2023 BAR REVIEW LABOR LAW
Handout No. 34
JURISDICTION AND REMEDIES
Article 227 of the Labor Code provides that labor tribunals are not bound by technical rules of
evidence and they may use all reasonable means to ascertain the facts of the case without
regard to technicalities of law and procedure.
Petitioner cannot bank on the fact that he was cleared during the preemployment medical
examination. As jurisprudence has settled, this examination is not exploratory in nature and
employers are not burdened to discover any and all preexisting medical condition of the seafarer
during its conduct. Preemployment medical examinations are only summary examinations. They
only determine whether seafarers are fit to work and does not reflect a comprehensive, in-depth
description of the health of an applicant. This is precisely why Section 20(E) mandates the
seafarer to disclose his or her medical history during the preemployment medical examination.
Further, petitioner contends that the affidavits of his coworkers should not be given credence as
they were unverified. This contention must fail. Article 227 of the Labor Code provides that labor
tribunals are not bound by technical rules of evidence and they may use all reasonable means to
ascertain the facts of the case without regard to technicalities of law and procedure. Thus, the
testimonies of petitioner’s crewmates may be accepted as evidence before the labor tribunals.
Joey Rontos Clemente v. Status Maritime Corporation, et al., G.R. No. 238933, July 1, 2020
LABOR ARBITER
Charge of unfair labor practices falls within the original and exclusive jurisdiction of the Labor
Arbiters (LAs), pursuant to Article 217 of the Labor Code.
It is true that some of petitioner’s causes of action constitute intra-union cases cognizable by the
BLR under Article 226 of the Labor Code. An intra-union dispute refers to any conflict between
and among union members, including grievances arising from any violation of the rights and
conditions of membership, violation of or disagreement over any provision of the union’s
constitution and bylaws, or disputes arising from chartering or disaffiliation of the union. Sections
1 and 2, Rule XI of Department Order No. 40-03, Series of 2003 of the DOLE enumerate the
following circumstances as inter/intra-union disputes. However, petitioner’s charge of unfair
labor practices falls within the original and exclusive jurisdiction of the Labor Arbiters, pursuant
to Article 217 of the Labor Code. In addition, Article 247 of the same Code provides that “the civil
aspects of all cases involving unfair labor practices, which may include claims for actual, moral,
exemplary and other forms of damages, attorney’s fees and other affirmative relief, shall be
under the jurisdiction of the Labor Arbiters. Allan Mendoza vs. Officers of Manila Water
Employees Union (MWEU), et al., G.R. No. 201595, January 25, 2016
Legal Edge Bar Review 0942 – 949 91 76
[email protected] 0917 – 894 53 56
Page 1 of 8
2023 BAR REVIEW LABOR LAW
Handout No. 34
JURISDICTION AND REMEDIES
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 reversal by the higher court or tribunal.
In view of this, the Court held this stance in Genuino as a stray posture and realigned the proper
course of the prevailing doctrine on reinstatement pending appeal vis-à-vis the effect of a
reversal on appeal, that is, 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 reversal by the higher court or tribunal. It
likewise settled the view that the Labor Arbiter’s order of reinstatement is immediately executory
and the employer has to either re-admit them to work under the same terms and conditions
prevailing prior to their dismissal, or to reinstate them in the payroll, and that failing to exercise
the options in the alternative, employer must pay the employee’s salaries.
After the Labor Arbiter’s decision is reversed by a higher tribunal, the employee may be barred
from collecting the accrued wages, if it is shown that the delay in enforcing the reinstatement
pending appeal was without fault on the part of the employer. The court went on to declare that
after the Labor Arbiter’s decision is reversed by a higher tribunal, the employee may be barred
from collecting the accrued wages, if it is shown that the delay in enforcing the reinstatement
pending appeal was without fault on the part of the employer. It then provided for the two-fold
test in determining whether an employee is barred from recovering his accrued wages, to wit:
(1) there must be actual delay or that the order of reinstatement pending appeal was not
executed prior to its reversal; and (2) the delay must not be due to the employer’s unjustified act
or omission. If the delay is due to the employer’s unjustified refusal, the employer may still be
required to pay the salaries notwithstanding the reversal of the Labor Arbiter’s Decision. Islriz
Trading vs. Efren Capada, et. al., GR No. 168501, January 31, 2011
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION
Appellate jurisdiction over:
a. Appellate Jurisdiction over cases decided by the Labor Arbiter; and
b. Exclusive appellate jurisdiction over cases decided by the Regional Directors or hearing
officers on small money claims. Rule VI of the 2011 NLRC Rules of Procedures, as
amended.
