Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 3


GARCIA in her capacity as VOLUNTARY ARBITRATOR, respondents G.R. No. 120319 October 6, 1995 Facts: From a submission agreement of the Luzon Development Bank (LDB) and the Association of Luzon Development Bank Employees (ALDBE) arose an arbitration case to resolve the following issue: whether or not the company has violated the Collective Bargaining Agreement provision and the Memorandum of Agreement dated April 1994, on promotion. At a conference, the parties agreed on the submission of their respective Position Papers on December 1-15, 1994. Atty. Ester S. Garcia, in her capacity as Voluntary Arbitrator, received ALDBE's Position Paper on January 18, 1995. LDB, on the other hand, failed to submit its Position Paper despite a letter from the Voluntary Arbitrator reminding them to do so. As of May 23, 1995 no Position Paper had been filed by LDB. On May 24, 1995, without LDB's Position Paper, the Voluntary Arbitrator rendered a decision disposing as follows: WHEREFORE, finding is hereby made that the Bank has not adhered to the Collective Bargaining Agreement provision nor the Memorandum of Agreement on promotion. Hence, this petition for certiorari and prohibition seeking to set aside the decision of the Voluntary Arbitrator and to prohibit her from enforcing the same. Issue: Which court has the jurisdiction for the appellate review of adjudications of all quasi-judicial entities

Held: Section 9 of B.P. Blg. 129, as amended by Republic Act No. 7902, provides that the Court of Appeals shall exercise: (B) Exclusive appellate jurisdiction over all final judgments, decisions, resolutions, orders or awards of Regional Trial Courts and quasijudicial agencies, instrumentalities, boards or commissions, including the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Employees Compensation Commission and the Civil Service Commission, except those falling within the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in accordance with the Constitution, the Labor Code of the Philippines under Presidential Decree No. 442, as amended, the provisions of this Act, and of subparagraph (1) of the third paragraph and subparagraph (4) of the fourth paragraph of Section 17 of the Judiciary Act of 1948. The voluntary arbitrator no less performs a state function pursuant to a governmental power delegated to him under the provisions therefor in the Labor Code and he falls, therefore, within the contemplation of the term "instrumentality" in the aforequoted Sec. 9 of B.P. 129. The fact that his functions and powers are provided for in the Labor Code does not place him within the exceptions to said Sec. 9 since he is a quasijudicial instrumentality as contemplated therein A fortiori, the decision or award of the voluntary arbitrator or panel of arbitrators should likewise be appealable to the Court of Appeals, in line with the procedure outlined in Revised Administrative Circular No. 1-95, just like those of the quasi-judicial agencies, boards and commissions enumerated therein. This would be in furtherance of, and consistent with, the original purpose of Circular No. 1-91 to provide a uniform procedure for the appellate review of adjudications of all quasi-judicial entities not expressly excepted from the coverage of Sec. 9 of B.P. 129 by either the Constitution or another statute. In the same vein, it is worth mentioning that under Section 22 of

Republic Act No. 876, also known as the Arbitration Law, arbitration is deemed a special proceeding of which the court specified in the contract or submission, or if none be specified, the Regional Trial Court for the province or city in which one of the parties resides or is doing business, or in which the arbitration is held, shall have jurisdiction. A party to the controversy may, at any time within one (1) month after an award is made, apply to the court having jurisdiction for an order confirming the award and the court must grant such order unless the award is vacated, modified or corrected. In effect, this equates the award or decision of the voluntary arbitrator with that of the regional trial court. Consequently, in a petition for certiorari from that award or decision, ACCORDINGLY, the Court resolved to REFER this case to the Court of Appeals.

within its jurisdiction and protect the substantial rights of the parties; and that is part of the checks and balances which restricts the separation of powers and forestalls arbitrary and unjust jurisdictions. Subsequently under RA 7902, effective March 1995, the mode for judicial review over NLRC decisions in that of a petition for Certiorari under Rule 65. The same confuses by declaring that the CA has no appellate jurisdiction over decisions falling within the appellate jurisdiction of SC, including the NLRC decisions. Therefore, all references in the amended Section 9 of BP 129 to supposed appeals from NLRC to SC are interpreted and hereby declared to mean and refer to petitions for certiorari under Rule 65. All such petitions should henceforth be initially filed in the doctrine on the hierarchy of courts as appropriate forum for the relief desired. Case remanded to CA.

