IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS IN

LABOR LAW AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION

SUBMITTED BY:
LABOR LAW AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION
BLOCKS A & B

SUBMITTED TO:
COMM. ABDUL AZIS U. METMUG
ATTY. ANGELICA CASIṄO
PROFESSORS

OCTOBER 21, 2025

Group 5
Pangcoga, Ibrahim II
Espinosa, Adler Lance
Pactol, Kim
Aclo, Romeo Niccolo
Confesor, Johan

Topic: A. JURISDICTION

1. What is the difference between reinstatement and return to work (reinstatement

without backwages)?

Q: What is the distinction between reinstatement and a mere return to work, particularly when
reinstatement is ordered without backwages?

A: Reinstatement - a restoration to a state from which one has been removed or separated.
The person reinstated assumes the position he had occupied before his dismissal.
Reinstatement presupposes that the previous position from which one had been removed still
exists, or that there is an unfilled position that is substantially equivalent or similar to the one
previously occupied by the employee. (Traveloka Philippines, Inc. vs. Ceballos, Jr., G.R. No.
254697, February 14, 2022)

On the other hand, a mere return to work occurs when an employee is allowed to resume their
duties, but not as a consequence of a finding of illegal dismissal. In such cases, the employee
does not receive backwages or other benefits typically associated with reinstatement. This
scenario usually arises when the dismissal is found to be for just or authorized cause, but there
may have been some procedural defect (such as the lack of due process). In such instances,
the Supreme Court may award nominal damages instead of full backwages, and the return to
work is more of a discretionary remedy than a legal entitlement.

The distinction becomes particularly significant in the application of the doctrine laid down in
Agabon v. NLRC (G.R. No. 158693, November 17, 2004). In Agabon, the Court ruled that
where a valid cause for dismissal exists but the employer fails to observe procedural due
process, the dismissal remains valid. However, the employer may be liable for nominal
damages. In such cases, the dismissed employee is not entitled to reinstatement or backwages,
as there is no finding of illegal dismissal. If the employee is allowed to return to work, it is not
reinstatement under the law, but rather a management prerogative or a practical settlement.

Furthermore, the Supreme Court has also recognized that reinstatement without backwages
may be appropriate in exceptional situations. For instance, if the dismissal was declared illegal
but there are compelling equitable reasons (such as the employee’s partial fault or a good-faith
belief by the employer in the existence of cause), the Court may exercise its discretion to order
reinstatement without the corresponding backwages. This nuanced approach balances the
protection of labor rights with considerations of fairness to employers.

2. What are backwages and when are they awarded?

Q: What are backwages, and under what circumstances are they granted?

A:Backwages refer to the monetary compensation an employee would have earned had they
not been unjustly dismissed. This includes the basic salary, allowances, and other benefits the
employee was entitled to at the time of dismissal. The purpose of awarding backwages is to
restore the employee to the economic position they would have been in had the dismissal not
occurred.

Legal Basis:

The entitlement to backwages is rooted in Article 294 of the Labor Code, which guarantees that
an employee who is unjustly dismissed shall be entitled to reinstatement without loss of seniority
rights and other privileges, as well as to their full backwages. This provision underscores the
principle of security of tenure, ensuring that employees are not deprived of their livelihood
without just cause.

Conditions for Awarding Backwages:

Backwages are typically awarded under the following circumstances:

Illegal Dismissal: When an employee is dismissed without just or authorized cause, or without
observing the due process requirements mandated by law.

Constructive Dismissal: When an employee is forced to resign due to the employer's unlawful
acts, such as a significant change in employment terms or a hostile work environment.

Suspension or Retrenchment: In cases where the suspension or retrenchment is found to be

illegal, backwages are awarded for the period of illegal suspension or retrenchment.

Computation of Backwages:

The computation of backwages is based on the employee's wage rate at the time of dismissal,
without any deductions for earnings elsewhere during the period of dismissal. This means that
the employee is entitled to their full salary, including allowances and benefits, from the time their
compensation was withheld until their actual reinstatement or the finality of the decision in the
illegal dismissal case.

Recent Jurisprudence

A significant ruling on backwages was made by the Supreme Court in Villarico v. D.M.
Consunji, Inc. G.R. No. 255602 (2025), where the Court emphasized that backwages should
be computed from the time of illegal dismissal until actual reinstatement. The decision clarified
that the mere lapse of the probationary period without regularization does not sever the
employment relationship, and without any valid grounds to dismiss a probationary employee,
there is no basis to terminate the employment.

In the case of Dumapis v. Lepanto Consolidated Mining Company ( G.R. No. 204060,
September 15, 2020 ) the Court now ordains the uniform rule that the award of backwages
and/or separation pay due to illegally dismissed employees shall include all salary increases
and benefits granted under the law and other government issuances, collective bargaining
agreements, employment contracts, established company policies and practices, and analogous
sources which the employees would have been entitled to had they not been illegally dismissed.
On the other hand, salary increases and other benefits which are contingent or dependent on
variables such as an employee's merit increase based on performance or longevity or the
company's financial status shall not be included in the award.

3. Are damages and attorney’s fees recoverable in illegal dismissal cases?

Q: Can an illegally dismissed employee recover damages and attorney’s fees?

A: Yes. A dismissed employee is entitled to moral damages and attorney’s fees when the
dismissal is attended by bad faith or fraud or constitutes an act oppressive to labor, or is done in
a manner contrary to good morals, good customs[,] or public policy. Exemplary damages may
be awarded if the dismissal is effected in a wanton, oppressive[,] or malevolent manner
( AGAPITO vs AEROPLUS MULTI-SERVICES, INC ( G.R. No. 248304. April 20, 2022 )

Attorney’s Fees May Be Recovered Under the Labor Code and the Civil Code:

1.In cases when the employee's wages have been unlawfully withheld (Art. 111, Labor Code, as
amended)

2.Where the defendant's act or omission has compelled the plaintiff to litigate with third persons
or the plaintiff incurred expenses to protect his interest (Art.2208 (2), Civil Code);
3.In actions for the recovery of wages of household helpers, laborers and skilled workers (Art.
2208 (7), Civil Code);

4.In actions for indemnity under workmen's compensation and employer's liability laws (Art.
2208 (8), Civil Code); and

5. In cases where the court deems it just and equitable that attorney's fees and expenses of
litigation should be recovered (Art. 2208 (11), Civil Code).

In labor cases, Attorneys’ Fees partake of the nature of an extraordinary award granted to the
victorious party as an indemnity for damages. As a general rule, it is payable to the client, not
his counsel, unless the former agrees to give the amount to the latter as an addition or part of
the counsel’s compensation. (Alva vs. High Capacity Security Force Inc. G.R. No.203328
November 8, 2017)

4. When is separation pay awarded?

Q: Under what circumstances is separation pay granted instead of reinstatement?

A: Separation pay is only awarded to a dismissed employee in the following instances: 1) in

case of closure of establishment under Article 298 of theLabor Code; 2) in case of termination
due to disease or sickness under Article 299 of the Labor Code; 3) as a measure of social
justice in those instances where the employee is validly dismissed for causes other than serious
misconduct or those reflecting on his moral character; 4) where the dismissed employee's
position is no longer available; 5) when the continued relationship between the employer and
the employee is no longer viable due to the strained relations between them or 6) when the
dismissed employee opted not to be reinstated, or the payment of separation benefits would be
for the best interest of the parties involved. In all of these cases, the grant of separation pay
presupposes that the employee to whom it was given was dismissed from employment, whether
legally or illegally. In fine, as a general rule, separation pay in lieu of reinstatement could not be
awarded to an employee whose employment was not terminated by his employer.

Under the law and prevailing jurisprudence, an illegally dismissed employee is entitled to
reinstatement as a matter of right. The award of separation pay is a mere exception to the
rule. It is made an alternative relief in lieu of reinstatement in certain circumstances, like:

1. When reinstatement can no longer be effected in view of the passage of a long period of time
or because of the realities of the situation;
2. Reinstatement is inimical to the employer's interest;
3. Reinstatement is no longer feasible;
4. Reinstatement does not serve the best interests of the parties involved;
5. The employer is prejudiced by the workers' continued employment;
6. Facts that make execution unjust or inequitable have supervened, or strained relations
between the employer and employee (Fernandez Jr. vs. MERALCO, G.R. No. 226002, June 25,
2018);
7. For the best interest of the parties to prevent exacerbation of tension or compromised
efficiency;
8. When the employee is well over the statutory compulsory retirement age of
65 (Simon vs. Results Companies, G.R. Nos. 249351-52, March 29, 2022); and
9. When the respondent's position as country manager was already filled up. (Traveloka
Philippines, Inc. vs. Ceballos, Jr., G.R. No. 254697, February 14, 2022)

In the case of Itallcarat 18, Inc. v. Gerasimio, G.R. No. 221411, 28 September 2020, the
following are also entitled to separation pay:
1. Resigned employees whose contract provides payment of separation pay upon resignation;
and
2. Resignees whose company has existing practice of giving separation pay upon resignation.
5. What is financial assistance in labor cases?

Q: What is the concept of financial assistance, and when is it granted?

A: A discretionary or goodwill payment given by an employer to assist an employee, typically

when separation pay is not legally required. Financial assistance is allowed only in instances
where the employee is validly dismissed for causes other than serious misconduct or those
reflecting on his moral character. ( Jimenez vs Dagdag December 14, 2017 G.R. No. 228671 )

While financial assistance is not expressly provided for in the Labor Code, it is grounded in the
constitutional mandate of providing full protection to labor and promoting social justice (Article
XIII, Section 3 of the Philippine Constitution). It reflects the benevolent approach of labor law to
balance the interests of employers and employees, particularly in cases of dismissal.
The authority to grant or deny financial assistance falls under the jurisdiction of the National
Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) and Labor Arbiters under Article 224 of the Labor Code,
which handles cases involving monetary claims and illegal dismissal complaints, including the
adjudication of financial assistance. Financial assistance may be granted as part of a resolution
to illegal dismissal cases where mitigating circumstances exist.