Original Jurisdiction over:
a. Original exclusive jurisdiction to issue labor injunctions and exercise contempt powers;
b. Original exclusive jurisdiction over contempt cases committed against it or any of its
members;
Legal Edge Bar Review 0942 – 949 91 76
[email protected] 0917 – 894 53 56
Page 2 of 8
2023 BAR REVIEW LABOR LAW
Handout No. 34
JURISDICTION AND REMEDIES
c. Complaints to give effect to the labor standard provisions of the Labor Code and no
employer-employee relationship exists; and
d. Exclusive jurisdiction over cases involving petition for relief from judgment from a
decision/order from a labor dispute involving fraud, accident, mistake or excusable
negligence.
Decisions of NLRC shall be appealed to Court of Appeals via Rule 65 in respect to the hierarchy
of courts.
All references in the amended Section 9 of B.P. No. 129 to supposed appeals from the NLRC to
the Supreme Court are interpreted and hereby declared to mean and refer to petitions for
certiorari under Rule 65 - consequently, all such petitions should henceforth be initially filed in
the Court of Appeals. St. Martin Funeral Home vs. NLRC, G.R. No. 130866, September 16, 1998
COURT OF APPEALS
In assailing a decision of the Court of Appeals (CA), the available remedy is to file a petition for
review under Rule 45 and not the extraordinary writ of certiorari under Rule 65; The special civil
action of certiorari under Rule 65 is not, and cannot be, a substitute for a lost remedy of appeal.
The proper remedy is to file a petition for review on certiorari under the Rules of Court which
should be instituted within fifteen (15) days from receipt of the assailed decision or resolution.
In a long line of cases, the Court has consistently emphasized that after the lapse of the 15-day
period to file a petition for review on certiorari the special civil action of certiorari under Rule 65
is not, and cannot be, a substitute for a lost remedy of appeal. Philippine Spring Water
Resources, Inc./Danilo Y. Lua v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 205278, June 11, 2014
SUPREME COURT
The Supreme Court’s analysis of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC’s)
interpretation of the environmental principles and concepts of labor law is not completely
prohibited in —as it is complementary to — a Rule 45 review of labor cases.
While NLRC decisions are, by their nature, final and executory and, hence, not subject to
appellate review, the Court is not precluded from considering other questions of law aside from
Legal Edge Bar Review 0942 – 949 91 76
[email protected] 0917 – 894 53 56
Page 3 of 8
2023 BAR REVIEW LABOR LAW
Handout No. 34
JURISDICTION AND REMEDIES
the CA’s finding on the NLRC’s grave abuse of discretion. While the focal point of analysis revolves
on this issue, the Court may deal with ancillary issues — such as, in this case, the question of how
a probationary employee is deemed to have been informed of the standards of his regularization
— if only to determine if the concepts and principles of labor law were correctly applied or
misapplied by the NLRC in its decision. In other words, the Court’s analysis of the NLRC’s
interpretation of the environmental principles and concepts of labor law is not completely
prohibited in — as it is complementary to — a Rule 45 review of labor cases. Abbott Laboratories,
Philippines, et al. v. Pearlie Ann F. Alcaraz, G.R. No. 192571, April 22, 2014
BUREAU OF LABOR RELATIONS
Med-Arbiter has the authority to determine the existence of an employer-employee
relationship between the parties in a petition for certification election.
The purpose of a petition for certification election is to determine which organization will
represent the employees in their collective bargaining with the employer. In this case, the Med-
Arbiter’s order dismissing the petition for certification election on the basis of nonexistence of
employer-employee relationship was issued after the members of the respondent union were
dismissed from their employment. The purpose of a petition for certification election is to
determine which organization will represent the employees in their collective bargaining with
the employer. The respondent union, without its member-employees, was thus stripped of its
personality to challenge the Med-Arbiter’s decision in the certification election case. Thus, the
members of the respondent union were left with no option but to pursue their illegal dismissal
case filed before the Labor Arbiter.
To dismiss the illegal dismissal case filed before the Labor Arbiter on the basis of the
pronouncement of the Med-Arbiter in the certification election case that there was no employer-
employee relationship between the parties, which the respondent union could not even appeal
to the DOLE Secretary because of the dismissal of its members, would be tantamount to denying
due process to the complainants in the illegal dismissal case. This, the Court cannot allow. Hijo
Resources Corporation vs. Epifanio P. Mejares, et al., G.R. No. 208986, January 13, 2016
Legal Edge Bar Review 0942 – 949 91 76
[email protected] 0917 – 894 53 56
Page 4 of 8
2023 BAR REVIEW LABOR LAW
Handout No. 34
JURISDICTION AND REMEDIES
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT SECRETARY
The Secretary of Labor and Employment’s certification for compulsory arbitration of a dispute
over which he/she has assumed jurisdiction is but an exercise of the powers granted to him/her
by Article 263(g) of the Labor Code as amended.