St. Martin Funeral vs. NLRC G.R. 130866 September 16, 1998 295 SCRA 494 Regalado, J.: FACTS: Respondent Aricayos filed a complaint for illegal dismissal to the labor arbiter. There being no employer-employee relationship between the two, petition was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Arcayos appealed to NLRC cotending errors of the labor arbiter. ISSUE: Whether or not the Supreme Court has jurisdiction over NLRC appeals? RULING: First established in 1972, decisions of NLRC were declared to be appealable to the Secretary of labor and, ultimately to the President. But under the present state law, there is no provision for appeals from NLRC decisions. The court held that there is an underlying power of the courts to scrutinize the acts of such agencies on questions of law and jurisdiction even though not right of review is given by statute, that the purpose of jurisdiction review is to keep the administrative agency

Guico vs Sec of Labor (1998) G.R. 131750 Facts: The case started when the Office of the Regional Director, Department of Labor andEmployment (DOLE),RegionI,San Fernando, La Union, received a letter-complaint datedApril 25, 1995, requesting for aninvestigation of petitioner's establishment, CopylandiaServices & Trading, for violation of labor standardslaws.Pursuant to the visitorial and enforcement powers of theSecretary of Labor andEmployment or hisduly authorized representative underArticle 128 of the Labor Code, as amended, inspections wereconducted at Copylandia's outlets onApril 27 and May 2, 1995. The inspections yielded the followingviolations involving twenty-one (21) employees who are copier operators: (1) underpayment of wages; (2)underpayment of 13th month pay; and (3) no service incentive leave with pay. Issue: WON the Regional Director has jurisdiction over the labor standards case.

Held: Regional Director has jurisdiction over the case citingArticle 128 (b) of the Labor Code, as amended. We sustain the jurisdiction of the respondentSecretary.As the respondent correctly pointed out, this Court'sruling inServando that the visitorial power of theSecretary of Labor to order and enforce compliance withlabor standard laws cannot be exercised where the individual claim exceedsP5,000.00, can no longer beapplied in view of the enactment of R.A. No. 7730 amendingArticle 128(b) of the Labor Code,viz: Art. 128 (b) Notwithstanding the provisions of Articles 129 and 217 of this Code to the contrary, and in cases where the relationship of employeremployee still exists, theSecretary of Labor andEmployment orhis duly authorized representatives shall have the power to issue compliance orders to give effect to thelabor standards provisions of the Code and other labor legislation based on the findings of the laboremployment and enforcement officers or industrial safety engineers made in the course of inspection.TheSecretary or his duly authorized representatives shall issue writs of execution to the appropriateauthority for the enforcement of their orders, except in cases where the employer contests the findings ofthe labor employment and enforcement officer and raises issues supported by documentary proofs whichwere not considered in the course of inspection. An order issued by the duly authorized representative of the Secretary of Labor and Employment under this article may be appealed to the latter.In case said order involves a monetary award, an appeal by theemployer may be perfected only upon the posting of a cash or surety bond issued by a reputable bondingcompany duly accredited by theSecretary of Labor andEmployment in the amount equivalent to themonetary award in the order appealed from. (Emphasis supplied.)

The records of the House of Representatives show that CongressmenAlbertoS. Veloso andEriberto V. Loretosponsored the law.In his sponsorship speech, Congressman Veloso categorically declared that "this bill seeksto do away with the jurisdictional limitations imposed through said ruling (referring toServando) and tofinally settle any lingering doubts on the visitorial and enforcement powers of theSecretary of Labor and Employment."Petitioner's reliance on Servando is thus untenable