Guiding Principles in Granting Financial Assistance:

Financial assistance cannot be granted to employees validly dismissed for just causes under
Article 297 (formerly Article 282) of the Labor Code. The Supreme Court held that financial
assistance is inconsistent with the principle that no benefit accrues to an employee guilty of
serious misconduct. For instance, in Toyota Motor Philippines Corporation Workers
Association v. NLRC (G.R. No. 158786, October 19, 2007), the Court ruled that financial
assistance cannot be awarded to employees dismissed for just causes.

Equity in Cases of Mitigating Circumstances:

Financial assistance may be granted in cases where mitigating factors, such as long years of
service or unintentional violations, exist. In San Miguel Corporation v. Lao (G.R. No. 143136,
July 11, 2002), financial assistance was granted to recognize the employee’s loyalty and
service despite the lawful cause for dismissal.

Not a Substitute for Separation Pay

Financial assistance is distinct from separation pay mandated under Article 298 (formerly
Article 283) of the Labor Code. It is not a substitute for separation pay but may be granted in
addition to it, depending on the circumstances of the case.

Recent Jurisprudence:

In SP No. 108424 - Botica Sta. Lucia/Adelaida Caraos and Jose Cipriano M. Caraos v.
National Labor Relations Commission and Angelina M. Cueto (2025), the Supreme Court
affirmed the award of financial assistance to an employee who had rendered long and efficient
service. The Court reduced the amount of financial assistance to one-half (1/2) month's pay for
every year of service, totaling Ninety-Two Thousand Five Hundred Sixty Pesos (PhP92,560.00),
considering the monetary awards in previous cases and for just and equitable concerns. The
Court emphasized that financial assistance may be granted as part of a resolution to illegal
dismissal cases where mitigating circumstances exist.

Conclusion:

Financial assistance in labor cases serves as a humanitarian measure to ease the financial
burden of employees following termination, especially in cases where separation pay or benefits
are not clearly mandated by law. While not expressly provided for in the Labor Code, it is
grounded in the constitutional mandate of providing full protection to labor and promoting social
justice. The authority to grant or deny financial assistance falls under the jurisdiction of the
NLRC and Labor Arbiters, and it may be granted in cases where mitigating circumstances exist.
Recent jurisprudence has affirmed the award of financial assistance, considering the
circumstances of each case.

6. What is indemnity in labor law?

Q: What is indemnity, and when is it awarded in labor cases?

A: Indemnity in Philippine Labor Law:

Indemnity in labor law refers to the obligation of an employer to compensate an employee for
violations of procedural rights during dismissal, particularly when the dismissal is substantively
justified but procedurally flawed. This concept acknowledges that while an employer may have
just or authorized cause to terminate employment, failure to observe due process—such as
providing the required notices—entitles the employee to a form of compensation known as
indemnity, typically in the form of nominal damages.

The foundation of indemnity lies in the constitutional guarantee of security of tenure under
Article 295 of the 1987 Philippine Constitution, which protects employees from unjust dismissal.
The Labor Code further codifies this protection by mandating that termination must be based on
lawful grounds and must comply with procedural due process, often described as the “twin-
notice rule” requiring notice to explain and notice of dismissal.
In cases where the employer dismisses an employee for a valid cause but fails to comply with
procedural requirements, the dismissal remains valid. However, the employer is held liable to
pay indemnity to the employee as a form of nominal damages. This indemnity serves to
vindicate the employee’s right to due process and acts as a deterrent against procedural lapses.
It is important to note that indemnity does not cover lost wages or benefits—these are typically
awarded only in cases of illegal dismissal where the dismissal is without just cause or without
due process.

The doctrine of indemnity was firmly established in the landmark case Agabon v. NLRC, which
articulated that procedural defects in dismissal do not automatically render the dismissal illegal if
there is a valid cause. The remedy for such procedural lapses is the payment of nominal
damages, the amount of which is subject to the discretion of the court based on the
circumstances.

This principle was recently reaffirmed by the Supreme Court in Joy M. Villarico v. D.M.
Consunji, Inc. (G.R. No. 255602, March 3, 2025). In this case, Villarico was dismissed for just
cause—testing positive for illegal drug use. Despite the valid cause, the employer failed to
observe the required procedural due process. The Court upheld the dismissal's validity but
ordered the employer to pay ₱30,000 as nominal damages for the procedural violation. The
Court emphasized that the indemnity should serve as a penalty or compensation for the breach
of procedural rights and that the failure to observe due process does not entitle the employee to
reinstatement or backwages when the dismissal is substantively justified.

When Is Indemnity Awarded in Labor Cases?

Indemnity in labor cases is awarded when an employee is dismissed for just or authorized
cause (i.e., the dismissal is substantively valid), but the employer fails to observe the required
procedural due process. This means:

Just or Authorized Cause Exists:

The employer has a lawful ground to terminate employment (e.g., serious misconduct, fraud,
abandonment, drug use, retrenchment, or closure). The dismissal is not arbitrary or baseless.

Procedural Due Process Is Not Observed

 The employer does not follow the procedural requirements mandated by law or jurisprudence,
typically the “twin-notice rule”:

Notice to the employee to explain or answer the charges; and Notice of termination or
dismissal.

Dismissal Is Upheld But Procedurally Defective. Because there is just cause, the dismissal
stands. However, since due process was violated, the employee's right was breached.

Indemnity (Nominal Damages):

Is Awarded To compensate for the violation of procedural rights, the employer must pay
indemnity, usually in the form of nominal damages. This is distinct from backwages or
reinstatement, which are only awarded when the dismissal is both substantively and
procedurally illegal.

Key Points:

Indemnity is not a full compensation for lost wages or benefits; it is a recognition or vindication
of the procedural right to due process.

It is usually a fixed or nominal amount (often PHP 30,000 or so, but varies case by case).

The remedy protects employees from summary or unfair dismissals without proper notice, even
if the cause for dismissal is valid.

Example from Recent Jurisprudence

In G.R. No. 255602 (2025), the Supreme Court held that the dismissal of Villarico for drug
use was valid, but since the employer failed to issue the required notices, the employer was
liable to pay nominal damages of ₱30,000 as indemnity for the procedural due process violation.

7. Are corporate officers liable for labor claims?

Q: Can corporate officers be held personally liable for labor claims?

A: A corporation is invested by law with a personality separate and distinct from those of the
persons composing it as well as from that of any other legal entity to which it may be related.
However, in certain cases, the corporation's mask may be removed or its veil pierced when it
serves as an alter ego of another entity and becomes a shield for fraud, illegality, or inequity
committed against third persons. (De Leon vs. Good Year Steel Pipe Corp., G.R. No. 225311,
November 29, 2021)

Under the general rule, corporate officers are not personally liable for labor claims because the
corporation is a separate juridical entity distinct from its officers and shareholders. This principle
is anchored in the Corporation Code (now under the Revised Corporation Code, Republic Act
No. 11232), which affirms the separate personality of corporations and limits the liability of its
officers to their acts done in a representative capacity.However, corporate officers may be held
personally liable in exceptional cases, such as: When the corporate veil is pierced or lifted
Courts may disregard the corporation’s separate personality to hold officers or directors
personally liable if the corporation was used as a mere alter ego or instrumentality to commit
fraud, evade the law, or circumvent labor obligations. This is known as the “piercing of the
corporate veil” doctrine.
When officers act in bad faith or violate specific statutory duties. For example, under the Labor
Code and related laws, officers who wilfully refuse or neglect to pay final judgments or awards
for labor claims may be held liable. Article 217 of the Labor Code provides that an employer
who refuses or neglects to comply with labor laws or orders may be held criminally liable, which
may extend to corporate officers involved in such refusal.

When officers personally guarantee corporate obligations If corporate officers personally

guarantee payment of wages or benefits, they may be held liable on that basis.

The Supreme Court has clarified in various rulings that personal liability of corporate officers is
not automatic in labor cases and requires clear evidence of fraud, bad faith, or abuse of
corporate personality. For instance, in Tañada v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue (G.R.
No. 139018, 2003), the Court emphasized that personal liability arises only when the corporate
veil is properly pierced.In the context of labor claims, the landmark case of Santos v. NLRC
(G.R. No. 119583, 1997) held that officers and directors are generally not personally liable for
labor claims unless they have actively participated in or connived at the violation of labor laws or
committed acts amounting to fraud or bad faith.
Group 7
Boter, Michelle Klyde
Pasco, Sweetshell Mae
Salcedo, Claire
Villaluz, Jessa Josamae
Virtudazo, Hero John

Topic: B. LABOR ARBITER

i. NATURE OF JURISDICTION OF LABOR ARBITERS

Q: What is the nature of jurisdiction of the labor arbiter?

ANSWER: Labor Arbiters only have original and exclusive jurisdiction. They have no appellate
jurisdiction.

The cases that the Labor Arbiter (LA) has authority to hear and decide are those that involve
employment-related disputes. However, when there is no employer-employee relationship
between the parties, and the issues cannot be resolved by referring to the Labor Code, other
labor laws, or any Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA), jurisdiction properly lies with the
Regional Trial Court (RTC). In one case the Court found that petitioner was a corporate officer
(not an employee), and thus there was no employer–employee relationship. Hence the LA
lacked jurisdiction and the case belonged in the regular courts (Dr. Loreche-Amit v. Cagayan
de Oro Medical Center, Inc., Dr. Francisco Oh and Dr. Hernando Emano,G.R. No. 216635,
3 June. 2019)

The Court reiterated that a claimant must establish a reasonable causal connection between the
injury/claim and the employment to bring the case before labor tribunals; medical/causal proof
was required to show the condition arose out of employment. (Lacson v. RCCL Crew
Management Incorporated, GR. No. 270817, 27 Jan. 2025)

Q: Are there exceptions to the original and exclusive jurisdiction of the Labor Arbiters?
A: Yes, there are cases that fall as exceptions to the original and exclusive jurisdiction of the
labor arbiters.
1. When the SOLE or the President exercises his power under Art. 278(g) of the Labor
Code 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 certified to it by the SOLE pursuant to the exercise by the latter of
his certification power under Art. 263(g)
3. When the cases arise from the interpretation of CBAs and from the interpretation or
enforcement of company personnel policies which shall be disposed of by the LA by
referring the same to the grievance machinery and voluntary arbitration, as may be
provided in said agreements.
4. When the parties agree to submit the case to voluntary arbitration before the VA or panel
of VAs who, under Art. 274 and 275 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.

ii. JURISDICTION OF LA VS. REGIONAL DIRECTOR

Q: What is the general rule regarding the jurisdiction of the Labor Arbiter as compared to
the DOLE Regional Director?
ANSWER: Under Article 224 of the Labor Code, the Labor Arbiter exercises original and
exclusive jurisdiction over cases involving employer-employee relations such as illegal dismissal,
money claims that exceeds PhP5,000.00, unfair labor practices and claims for damages arising
from such relations.