“These powers have been characterized as an exercise of the police power of the State, aimed at
promoting the public good. When the Secretary exercises these powers, he/she is granted ‘great
breadth of discretion’ to find a solution to a labor dispute.” The Court therefore cannot subscribe
to GNC’s contention since to say that compulsory arbitration may only be resorted to in instances
agreed upon by the parties would limit the power of the Secretary of Labor and Employment to
certify cases that are proper subject of compulsory arbitration. The great breadth of discretion
granted to the Secretary of Labor and Employment for him/her to find an immediate solution to
a labor dispute would unnecessarily be diminished if such would be the case. Guagua National
Colleges vs. Guagua National Colleges Faculty Labor Union, G.R. No. 204693, July 13, 2016
VOLUNTARY ARBITRATOR
It is the declared policy of the State to promote and emphasize the primacy of voluntary
arbitration as a mode of settling labor or industrial disputes.
Unlike in University of San Agustin Employees’ Union-FFW v. Court of Appeals, 485 SCRA 526
(2006), the main cause of the dispute between the parties in this case, i.e., GNC’s alleged
commission of unfair labor practice, did not arise from the interpretation or implementation of
the parties’ CBA, or neither from the interpretation or enforcement of company personnel
policies. Hence, it does not fall under the original and exclusive jurisdiction of the voluntary
arbitrator or panel of voluntary arbitrators under the aforementioned Article 261. Be that as it
may, GNC argues that since the grounds cited by respondents in their notice of strike come within
the scope of “grievance” under the grievance resolution and voluntary arbitration provision of
the parties’ CBA, the same is cognizable by the voluntary arbitrator. Otherwise stated, since the
parties allegedly agreed to submit a dispute of this kind to their CBA’s grievance resolution
procedure which ends in voluntary arbitration, it is the voluntary arbitrator which has jurisdiction
in view of Article 262 of the Labor Code. Guagua National Colleges vs. Guagua National Colleges
Faculty Labor Union, Supra
Legal Edge Bar Review 0942 – 949 91 76
[email protected] 0917 – 894 53 56
Page 5 of 8
2023 BAR REVIEW LABOR LAW
Handout No. 34
JURISDICTION AND REMEDIES
There is a need for an express stipulation in the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) that
unfair labor practices should be resolved in the ultimate by the voluntary arbitrator or panel of
voluntary arbitrators since the same fall within a special class of disputes that are generally
within the exclusive original jurisdiction of the Labor Arbiter (LA) by express provision of the
law.
It has been held that while the phrase “all other labor dispute” or its variant “any other matter
or dispute” may include unfair labor practices, it is imperative, however, that the agreement
between the union and the company states in unequivocal language that the parties conform to
the submission of unfair labor practices to voluntary arbitration. It is not sufficient to merely say
that parties to the CBA agree on principle that “all disputes” or as in this case, “any other matter
or dispute,” should be submitted to the grievance machinery and eventually to the voluntary
arbitrator.
There is a need for an express stipulation in the CBA that unfair labor practices should be resolved
in the ultimate by the voluntary arbitrator or panel of voluntary arbitrators since the same fall
within a special class of disputes that are generally within the exclusive original jurisdiction of the
Labor Arbiter by express provision of the law. “Absent such express stipulation, the phrase ‘all
disputes’ [or ‘any other matter or dispute’ for that matter] should be construed as limited to the
areas of conflict traditionally within the jurisdiction of Voluntary Arbitrators, i.e., disputes relating
to contract-interpretation, contract-implementation, or interpretation or enforcement of
company personnel policies. Unfair labor practices cases — not falling within any of these
categories — should then be considered as a special area of interest governed by a specific
provision of law.” Ibid.
Since Article 262-A of the Labor Code expressly provides that the award or decision of the
voluntary arbitrator shall be final and executory after ten (10) calendar days from receipt of
the decision by the parties, the appeal of the Voluntary Arbitrators’ (VA’s) decision to the Court
of Appeals (CA) must be filed within 10 days.
