commission, et al.

Facts: On May 6, 1989, petitioner Alex

Ferrer and companions filed with the DOLE, a complaint seeking the expulsion from SAMAHAN of its officers headed by president Capitle. The complaint alleged that officers failed to attend to the economic demands of the workers. Later, however, petitioners Diaz and Ferrer withdrew from the petition complaint. On September 10, 1989, Ferrer and companions conducted a special election of officers of the SAMAHAN. FFW, the federation to which SMAAHAN was affiliated, questioned the election. Nonetheless, the elected set of officers tried to dissuade the OFM (employer) from remitting union dues to the officers led by Capitle. On Sept. 11, 1989, the union officials headed by Capitle expelled Ferrer, etal from the union. Ferrer and his companions turned to the FEDLU (Federation of Democratic Labor Unions). They volunterred to be admitted as members of the FEDLU and requested that they be represented (katawanin) by said federation before the DOLE in the complaint which they intended to file against the union (SMAHAN), the FFW and the company for illegal dismissal, reinstatement, and other benefits. Thereafter, on various dates, petitioners wrote the Company to profess innocence of the charges levelled against them by the SAMAHAN and the FFW and to plead that they be reinstated. Eliciting no response, they, through the FEDLU filed a complaint for illegal dismissal and ULP before the NLRC against OFC, the FFW and the SAMAHAN officers, headed by Capitle. At the time they were dismissed, they had been regular OFC employees for about ten years.

Issues:

Ruling: In the first place, the union

has a specific provision for the permanent or temporary "expulsion" of its erring members in its constitution and by-laws ("saligang batas at alituntunin"). No hearing ("pandinig") was ever conducted by the SAMAHAN to look into petitioners' explanation of their moves to oust the union leadership under Capitle, or their subsequent affiliation with FEDLU. While it is true that petitioners' actions might have precipitated divisiveness and, later, showed disloyalty to the union, still, the SAMAHAN should have observed its own constitution and by-laws by giving petitioners an opportunity to air their side and explain their moves. If, after an investigation the petitioners were found to have violated union rules, then and only then should they be subjected to proper disciplinary measures. Petitioners sought the help of the FEDLU only after they had learned of the termination of their employment upon the recommendation of Capitle. Their alleged application with federations other than the FFW can hardly be considered as disloyalty to the SAMAHAN, nor may the filing of such applications denote that petitioners failed to maintain in good standing their membership in the SAMAHAN. The SAMAHAN is a different entity from FFW, the federation to which it belonged. Neither may it, be inferred that petitioners sought disaffiliation from the FFW for petitioners had not formed a union distinct from that of the SAMAHAN. Hence, while petitioners' act of holding a special election to oust Capitle, et al. may be considered as an act of sowing disunity among the SAMAHAN members, and, perhaps, disloyalty to the union officials, which could have been dealt with by the union as a disciplinary matter, it certainly cannot be considered as constituting disloyalty to the union. Faced with a SAMAHAN leadership which they had tried to remove as officials, it was but a natural act of self-preservation that petitioners fled to the arms of the FEDLU after the union and the OFC had tried to terminate their employment. Petitioners should not be made accountable for such an act.