Meanwhile, the DOLE Regional Director exercises visitorial and enforcement powers under
Article 128 and Article 129 of the Labor Code, allowing them to issue compliance orders in
enforcing labor standards laws, especially when violations are discovered through inspection.

RELATED JURISPRUDENCE:
  The Supreme Court held that the Labor Arbiter has exclusive jurisdiction over cases
involving termination disputes and money claims arising therefrom, regardless of the
amount. When a complaint includes a claim for reinstatement or arises from illegal
dismissal, jurisdiction belongs to the Labor Arbiter, not the DOLE Regional Director (PCL
Shipping Philippines, Inc. v. NLRC, G.R. No. 222649, April 10, 2019).
 The Supreme Court emphasized the principle of jurisdiction by affirming the Labor
Arbiter’s original and exclusive jurisdiction over all claims arising from the employer-
employee relationship, including constructive dismissal and monetary claims of OFWs
(Ascent Skills Human Resources Services, Inc. vs. Manuel, G.R. No. 249843,
October 6, 2021)
 The Supreme Court upheld the DOLE Regional Director's authority to determine the
existence of an employer-employee relationship, especially in the context of labor-only
contracting, as an incident of the DOLE Secretary's/Regional Director's visitorial and
enforcement powers under Article 128 of the Labor Code. (Manggagawa sa
Komunikasyon ng Pilipinas vs. PLDT, Inc., G.R. Nos. 244695, 244752, & 245294,
February 14, 2024).

Q: How to determine whether the jurisdiction belongs to the labor arbiters or to the
regional directors?
ANSWER: “It is a basic rule that jurisdiction over the subject matter is determined upon the
allegations in the complaint, irrespective of whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover upon the
claims being prayed for. Jurisdiction cannot be made to depend on the defenses raised by the
defendant in its answer or motion to dismiss. It is neither fixed by consent or agreement of the
parties or by estoppel. In labor proceedings, the allegations made in the complaint and in
the position paper may be considered in determining jurisdiction.

If the allegations in the complaint involve Unfair Labor Practice (ULP), it is the Labor Arbiter who
has jurisdiction pursuant to Article 224 of the Labor Code. ULP generally refers to acts that
violate the worker's right to self-organization. Article 259 of the Labor Code, enumerates the
different types of ULP that may be committed by the employer.” (South Cotabato Integrated
Port Services v. Romeo Montefalco, Jr., G.R No. 235569, December 13, 2023)
Q: What specific conditions must be met for an employer’s objection to move a labor
standards case from the DOLE Regional Director to the Labor Arbiter?
ANSWER:
The Regional Director loses jurisdiction only if two conditions exists:
(1) the employer contests the finding; and
(2) resolving the contest requires examining evidence not normally available during
inspection.

Under Article 128(b) of the Labor Code, it establishes the Regional Director’s visitorial
and enforcement power but specifies its limitation when the employer contests the findings and
resolving those issues requires examining “evidentiary matters that not verifiable in the normal
course of inspection,” the case must be referred to the Labor Arbiter.

RELATED JURISPRUDENCE:

 The Supreme Court affirmed the precise legal threshold for compelling the Department
of Labor and Employment (DOLE) to refer a labor standards case to the Labor Arbiter
(the "exception clause" of Article 128).

The principle holds that the DOLE's jurisdiction to resolve labor standards issues,
including labor-only contracting, is not automatically lost merely because an employer
disputes the findings or denies the employment relationship.
For the mandatory referral to take effect, three specific elements must simultaneously
exist:
o The employer contests the labor inspector's findings and raises genuine issues
regarding labor standards compliance or the right to benefits.
o Resolving the contested issues necessitates the examination of evidentiary
matters.
o The crucial condition: the required evidentiary matters cannot be verified during
the normal course of inspection (Manggagawa sa Komunikasyon ng Pilipinas
vs. PLDT, Inc., G.R. Nos. 244695, 244752, & 245294, February 14, 2024).
Note: The Court stressed that the third requirement is the " key" factor for divesting the DOLE
of jurisdiction. If the evidence needed to resolve the dispute (such as service agreements,
payroll, or contracts) is of a nature that is verifiable through standard inspection procedures,
the DOLE Regional Director and the Secretary retain their jurisdiction to decide the case, and
referral to the Labor Arbiter is not warranted.

iii. REQUIREMENTS TO PERFECT AN APPEAL WITH NLRC

Q: What is the period to appeal a Labor Arbiter’s decision to the NLRC?

ANSWER:
The appeal must be filed within ten (10) calendar days from receipt of the LA’s decision,
award, or order. The period is non-extendible and jurisdictional. Failure to file the appeal within
this period renders the LA’s decision final and executory. As Art. 229 of the Labor Code
provides: “Decisions, awards, or order of the Labor Arbiter are final and executory unless
appealed to the Commission by any or both parties within ten calendar days from receipt of
such decisions, awards, or orders.

RELATED JURISPRUDENCE:
 The Supreme Court held that the ten-day period to appeal a Labor Arbiter’s decision is
mandatory and jurisdictional; failure to comply results in the finality of the decision. The
NLRC cannot entertain a late appeal, even on equitable grounds, absent proof of fraud
or excusable negligence (Domdom v. Third Millennium Manpower Services, Inc.,
G.R. No. 240126, July 29, 2019).

 The supreme court cited Art. 223 of the Labor Code stating: “ Decision, awards or orders
of the Labor Arbiter are final and executory unless appealed to the Commission by any
or both parties within ten (10) calendar days from receipt of such decisions, awards, or
order” (Karj Global Marketing Network, Inc. vs. Miguel Mara, G.R. No. 190654, July
28, 2020).

Q: What are the requirements to perfect an appeal?

ANSWER: To perfect an appeal, the following jurisdictional requirement must be strictly
complied with within the 10-day period:

1) Filed within the reglementary period;

2) Verified by the appellant himself;
3) In the form of a Memorandum of Appeal;
4) Three legibly typewritten or printed copies; and
5) Accompanied by:
a. Proof of payment of the required appeal fee;
b. Posting of a cash or surety bond;
c. Certificate of non-forum shopping; and
d. Proof of service upon the other parties

Failure to comply with any of these requisites renders the appeal ineffective and the Labor
Arbiter’s decision final and executory.

RELATED JURISPRUDENCE:

 The indispensable nature of the posting of a bond in appeals from the LA to the NLRC is
further highlighted in Section 4 (b) Rule VI of the 2011 NLRC Rules of Procedure, which
states that: "A mere notice of appeal without complying with the other requisites
aforestated shall not stop the running of the period for perfecting an appeal." The
posting by the employer of a cash or surety bond is mandatory to assure the workers
that if they prevail in the case, they will receive the money judgment in their favor upon
the dismissal of the employer's appeal. The requirement was designed to discourage
employers from using an appeal to delay, or even evade, their obligation to satisfy their
employees' just and lawful claims. (Noel M. Manrique v. Delta Earthmoving, Inc., G.R
No. 229429, November 9, 2020)
  The Supreme Court, reaffirmed the requisites on perfection of appeal which are the
following:
1) Filed within the reglementary period;
2) Verified by the appellant himself;
3) In the form of a Memorandum of Appeal;
4) Three legibly typewritten or printed copies accompanied by:
 Proof of payment of the required appeal fee;
 Posting of a cash or surety bond;
 Certificate of non-forum shopping; and
 Proof of service upon the other parties

In case it involves monetary awards, appeal shall be perfected only upon compliance with the
following mandatory requisites, namely: (1) Payment of the appeal fees; (2) Filing of the
memorandum of appeal; and (3)Payment of the required cash or surety bond. (Salazar vs.
Simbajon, G.R. No. 202374, June 30, 2021)

Q: Does the required Payment of Appeal Fee indispensable to perfect an appeal?

ANSWER: The Court held that the non-payment of the appeal fee within the reglementary
period is fatal to the appeal. The appeal fee is part of the perfection process; its nonpayment
renders the appeal unperfected, and the LA’s decision becomes final and executory. (Aliviado
v. Procter & Gamble Phils., Inc., G.R. No. 240608, February 5, 2020)

Q: Can new evidence be presented on appeal before the NLRC?

ANSWER: Yes, new evidence can be presented on appeal before the NLRC, but this is a
generally discouraged exception to the rule.
The NLRC is not bound by the strict, technical rules of evidence and procedure prevailing in
ordinary courts. The general rule is that appeals are decided only on the basis of the evidence
presented before the LA, but the NLRC and the SC have consistently allowed the admission of
the new evidence on appeal in the interest of substantial justice.

RELATED JURISPRUDENCE:

 The Supreme Court upheld the NLRC’s decision to admit documentary evidence
submitted by the respondent for the first time on appeal reversing the Labor Arbiter’s
ruling. The court reiterated the established rule: “It is well settled that the NLRC is not
precluded from receiving evidence, even for the first time on appeal, because technical
rules of procedure are not binding in labor cases.” However, the court also warns that
this liberality is not a license to disregard the rules entirely, and parties should still
endeavor to present all evidence at the earliest opportunity. The failure to present
evidence before the Labor Arbiter must be adequately explained and justified to warrant
the exercise of the NLRC’s decision. (Sps. Maynes vs. Oreiro, G.R. No. 206109,
November 25, 2020)

QUESTION: What is the required amount of the appeal bond to be posted by the
employer?
ANSWER: The bond must be in an amount equivalent to the monetary award in the judgment
appealed from, exclusive of damages and attorney’s fees.