Clearly, the decision of the voluntary arbitrator becomes final and executory after 10 days from
receipt thereof. The proper remedy to reverse or modify a voluntary arbitrators’ or panel of
voluntary arbitrators’ decision is to appeal the award or decision via a petition under Rule 43 of
the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. And under Section 4 of Rule 43, the period to appeal to the CA
is 15 days from receipt of the decision. Notwithstanding, since Article 262-A of the Labor Code
expressly provides that the award or decision of the voluntary arbitrator shall be final and
executory after ten (10) calendar days from receipt of the decision by the parties, the appeal of
the VA’s decision to the CA must be filed within 10 days. NYK-FIL Ship Management,
Incorporated vs. Gener G. Dabu, G.R. No. 225142, September 13, 2017
Legal Edge Bar Review 0942 – 949 91 76
[email protected] 0917 – 894 53 56
Page 6 of 8
2023 BAR REVIEW LABOR LAW
Handout No. 34
JURISDICTION AND REMEDIES
Article 262-A of the Labor Code provides for a period of ten (10) days to appeal the panel of
voluntary arbitrators’ (PVA’s) decision. The 10-day period to appeal under the Labor Code being
a substantive right cannot be diminished, increased, or modified through the Rules of Court.
In Coca-Cola Bottlers Philippines Inc., Sales Force Union-PTGWO-Balais v. Coca-Cola Bottlers
Philippines, Inc., 464 SCRA 507, a 2005 case, [the Court] had already affirmed the CA’s dismissal
of the petition filed with it on the ground that the appeal of the PVA’s decision was not filed
within the 10-day period so that the PVA’s decision had already attained finality. While there are
decisions subsequent to the Coca-Cola case stating that a petition for review assailing the PVA’s
decision must be filed within 15 days from receipt of the PVA’s decision, however, [the Court]
reiterates in the PHILEC’s decision, which is the recent decision, that the voluntary arbitrator’s
decision must be appealed before the CA within 10 calendar days from receipt of the decision as
provided in the Labor Code. It bears stressing that the PHILEC case was decided on December 10,
2014, while the petition was filed with the CA only on February 24, 2014, consequently,
the PHILEC’s decision applies to the instant case. Ibid
Since the office of a Voluntary Arbitrator or a panel of Voluntary Arbitrators is considered a
quasi- judicial agency, the Supreme Court (SC) concluded that a decision or award rendered by
a Voluntary Arbitrator is appealable before the Court of Appeals (CA).
Article 262-A of the Labor Code provides that the award or decision of the Voluntary Arbitrator
“shall be final and executory after ten (10) calendar days from receipt of the copy of the award
or decision by the parties.”
Since the office of a Voluntary Arbitrator or a panel of Voluntary Arbitrators is considered a quasi-
judicial agency, this court concluded that a decision or award rendered by a Voluntary Arbitrator
is appealable before the Court of Appeals. Under Section 9 of the Judiciary Reorganization Act of
1980, the Court of Appeals has the exclusive original jurisdiction over decisions or awards of
quasi-judicial agencies and instrumentalities. Philippine Electric Corporation (PHILEC) vs. Court
of Appeals, G.R. No. 168612, December 10, 2014
Legal Edge Bar Review 0942 – 949 91 76
[email protected] 0917 – 894 53 56
Page 7 of 8
2023 BAR REVIEW LABOR LAW
Handout No. 34
JURISDICTION AND REMEDIES
PRESCRIPTION OF ACTIONS
Claim Prescriptive Period Legal Basis
Money claims arising fromThree (3) years from the time Article 306, Labor Code of
employer-employee the cause of action accrued the Philippines, as
relationship amended
Filing of Illegal Dismissal
Four (4) years from the time George A. Arriola vs.
complaints, and for claims
the cause of action accrued Pilipino Star Ngayon, Inc.,
arising therefrom G.R. No. 175689, August
13, 2014
Unfair labor practice One (1) year from accrual of Article 305, Labor Code of
such ULP the Philippines, as
amended
Offenses under the Labor Three (3) years from the time Article 305, Labor Code of
Code of commission thereof; except the Philippines, as
crimes arising from ULP which amended
prescribes in one (1) year from
the time the acts complained
of were committed
Illegal recruitment Five (5) years; except for illegal Section 7, Rule IV, RA No.
recruitment involving 10022 or the "Migrant
economic sabotage which Workers and Overseas
prescribes in twenty (20) years Filipinos Act of 1995", as
amended
Legal Edge Bar Review 0942 – 949 91 76
[email protected] 0917 – 894 53 56
Page 8 of 8