RELATED JURISPRUDENCE:

 The Supreme Court, explicitly cited Article 223 of the Labor Code requires the posting of
a cash or surety bond when the judgment appealed from involves a monetary award. “In
case of a judgment involving a monetary award, an appeal by the employer may be
perfected only upon the posting of a cash or surety bond issued by a reputable bonding
company duly accredited by the Commission in the amount equivalent to the
monetary award in the judgment appealed from" (Karj Global Marketing Network,
Inc. vs. Miguel Mara, G.R. No. 190654, July 28, 2020).
QUESTION: Does posting of Cash or Surety Bond (for Employer’s Appeal) is mandatory?
ANSWER: The Supreme Court held that the posting of an appeal bond is mandatory and
jurisdictional in appeals involving monetary awards. The perfection of an appeal in the NLRC
requires not just filing and fees but also the posting of a bond, without which the appeal will be
dismissed outright. (McBurnie v. Ganzon, G.R. Nos. 178034, 178117, 186984 & 186988,
October 17, 2017)

QUESTION: What is the consequence if the employer-appellant fails to post the required
appeal bond within the reglementary period?
ANSWER: Failure to file and post the required appeal bond within the 10-day reglementary
period results in the non-perfection of the appeal, and the Labor Arbiter’s decision becomes final
and executory. The appeal bond is a jurisdictional requisite and its absence prevents the NLRC
from acquiring jurisdiction over the case, rendering the appeal dismissible outright.

RELATED JURISPRUDENCE:

 The Supreme Court, affirmed that failure to comply with the 10-day period (and the
accompanying appeal bond for employers) is jurisdictional, leading to the finality and
executory nature of the Labor Arbiter’s decisions. (Turks Shawarma Company vs.
Carbonilla, G.R. No. 207156, January 16, 2017)

QUESTION: Can the NLRC allow an appeal to be perfected by posting a property bond
instead of cash or surety bond?
ANSWER: No, the NLRC cannot allow an appeal to be perfected by posting a property bond.
This is due to the mandatory and jurisdictional set forth by the Labor Code, which specify the
acceptable forms of security.

Art. 229 of the Labor Code states: “In case of a judgment involving a monetary award, an
appeal by the employer may be perfected only upon the posting of a cash or surety bond issued
by a reputable bonding company duly accredited by the Commission in the amount equivalent
to the monetary award in the judgment appealed from.”

RELATED JURISPRUDENCE:

 The Supreme Court, affirmed that an appeal by the employer may be perfected only
upon the posting of a cash or surety bond issued by a reputable bonding company duly
accredited by the Commission in the amount equivalent to the monetary award in the
judgment appealed from. The word “only” makes it perfectly clear that the lawmakers
intended the posting of a cash or surety bond by the employer to be the exclusive means
by which an employer’s appeal may be perfected. (Karj Global Marketing Network, Inc.
vs. Miguel Mara, G.R. No. 190654, July 28, 2020)
Group 6
Aquiman, Claudine Y.
Balt, Anas
Maulana, Aiza
Raro, Crystal Sylvette Lavender P.
Roa, Elisa S.

Topic: C. NLRC

What is the mandate of NLRC?

The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) is a quasi-judicial body tasked to promote
and maintain industrial peace based on social justice by resolving labor and management
disputes involving both local and overseas workers through compulsory arbitration and
alternative modes of dispute resolution.

What is the Legal Basis for the establishment of the NLRC?

 Republic Act No. 442 (November 1,1974) created the National Labor Relations
Commission (NLRC) and Regional Arbitration Branches (RABs).
 Republic Act No. 6715 (March 21, 1989) reorganized the NLRC and the RABs.
 Republic Act No. 9347 (August 26, 2006) created three additional divisions in the
Commission Proper and provided for the deployment of labor arbiters as reviewers at
the RABs.
What is the jurisdiction of the NLRC?

a. Original and exclusive jurisdiction of the NLRC

The NLRC has original and exclusive jurisdiction for the following cases:
1) Certified cases for compulsory arbitration – in relation to the DOLE Secretary’s assumption of
jurisdiction (Article 278 [263] (g), Labor Code);
2) Extraordinary remedies via a verified petition to annul or modify the order or resolution of the
Labor Arbiter (Section 1, Rule XII, 2011 NLRC Rules of Procedure, as amended);
3) Petition for Injunction in labor cases (Article 225 [218] (e), Labor Code); and,
4) Contempt cases. (Article 225 [218] (d), Ibid.)

b. Exclusive appellate jurisdiction of the NLRC

The NLRC has exclusive appellate jurisdiction for the following cases:
1) Cases on monetary claims resolved/decided by the DOLE Regional Director, except
those arising from the visitorial and enforcement powers of the DOLE Secretary (Article
129, Ibid.)
2) Cases decided by the Labor Arbiter (Section 1, Rule V, 2011 NLRC Rules of
Procedure, as amended)
3) 3rd party claim – a third party may file a third-party claim with the sheriff of the Labor
Arbiter, and if the third-party claim is denied, the third party may appeal the denial to the
NLRC.

REQUISITES OF AN APPEAL TO THE NLRC

What are the requisites to perfect an appeal with the NLRC?

The appeal shall be:

1. Filed within the reglementary period:
 10 calendar days from receipt of the Labor Arbiter’s decision, award, or order.
 5 calendar days from receipt of decisions or resolutions of the Regional Director
under Article 129 of the Labor Code.
2. Verified by the appellant himself/herself in accordance with Section 4, Rule 7 of the
Rules of Court, as amended;
3. In the form of a memorandum of appeal which shall
i) State the grounds relied upon and
 ii) The arguments in support thereof,
iii) The relief prayed for, and
iv) With a statement of the date the appellant received the appealed
decision, award or order;
4. in three (3) legibly typewritten or printed copies; and
5. accompanied by:
i)proof of payment of the required appeal fee and legal research fee,
ii)posting of a cash or surety bond equivalent in amount to the monetary award,
exclusive of damages and attorney’s fees; and
iii) proof of service upon the other parties.

A mere notice of appeal without complying with the above requisites does not stop the running
of the period to perfect the appeal. Once the appeal is perfected in accordance with these Rules,
the Commission shall limit itself to reviewing and deciding only the specific issues that were
elevated on appeal( Section 4 Rule 6 of 2011 NLRC Rules of Procedure)

What requisites are mandatory and jurisdictional?

The following requisites are mandatory and jurisdictional:

1. Observance of the reglementary period;
2. Payment of appeal fee and legal research fee; and
3. Posting of bond in case of monetary awards( Section 6 Rule 6 2011 NLRC Rules of
Procedure)

In case of a surety bond, the same shall be issued by a reputable bonding company duly
accredited by the Commission, and shall be accompanied by original or certified true copies of
the following:
a) a joint declaration under oath by the employer, his/her counsel, and the bonding
company, attesting that the bond posted is genuine, and shall be effective until final
disposition of the case;
b) an indemnity agreement between the employer-appellant and bonding company;
c) proof of security deposit or collateral securing the bond: provided, that a check shall
d) notarized board resolution or secretary’s certificate from the bonding company
showing its authorized signatories and their specimen signatures. ( Section 6 Rule 6
2011 NLRC Rules of Procedure.)
No motion to reduce bond shall be entertained except on
a. meritorious grounds, and
b. only upon the posting of a bond in a reasonable amount in relation to the monetary
award.
The mere filing of a motion to reduce bond without complying with the requisites in the
preceding paragraphs shall not stop the running of the period to perfect an appeal. Section 6
RULE 6 OF 2011 NLRC RULES OF PROCEDURE

Is the posting of the bond mandatory?

YES. In Pacific Royal Basic Foods, Inc. v. Noche, the Supreme Court held that an employer-
appellant can perfect an appeal only by posting a bond equivalent to the full monetary
award granted to the employee. The Court emphasized that complying with this requirement
is both mandatory and jurisdictional; failure to do so means the NLRC lacks jurisdiction
to hear the appeal. Consequently, there can be no implicit approval of a jurisdictional
requirement that was not met. Any ruling on a motion to reduce the bond must be clear and
issued before or at the time the NLRC resolves the appeal. If the NLRC issues a decision
without properly acquiring jurisdiction, it constitutes grave abuse of discretion, rendering the
decision null and void. (PACIFIC ROYAL BASIC FOODS, INC. VS VIOLETA NOCHE, G.R.
No. 202392. October 04, 2021)

When can the appeal bond requirement be relaxed?

The appeal bond requirement for monetary awards may be relaxed in meritorious cases.
(1) There is substantial compliance with the rules,
(2) when the facts and circumstances justify a reduction,
(3) when a liberal reading of the rule promotes resolution on the merits, or
(4) When the appellant shows good faith by posting a partial bond within the prescribed period.

Conversely, the reduction of the bond is not warranted when no meritorious ground is shown to
justify the same (ABELARDO SALAZAR, PETITIONER, VS. ALBINA SIMBAJON, G.R. No.
202374. June 30, 2021)

PERIOD TO FILE AN APPEAL

What is the period to file an appeal from the decision of a Labor Arbiter?

The period to file an appeal from the decision, award, or order of the Labor arbiter is ten (10)
calendar days from receipt of the decision, award, or order

What is the period to appeal the decision of the Regional Director or his duly authorized
Hearing Officer?

An appeal from the decision, award, or order of the Regional Director or his duly authorized
Hearing Officer must be filed within five (5) calendar days from receipt of such decision, award,
or order.

What happens if the 10th or 5th day to file an appeal falls on a non-working day?

If the 10th or 5th day to file an appeal falls on a non-working day, the last day to perfect an
appeal shall be the next working day.

Can the period to file an appeal be extended?

No. The 10-day period is mandatory and jurisdictional. No motion or request for extension of
period to file the memorandum of appeal, reply, or rejoinder shall be entertained.

When is an appeal deemed filed if it is sent through registered mail?

Sec. 3, Rule 13 of the Rules of Court provides that where the pleadings are filed by registered
mail, the date of mailing as shown by the post office stamp on the envelope or the registry
receipt shall be considered as the date of filing. When the photocopy of the registry receipt
bears an earlier date but is not authenticated, the Court held that the later date stamped on the
envelope shall be considered as the date of filing. (Bismonte vs. Golder Sunset Resort and
Spa, G.R. NO. 229326, Nov. 5, 2018)

GROUNDS TO APPEAL

What are the grounds to appeal in the NLRC?

“No appeal shall be accepted unless it is shown that the appeal is made on any of the following
grounds:
1) If there is prima facie evidence of abuse of discretion on the part of the Labor Arbiter or
Regional Director;
2) If the decision/award/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 the findings of fact are raised, which if not corrected, would cause
grave or irreparable damage or injury to the appellant.
(Rule VI, Section 4, 2011 NLRC Rules of Procedure (as amended)

Is an appeal a matter of right before the NLRC?

NO. The Supreme Court held that the right to appeal is neither a natural right nor is it a
component of due process. It is a mere statutory privilege, and may be exercised only in the
manner and in accordance with the provisions of the law. The party that seeks to avail of the
same must comply with the requirements of the rules. Failing to do so the right to appeal is lost.
(TURKS SHAWARMA COMPANY/GEM ZEÑAROSA, VS. FELICIANO Z. PAJARON AND
LARRY A. CARBONILLA G.R. No. 207156, January 16, 2017)

What will be the effect of non-compliance of procedural due process?

Failure to comply with any of the procedural requirements renders the appeal dismissible
outright . The NLRC strictly enforces the mandatory nature of these requirements to ensure
the expeditious resolution of labor disputes.

What is the remedy if the NLRC dismissed the case?

The remedy if the NLRC dismissed the case is to file a motion for reconsideration. A motion for
reconsideration, when allowed to be filed, is an indispensable condition to the filing of a petition
for certiorari. (Del Monte Land Transport Bus Company vs. Carlito Abergos, G.R. No.
245344, December 2, 2020)

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

Can a party file a motion for reconsideration of an NLRC decision?

Yes. Under Section 15, Rule VII of the 2011 NLRC Rules of Procedure, a party may file one (1)
motion for reconsideration of any decision, resolution, or order of the NLRC based only on
palpable or patent errors.

The motion must be filed within ten (10) calendar days from receipt of the decision, with proof
that a copy has been served on the adverse party.
Rule VII, Section 15, NLRC Rules of Procedure (2011):

SECTION 15. MOTIONS FOR RECONSIDERATION. – Motion for reconsideration of any

decision, resolution or order of the Commission shall not be entertained except when based on
palpable or patent errors; provided that the motion is filed within ten (10) calendar days from
receipt of decision, resolution or order, with proof of service that a copy of the same has been
furnished, within the reglementary period, the adverse party; and provided further, that only one
such motion from the same party shall be entertained.

Is a motion for reconsideration a prerequisite to a petition for certiorari under Rule 65?

Yes. Filing a motion for reconsideration is a condition precedent before a party can elevate an
NLRC decision to the Court of Appeals via Rule 65 certiorari. The court consistently
emphasized that a special civil action for certiorari and an appeal are "mutually exclusive and
not alternative or successive. (Ro-ann Veterinary Manufacturing, Inc. vs. Fernando A.
Bingbing, G.R. No. 236271. April 03, 2019 )

“It is settled that a motion for reconsideration, when allowed to be filed, is an indispensable
condition to the filing of a petition for certiorari” (Del Monte Land Transport Bus Co., V.
Aabergos, G.R. No. 245344, December 2, 2020)

On what grounds may a motion for reconsideration be filed?

It must be based only on palpable or patent errors — meaning errors that are clear, obvious, or
apparent on the face of the record.
Motions based on new arguments or rehashed issues already discussed are not allowed.

What happens if no motion for reconsideration is filed?

If no motion is filed within the reglementary 10-day period, the NLRC decision becomes final
and executory, and no further relief may be sought except to execute the judgment.
GROUP 9
Tumara, Janbryan N.
Bustamante, Harvey S.
Racman, Aliah
Obsioma, Winlynm Kissy Mae R.
Galos, Radji Kem L.

TOPIC: COURT OF APPEALS: JURISDICTION AND REMEDIES

I. What is the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals in Labor Cases?

The Court of Appeals' jurisdiction in labor matters is primarily through its power to review
decisions, resolutions, or orders issued by the NLRC and other quasi agencies like DOLE,
ECC and SSC.

When any tribunal, board or officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions has acted
without or in excess its or his jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack
or excess of jurisdiction, and there is no appeal, or any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy
in the ordinary course of law, a person aggrieved thereby may file a verified petition in the
proper court, alleging the facts with certainty and praying that judgment be rendered
annulling or modifying the proceedings of such tribunal, board or officer, and granting such
incidental reliefs as law and justice may require. (Section 1, Rule 65 of Rules of Court)

II. What is the proper mode of review from the decisions of the NLRC and based on what
ground?

Once an NLRC decision becomes final, it cannot be reviewed unless there is grave abuse of
discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. Decisions of the NLRC may be
reviewed by the Court of Appeals via a petition for Certiorari under Rule 65.

Well-entrenched in jurisprudence is the rule that the proper mode of judicial review over
decisions of the NLRC is via a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court filed
before the CA. This remedy is a special original action focused on resolving the issue of
whether a tribunal, board, or officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions has acted
without or in excess of its jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or
excess of jurisdiction. (Ro-Ann Veterinary Manufacturing, Inc. vs Fernando Bingbing,
GR 236271, April 3, 2019)

It emphasized that Court of Appeals must determine whether the NLRC committed grave
abuse of discretion the Court of Appeals decision is examined from the prism of whether the
Court of Appeal correctly determined the presence or absence of grave abuse of discretion
in the NLRC decision.” Grave abuse of discretion connotes a capricious and whimsical
exercise of judgment, done in a despotic manner by reason of passion or personal hostility,
the character of which being so patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of positive duty
or to a virtual refusal to perform the duty enjoined by or to act at all in contemplation of law.
(Pelagio vs. Philippine Transmarine Carriers, Inc., G.R. No.231773, March 11, 2019)

III. Are the decisions of other quasi agencies decisions mode of appeal similar to the mode of
appeal of the decisions of the NLRC? If not, what is the mode of appeal?

No. Decision of other quasi agencies like the ECC or SSC may be appealed to the CA under
Rule 43 of the Rules of Court. This process differs from the certiorari petitions as it involves
a review of errors of law or fact.
IV. What is the period to appeal on the decisions of the NLRC?

The aggrieved party may file within 60 days from receipt of notice of judgment, order or
resolutions of the NLRC.

The petition shall be filed not later than sixty (60) days from notice of the judgment, order or
resolution. In case a motion for reconsideration or new trial is timely filed, whether such
motion is required or not, the petition shall be filed not later than sixty (60) days counted
from the notice of the denial of the motion. (Section 4, Rule 65 of the Rules of Court)

V. Is a motion for reconsideration on the decision of the NLRC required before the CA take
cognizance of a case?

Yes. The filing of a Motion for Reconsideration from the decisions of the NLRC is deemed a
condition sine qua non for filing of a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 to the Court of
Appeals. However, failure to file a motion for reconsideration of the decision of the NLRC
before filing a petition for certiorari has in certain instances been held not to be a fatal
omission.

It is a settled rule that a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 will not lie unless a
motion for reconsideration is filed before the respondent court. However, there are well-
defined exceptions established by jurisprudence, such as: (a) where the order is a patent
nullity, as where the court a quo has no jurisdiction; (b) where the questions raised in
the certiorari proceedings have been duly raised and passed upon by the lower court, or are
the same as those raised and passed upon in the lower court; (c) where there is an urgent
necessity for the resolution of the question and any further delay would prejudice the
interests of the Government or of the petitioner or the subject matter of the action is
perishable; (d) where, under the circumstances, a motion for reconsideration would be
useless; (e) where petitioner was deprived of due process and there is extreme urgency for
relief; (f) where, in a criminal case, relief from an order of arrest is urgent and the granting of
such relief by the trial court is improbable; (g) where the proceedings in the lower court are a
nullity for lack of due process; (h) where the proceedings were ex parte or in which the
petitioner had no opportunity to object; and (i) where the issue raised is one purely of law or
where public interest is involved. (ABS-CBN Corporation vs Jaime Concepcion, GR
230576, October 5, 2020)

VI. What is the effect of filing a petition for certiorari to the CA on the NLRC decision?
The filing of a petition does not stay the execution of the NLRC decision unless the CA
issues a temporary restraining order (TRO) or writ of preliminary injunction.

The payment of a judgment award by virtue of the execution of a decision, resolution, or

order of the NLRC is without prejudice to further recourse before the CA. (Ro-Ann
Veterinary Manufacturing, Inc. vs Fernando Bingbing, GR 236271, April 3, 2019)

VII. What is the remedy when CA decision is adverse?

The aggrieved party may file a petition for review on certiorari to the Supreme Court under
Rule 45, provided the issues raised involve pure questions of law.

The CA decision and resolution were final judgments as it disposed of respondent's petition
for certiorari, which left the CA with nothing more to be done. Hence, the proper remedy to
assail said issuances is through a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 and not a
petition for certiorari under Rule 65. (Jerzon Manpower and Trading Inc vs Emmanuel
Nato, GR 230211, October 6, 2021)

In a Rule 45 review in labor cases, the Court examines the CA's Decision from the prism of
whether, in a petition for certiorari, the latter had correctly determined the presence or
absence of grave abuse of discretion in the NLRC's Decision. (Edna Luisa Simon vs The
Results Companies, GR 249351-52, March 29, 2022)
Group 3
Bernales II, Allan M.
Eyana, Joshua Ignatius P.
Surio, Shaira Ruffa K.
Sagrado, Grace B.
Zapanta, Rosalin I.
Mustal, Paul Vincent N.

Topic: Labor Code: IX. JURISDICTION AND REMEDIES

 E. SUPREME COURT
 Period to compute backwages
(NLRC Finality of Decision or Supreme Court Finality)

E. Supreme Court
 The Supreme Court of the Philippines plays a pivotal role in labor law and social
legislation, particularly in exercising appellate jurisdiction and providing definitive rulings
on legal disputes involving labor standards and relations.

Q1: What is the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in Labor cases?

A: The Supreme Court has Jurisdiction over Labor cases through petition for certiorari under
rule 45 of the rules of court. The Court will now determine whether or not the Court of Appeals is
correct in determining the presence or absence of grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack
or excess of jurisdiction in the NLRC decision.

Phil. Pizza vs. Porras GR No. 230030, August 29, 2018

 This case illustrates how the Supreme Court of the Philippines asserts its jurisdiction in
labor disputes through a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of
Court, focusing strictly on questions of law.
 The Supreme Court clarified that its appellate jurisdiction in labor cases is limited to
legal issues, such as whether the Court of Appeals correctly applied the law in
determining the existence of illegal dismissal.
 It did not re-evaluate factual findings unless there was a showing of grave abuse of
discretion or lack of substantial evidence.
 Grave Abuse of Discretion: The Court emphasized that it may intervene when lower
tribunals act in a capricious or arbitrary manner that amounts to lack or excess of
jurisdiction.
 Substantial Evidence Rule: The NLRC’s findings must be supported by substantial
evidence. If not, the Supreme Court may affirm the CA’s corrective action.
 Voluntariness of Resignation: The Court reiterated that resignation must be proven
voluntary by the employer, and failure to do so supports a finding of illegal dismissal.
 Due Process in Termination: The decision reinforced the requirement that dismissals
must comply with both substantive and procedural due process.
 Clarifying the limits of Supreme Court review in labor cases—focusing on legal errors,
not factual disputes.
 Affirming the CA’s authority to overturn NLRC decisions when grave abuse of
discretion is evident.
 Protecting employee rights against coerced resignation and reinforcing due process
standards.

SUPREME COURT J URISDICTION IN L A B OR L A W

�� Jurisdiction & Review

Q2: What labor cases can be elevated to the Supreme Court?

A: Only cases involving pure questions of law may be appealed to the Supreme Court under
Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. Questions of fact are generally not reviewable unless there's
grave abuse of discretion or lack of substantial evidence.

Q3: Can the Supreme Court review decisions of the NLRC or Court of Appeals?
A: Yes, but only on legal grounds. The Supreme Court does not re-evaluate factual findings
unless they are unsupported by evidence or violate jurisprudence.

Q4: What is the remedy if a labor tribunal commits grave abuse of discretion?
A: A petition for certiorari under Rule 65 may be filed, provided there is no other plain, speedy,
and adequate remedy available.

Q5: Can the Supreme Court rule on the constitutionality of labor laws?
A: Yes. It has original jurisdiction to review laws, executive orders, or regulations that allegedly
violate the Constitution.

�� Grounds for Appeal

Q6: What are valid grounds for appealing a labor case to the Supreme Court?
A:
 Errors of law or misapplication of legal principles
 Grave abuse of discretion by lower tribunals
 Lack or excess of jurisdiction

Q7: Can a party appeal if the NLRC ignored key evidence?

A: Yes, if the omission amounts to grave abuse of discretion or contradicts established labor
jurisprudence.

�� Remedies Available
Q8: What is a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45?
A: It is a remedy for appealing decisions involving legal questions. It must be filed within 15
days from receipt of the decision.

Q9: What is a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65?

A: It is used to challenge decisions made with grave abuse of discretion. It must be filed within
60 days.

Q10: Can the Supreme Court issue a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) in labor cases?
A: Yes, especially to prevent irreparable harm from NLRC decisions or during labor strikes.

�� Principles of Review

Q11: Does the Supreme Court interfere with factual findings of labor tribunals?
A: Generally no, unless findings are unsupported or made with grave abuse of discretion.

Q12: How does the Supreme Court interpret labor laws?

A: It applies a liberal interpretation favoring workers, consistent with the social justice mandate
under the Constitution.

Q13: Is exhaustion of administrative remedies required before going to the Supreme

Court?
A: Yes. Failure to exhaust remedies leads to dismissal.

Procedural Requirements
Q14: What happens if a petition fails to follow procedural rules?
A: It is dismissed outright.

Q15: Is a bond required in monetary labor awards?

A: Yes. A supersedes bond equivalent to the award must be posted to stay execution.

Q16: Can repetitive appeals be entertained by the Supreme Court?

A: No. The Court dismisses appeals that are dilatory or raise no new legal issues.
Jurisprudence:

PHILIPPINE PIZZA V. CAYETANO

G.R. No. 230030, August 29, 2018

PHILIPPINE PIZZA, INC., PETITIONER, V. JENNY PORRAS[*] CAYETANO, RIZALDO G.

AVENIDO, PEE JAY T. GURION, RUMEL A. RECTO, ROGELIO T. SUMBANG, JR., AND
JIMMY J. DELOSO, RESPONDENTS.

The Court stresses the distinct approach in reviewing a CA ruling in a labor case. In a Rule 45
review, the Court examines the correctness of the CA Decision in contrast with the review of
jurisdictional errors under Rule 65.

Furthermore, Rule 45 limits the review to questions of law. In ruling for legal correctness, the
Court views the CA Decision in the same context that the petition for certiorari was presented to
the CA.

Hence, the Court has to examine the CA Decision from the prism of whether the CA correctly
determined the presence or absence of grave abuse of discretion in the NLRC Decision.

In labor cases, grave abuse of discretion may be attributed to the NLRC when its findings and
conclusions are not supported by substantial evidence, which refers to that amount of relevant
evidence that a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify a conclusion.

Thus, if the NLRC ruling has basis in the evidence and the applicable law and jurisprudence,
then no grave abuse of discretion exists and the CA should so declare and, accordingly, dismiss
the petition.

Asia Brewery vs. Pulido (G.R. No. 202388, April 10, 2019)
The Supreme Court ruled that dismissal must comply with both substantive and procedural due
process. In this case, the employer implemented a redundancy program, and the Court
examined whether the dismissal was valid and proportional.
Key Doctrines:
 Due process in dismissal requires:

o A valid cause under the Labor Code (e.g., redundancy, retrenchment).

o Observance of procedural requirements (notice and hearing).

 Proportionality means that the penalty must be commensurate to the offense or situation.
Even if a ground exists, dismissal may be unjust if it is excessive or lacks humane
consideration

Period to compute backwages

Q1: How are backwages for illegally dismissed employees computed if a reinstatement
was ordered?
A: When reinstatement is ordered, the general concept under Article 279 of the Labor Code, as
amended, computes backwages from the time of dismissal until the employee’s reinstatement.
The computation of backwages (and similar benefits considered part of the backwages) can
even continue beyond the decision of the labor arbiter or NLRC and ends only when the
employee is actually reinstated. (ANGONO MEDICS HOSPITAL, INC. vs. ANTONINA Q.
AGABIN, December 09, 2020)

Q2: From what point should the computation of backwages be reckoned from the finality
of the NLRC decision or from the finality of the Supreme Court decision?

A: It depends on which court’s decision ordering separation pay or reinstatement becomes

final and executory, as that decision is what legally severs the employment relationship.
What ultimately controls is the finality of the decision that ends such relationship.
In Moreno Dumapis, Francisco Liagao, and Elmo Tundagui v. Lepanto Consolidated
Mining Company (G.R. No. 204060, September 15, 2020), the Court, citing CICM Mission
Seminaries v. Perez, held that when separation pay is ordered in lieu of reinstatement,
backwages are computed from the time of illegal dismissal until the finality of the decision
ordering separation pay. Once the decision becomes final, the employment relationship is
deemed terminated, and that point serves as the cut-off for computing backwages.

This principle was further explained in Angono Medics Hospital, Inc. v. Agabin (G.R. No.
202542, December 9, 2020), where the Court held that a judgment in an illegal dismissal case
has two components: first, the finding of illegal dismissal and the award of separation pay
and backwages, which becomes final; and second, the computation of those monetary
awards, which follows thereafter.

In the same case, the Court cited Bani Rural Bank, Inc. v. De Guzman laid down the distinctions
governing computation of backwages:

1. When reinstatement is ordered, backwages are computed from dismissal until

actual reinstatement, since the employment relationship continues until the employee
is reinstated.
2. When separation pay is ordered in lieu of reinstatement, backwages are computed
from dismissal until the finality of the decision ordering separation pay, as that
finality effectively ends the employment relationship.
3. When separation pay is ordered after finality due to a supervening event, the same
rule applies — computation runs until the finality of the decision ordering separation
pay.

Therefore, backwages are reckoned from the time of illegal dismissal up to the finality of
the decision that effectively severs the employer-employee relationship, regardless of
whether that finality occurs at the NLRC, the Court of Appeals, or the Supreme Court.

Q3: How are backwages for illegally dismissed employees computed if reinstatement is
not possible due to strained relationship?
A: In case reinstatement is proven, to be infeasible due to strained relations between the
employer and the employee and other analogous causes, backwages shall be computed from
the time compensation was withheld up to the finality of the Decision. (C.P. REYES HOSPITAL
AND ANGELINE M. REYES VS. GERALDINE M. BARBOSA, April 16, 2024)
Q4. Why is the “ finality of the Supreme Court decision” used as the reckoning point,
instead of the NLRC decision?
A. Because an appeal to the Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court suspends the execution of
the NLRC’s ruling. Until the Supreme Court’s judgment becomes final, the employment
relationship and the corresponding monetary liabilities remain unresolved.
 In Angono Medics Hospital, Inc. v. Agabin (2020), it was reiterated that finality of the
highest court’s decision is controlling, as appellate review stays execution of the NLRC
ruling.

Q5. What happens when reinstatement is ordered but delayed due to appeals?
A: If the employee is eventually reinstated after a prolonged appeal process, they are still
entitled to full backwages from dismissal up to actual reinstatement, regardless of the appeal’s
duration.
 In Sta. Ana v. Manila Electric Co., G.R. No. 247165, March 15, 2021, the Court
emphasized that delays in reinstatement caused by the employer’s appeal cannot
prejudice the employee’s right to continuous backwages.

Q6. How are backwages computed when separation pay is awarded due to supervening
circumstances?
A: When reinstatement becomes impossible because of events like company closure, death of
the employee, or strained relations, separation pay replaces reinstatement, and backwages are
computed up to the finality of the decision awarding it.
  Both Angono Medics (2020) and Philippine Long Distance Telephone Co. v. Rabe,
G.R. No. 229744, October 6, 2021 held that the “finality date” of the ruling fixes the
endpoint for computing backwages when separation pay is substituted.

Q7. What is the rationale behind continuing backwages computation until finality of the
decision?
A: The rationale is to fully indemnify the illegally dismissed worker for the entire duration they
were deprived of work due to the employer’s unlawful act. Backwages only stop accruing when
the employee’s status and remedies are finally settled by a final and executory judgment.
 C.P. Reyes Hospital v. Barbosa (G.R. No. 228357, April 16, 2024), emphasized that
this rule prevents employers from profiting from protracted appeals and delays.

Q8. Does the rule on backwages computation differ for probationary employees? A. No.
Both probationary and regular employees who are illegally dismissed are entitled to backwages
up to finality of the decision, unless reinstatement occurs earlier.
 In C.P. Reyes Hospital v. Barbosa (G.R. No. 228357, April 16, 2024), the Supreme
Court clarified that probationary employees share the same protection against illegal
dismissal and the same reckoning period for backwages computation.

Q9. In what instance may backwages stop before finality of decision?

A: Backwages may stop at actual reinstatement when the employee is reinstated before the
decision becomes final. Once reinstatement occurs, backwages cease, since the employee is
again earning salary.
In Angono Medics Hospital, Inc. v. Agabin (2020), it was held that reinstatement immediately
terminates entitlement to further backwages.
GROUP 4
MAGLACION, KASSANDRA FAE
VALDE, JOHN
VUELBAN, ALEXIS
ZAMBRANO, VHAN DALTON ARTHUR
CALAG, GUIA

Topic: Jurisdiction of DOLE- Regional Director (Jurisdiction and Recovery and

Adjudicatory Power)

F. JURISDICTION OF DOLE – Regional Director

1. How do the Regional Director of the DOLE acquire jurisdiction over the subject matter?

Answer:

The Regional Director of the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) acquires
jurisdiction over the subject matter by virtue of Article 128 of the Labor Code, which grants
DOLE visitorial and enforcement powers to inspect employer records and premises, question
employees, and investigate labor standards violations such as underpayment of wages or
unsafe working conditions. This jurisdiction applies regardless of whether a complaint is filed, as
long as an employer-employee relationship exists, and allows the Regional Director to issue
compliance orders to enforce labor laws. However, under Department Order No. 183, Series of
2017, the DOLE’s jurisdiction excludes cases involving monetary claims exceeding ₱5 million or
disputes on the existence of an employer-employee relationship, which fall under the jurisdiction
of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC). Therefore, while the statement that the
DOLE has jurisdiction when the employer-employee relationship exists and the Labor Arbiter
assumes jurisdiction when it is severed is generally correct, it simplifies the broader scope of
DOLE's authority under Article 128, which also includes proactive labor inspections.

2. What are the specific jurisdictions of the DOLE Regional Director under the Labor
Code?

Answer:
Under the Labor Code and the amendments from the Department Orders of the DOLE,
the following cases and/or instances are within the jurisdiction of the Regional Directors of the
DOLE:
a. Monetary claims under P5,000.
DOLE Regional Directors have exclusive jurisdiction over:
Claims for wages, overtime pay, holiday pay, service incentive leave, and other
monetary claims not exceeding PHP 5,000 per employee, as stated in Art. 129 of
the Labor Code.
b. Labor standards cases such as underpayment of wages, non-payment of holiday pay,
and some other violations of labor laws;
b. Occupational safety and health standards (OSHS) violations;
b. Union registration and cancellations;
b. Violations of Article 250 of the Labor Code (Rights and Conditions of Membership in a
Labor Organization);
b. Complaints against private recruitment and placement agencies (PRPAs) for local
employment;
b. Voluntary arbitration cases submitted to them for resolution in their capacity as Ex-
Officio Voluntary Arbitrators (EVAs) (DOLE D.O. No. 83-07).

3. What are the limitations of the DOLE’s Regional Director’s jurisdiction?

 The following are the jurisdictional limits of the Regional Director as stated in Article 129
of the Labor Code:
a. The complaint must arise from employer-employee relationship
b. The employee is a person employed domestically or household service;
c. The complaint does not involve a claim for reinstatement;
d. The money claims do not exceed P5000.00 (Labor Code by Azucena)
EXCEPTION: When the monetary claim arises from the assumed labor conflict.

4. Does the DOLE Regional Director have adjudicatory power over monetary claims?

Answer:
Upon complaint of any interested party, the Regional Director of the Department of
Labor and Employment or any of the duly authorized hearing officers of the Department is
empowered, through summary proceeding and after due notice, to hear and decide any matter
involving the recovery of wages and other monetary claims and benefits, including legal interest,
owing to an employee or person employed in domestic or household service or househelper
under this Code, arising from employer-employee relations: Provided, That such complaint does
not include a claim for reinstatement: Provided further, That the aggregate money claims of
each employee or househelper does not exceed Five thousand pesos (P5,000.00). (Article 129
of the Labor Code)

5. What is the scope of the DOLE Regional Director’s recovery power? What is its
exception?

Answer:

The recovery power of the DOLE Regional Director refers to the authority to order the
payment of unpaid wages or other monetary deficiencies discovered during a labor inspection or
compliance visit, even without a formal complaint from the worker. This power is enforcement in
nature, exercised when there exists an employer-employee relationship, a violation of labor
standards laws such as non-payment of minimum wage, overtime pay, or other benefits, and
when the findings are based on the DOLE’s inspection or investigation. In the exercise of this
power, the Regional Director may inspect employer records and premises, investigate violations,
issue compliance orders directing employers to pay deficiencies, order the stoppage of work in
cases of imminent danger to life or health, and impose administrative fines or penalties. (Article
128(b) of the Labor Code)

6. When is the DOLE divested of jurisdiction under the “ exception clause” of Article
128(b)?

Answer:
DOLE is divested of jurisdiction only if all three elements are present:

1. The employer contests the findings;

2. There is a need to examine evidentiary matters; and
3. Such matters are not verifiable in the normal course of inspection.

Jurisprudence:
PLDT, Inc. v. DOLE G.R. Nos. 244695, 244752 & 245294, February 14, 2024 —
Clarified that if evidence is verifiable in a normal inspection, DOLE retains jurisdiction.

7. Can the DOLE Regional Director determine the existence of an employer-employee

relationship?
Answer:
Yes. The determination of employer-employee relationship is incidental to the exercise
of DOLE’s enforcement power under Article 128(b). This enables the DOLE to enforce labor
standards obligations effectively.

“The DOLE has the authority to rule on the existence of an employer-employee

relationship between the parties, considering that such relationship is a condition precedent for
the exercise of its visitorial and enforcement powers Conversely, if there is no employer-
employee relationship, or if one has already been terminated, the Secretary of Labor is without
jurisdiction to determine if violations of labor standards provision had in fact been committed,
and to direct employers to comply with their alleged violations of labor standards.” (as reiterated
in the case of PLDT, Inc. v. DOLE, GR Nos. 244695, 244752, & 245294, 2/14/2024)

Jurisprudence:
PLDT, Inc. v. DOLE (MKP case), G.R. Nos. 244695, 244752 & 245294, Feb. 14, 2024
— Reaffirmed that DOLE may determine employment relationships in SAVE inspections.

8. May the DOLE issue a compliance order directing regularization of workers?

Answer:
Yes, but only when the finding of labor-only contracting is supported by substantial
evidence and verified in the course of inspection. Regularization is a consequence of the labor
standards violation.

Jurisprudence:
PLDT, Inc. v. DOLE (MKP case), G.R. Nos. 244695, 244752 & 245294, Feb. 14, 2024
— DOLE may order regularization of employees performing core functions, provided the
findings are based on substantial evidence.

9. What are the priority establishments and workplace to be inspected?

Answer:
In the conduct of Routine Inspection, the priority establishments and workplaces are as
follows:

a. Those engaged in hazardous work;

b. Those employing children;
c. Those engaged in contracting or subcontracting arrangements;
d. Those employing ten (10) or more employees; and
e. Such other establishments or industries may be determined by the Secretary of Labor
and Employment as priority for Routine Inspection. (Rule 5, D.O. No. 183, Series of 2017)

10. What are the consequence/s for Refusal of Access to Records and/or Premises?

Answer:

Refusal of access to records and/or premises shall result in the filing of a criminal action
against the responsible person and/or employer/owner of the establishment during the conduct
of Routine Inspection, Complaint Inspection, or OSHS Investigation. (Sec. 1, Rule IX, D.O. No.
183, Series of 2017)

If the Labor Inspector is denied access to premises on his/her attempt to conduct

Routine Inspection, Complaint Inspection, or OSHS Investigation, he/she shall issue a Notice of
Results and report such fact in writing to the Regional Director.

If the Labor Inspector is denied access to records in the conduct of Routine or Complaint
Inspection, he/she shall proceed with the inspection based on interview and inspection of
premises only. Thereafter, he/she shall issue a Notice of Results and report such facts in writing
to the Regional Director.
 If the Labor Inspector is not allowed to interview workers, he/she shall issue a Notice of
Results and report such facts in writing to the Regional Director. (Sec. 2, Rule IX, D.O. No. 183,
Series of 2017)

11. Can the Regional Director’s Compliance Order be appealed, and what are the
Grounds? How appeal perfected?

Answer:
The Compliance Order may be appealed to the Office of the Secretary of Labor and
Employment by filing a Memorandum of Appeal, furnishing the other party with a copy of the
same, within ten (10) days from receipt thereof. A mere Notice of Appeal shall not stop the
running of the period within which to file an appeal.

The Secretary of Labor and Employment shall have thirty (30) days from receipt of the
entire records of the case or from termination of Clarificatory Conference referred to in Section
11 of this Rule, to decide the appeal. (Sec. 1, Rule XII, D.O. No. 183, Series of 2017)

An appeal shall be based on any of the following: a. Prima facie evidence of grave
abuse of discretion on the part of the Regional Director; b. Pure questions of law; or c. Serious
errors in the findings of facts were committed which, if not corrected, would cause grave or
irreparable damage or injury to the appellant. (Sec. 2, Rule XII, D.O. No. 183, Series of 2017)

Under Section 5, Rule XII of Department Order No. 183, Series of 2017, an appeal is
deemed perfected upon the filing of the Memorandum of Appeal together with the appeal bond
within the period specified in Section 1 of the same Rule.
Group 1
ALONTO, ABDANI JR. M.
CAAYUPAN, MARY GRACE
EDRES, LEAH-GRACE T.
IDNAY, PAMELA DENICE M.
IBRAHIM, NORLAINIE ABBAS
MANALO, APRIL

Topic: DOLE Secretary (Jurisdiction, Visitorial and Enforcement Power, Power to

Suspend Effects of Termination)

G. DOLE SECRETARY
1. Jurisdiction

1.1) Where does the DOLE Secretary have original jurisdiction?

ANSWER: The DOLE Secretary have original jurisdiction in:
1. Petition to assume jurisdiction over labor disputes affecting industries
indispensable to the national interest (LABOR CODE, Art.278 (g));
2. Petitions to certify national interest cases to the NLRC for compulsory arbitration
(Id);
3. Petition to suspend effects of termination (LABOR CODE, Art. 292 (b));
4. Administrative Intervention for Dispute Avoidance cases (DOLE Circular No.1-06);
5. Voluntary arbitration cases (DOLE Circular No. 1-06);
6. Contempt cases (LABOR CODE, Art. 231).

1.2) What cases are under the appellate jurisdiction of the DOLE Secretary?
ANSWER: The cases that are under the appellate jurisdiction of the DOLE Secretary are:
1. From the Regional Directors:
a. Visitorial cases under Article 37;
b. Visitorial and enforcement cases under Article 128;
c. Occupational safety and health violations (Rules on Disposition of Labor
Standards Cases in the Regional Offices);
d. Cases related to private recruitment and placement agencies (D.O. 216-
20 and D.O. 217-20);
2. Appeals from the order/decision of the Med-Arbiter involving certification election.
(Sec. 25, Rule VII, Book IX, Omnibus Rules)
3. A review of cancellation proceedings decided by the BLR in the exercise of its
exclusive and original jurisdiction. (Abbott Laboratories Philippines, Inc. v.
Abbott Laboratories Ees Union, G.R. No. 131374, 26 Jan. 2000)
4. Appeal the order or results of a certification election on the ground that the Rules
and Regulations or parts thereof established by the SLE for the conduct of
election have been violated. (Art. 259, LC)
5. Appeal from and adverse decision of the POEA. (2003 POEA Rules and
Regulations, Rule V, Part VII, Sec. 1; Eastern Mediterranean Maritime Ltd. And
Agemar Manning Agency Inc., v. Surio, G.R. No. 154213, 23 Aug. 2012)
a. Cases which are administrative in character involving or arising out of
violations of recruitment rules and regulations, including refund of fees
collected from land-based OFWs and seafarers and any violation of the
conditions for the issuance of the license to recruit OFWs; and
b. Disciplinary action cases against land-based OFWs and seafarers and
principals/employees that are administrative in character, excluding
money claims (POEA Rules, Sec. 186).

1.3) What is the mode for reviewing the decision of the DOLE Secretary?
ANSWER: Decisions of the DOLE Secretary are typically reviewed through a petition for
certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, filed with the Court of Appeals. This is
appropriate when the decision is alleged to have been rendered with grave abuse of
discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.
 If the case reaches the Supreme Court, it may be reviewed via Rule 45, which is limited to
questions of law. The Supreme Court does not re-evaluate factual findings unless they are
unsupported by substantial evidence or tainted by grave abuse of discretion. (Manggagawa
sa Komunikasyon ng Pilipinas vs. PLDT, Inc., G.R. No. 244695, Feb 14, 2024)

2. Visitorial and Enforcement Powers

2.1) How may DOLE Secretary exercise his visitorial powers?

ANSWER: The DOLE Secretary may exercise his visitorial powers:
1. To access to employer's records and premises at any time of the day or night
whenever work is being undertaken therein;
2. To copy from said records;
3. To question any employee; and
4. To investigate any fact, condition or matter which may be necessary to determine
violations, or which may aid in the enforcement of the Labor Code and of any
wage order, or rules and regulation issued pursuant thereto (LABOR CODE, Art.
128).

2.2) What are the instances where the visitorial power of the DOLE Secretary may be
exercised under the Labor Code?
ANSWER: The instances where the visitorial power of the DOLE Secretary may be
exercised under the Labor Code are:
1. Inspecting books of accounts and records of any person or entity engaged
in recruitment and placement, requiring it to submit reports regularly on
prescribed forms and act in violations of any provisions of the Labor Code
on recruitment and placement (Art. 37, Labor Code);
2. Having access to employer’s records and premises to determine violations
of any provisions of the Labor Code on recruitment and placement (Art. 128,
Labor Code);
3. Conducting industrial safety inspections of establishments (Art. 165, Labor
Code); and
4. Inquiring into the financial activities of Legitimate Labor Organization and
examine their books of accounts upon the filing of the complaint under oath
and duly supported by the written consent of at least 20% of the total
membership of the Labor Organization concerned.

2.3) How may DOLE Secretary exercise his enforcement powers?

ANSWER: The enforcement power under Article 128 covers:
1. The power to issue Compliance orders to give effect to the labor standards
provisions of the Labor Code and other labor legislation based on the findings of
labor employment and enforcement officers or industrial safety engineers made in
the course of inspection;
2. The power to require employers to keep and maintain such employment records as
may be necessary in aid of his visitorial and enforcement powers;
3. The power to issue writs of execution to the appropriate authority for the
enforcement of their orders, except in cases where the employer 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;
4. The power to order stoppage of work or suspension of operations of any unit or
department of an establishment when non-compliance with the law or implementing
rules and regulations poses grave and imminent danger to the health and safety of
workers in the workplace; and
5. To conduct hearings within 24 hours to determine whether a) An order for stoppage
of work or suspension of operations shall be lifted or not; and b) Employer shall pay
the concerned Employees their salaries in case the violation is attributable to his
fault. (Guico v. Secretary, G.R. No. 131750, 16 Nov. 1998)

2.4) What is the subject of the visitorial and enforcement power?

ANSWER: The visitorial and enforcement powers given to the Secretary of Labor is
relevant to, and exercisable over establishments, not over the individual
members/employees, because what is sought to be achieved by its exercise is the
observance of, and/or compliance by, such firm/establishment with the labor standards
regulations. Necessarily, in case of an award resulting from a violation of labor legislation by
such establishment, the entire members/employees should benefit therefrom (Maternity
Children's Hospital v. Secretary of Labor, G.R. No. 78909, June 30, 1989).

2.5) What are the violations under Art. 128 of the Labor Code?
ANSWER: The violations under Art. 128 of the Labor Code are:
1. To obstruct, impede, delay, or otherwise render ineffective the orders of the SOLE
or his authorized representatives; and
2. Any government Employee found guilty of, or abuse of authority, shall be subject to
administrative investigation and summary dismissal from service.

2.6) What are the limitations to other courts?

ANSWER: In relation to enforcement orders issued under Art. 128 of the Labor Code, no
inferior court or entity shall:
1. Issue temporary or permanent injunction or restraining order; or
2. Assume jurisdiction over any case.

2.7) What is the difference between the Labor Arbiter jurisdiction and the Visitorial
and Enforcement Powers of the Secretary of Labor?
ANSWER: If the labor standards case is covered by the exception clause in Art 128(b) of
the Labor Code, then the Regional Director will have to endorse the case to the appropriate
Arbitration Branch of the NLRC.

2.8) What are the elements in order to divest the Regional Director or his
representatives of jurisdiction in labor standards cases covered by the exception
clause in Art 128(b) of the Labor Code?
ANSWER: The following elements must be present:
1. That the employer contests the findings of the labor regulations officer and raises
issues thereon;
2. That in order to resolve such issues, there is a need to examine evidentiary
matters; and
3. That such matters are not verifiable in the normal course of inspection (Ex-
Bataan Veterans Security Agency v. Secretary of Labor, G.R. No. 152396,
November 20,2007).

On the other hand, DOLE Regional Directors have jurisdiction in cases of inspection of
establishment, regardless of whether or not the total amount of claims per employees
exceeds P5,000 (LABOR CODE, Art. 128 (b)).

“The issuance of RA 7730 … removed the jurisdictional limitations brought about

by the threshold amount found in Articles 129 and 224 of the Labor Code insofar as the
exercise of the visitorial and enforcement powers of the Secretary of Labor and
Employment are concerned. … As it stands now, the authority under Article 128 may be
exercised by the DOLE regardless of the amount of the award claimed for provided there
exists employer–employee relationship.” (Del Monte Lant Transportation Bus, Co. vs
Armenta G.R. No. 240144 (Feb 2021))

Under Article 128 of the Labor Code (as amended by R.A. 7730), the
DOLE (through the Secretary or authorised representative) has
visitorial/enforcement powers to inspect employer premises, access records,
issue compliance orders, etc., regardless of the monetary amount claimed, so
long as an employer-employee relationship exists.

The existence of employer–employee relationship is a condition

sine qua non for DOLE jurisdiction under visitorial/enforcement powers.
 The fact that a large monetary claim is involved (above what would
formerly require the labor arbiter) does not automatically divest DOLE of
jurisdiction in the enforcement context if Article 128 applies.

2.9) What are the requisites for the valid exercise of the visitorial and enforcement
powers provided under Article 128(b) by the DOLE Secretary or any of his duly
authorized representatives (DOLE Regional Directors)?
ANSWER: The following requisites should concur:
1. The employer-employee relationship should still exist;
2. The findings in question were made in the course of inspection by labor
inspectors; and
3. The employees have not yet initiated any claim or complaint with the DOLE
Regional Director under Article 129, or the Labor Arbiter under Article 224
(People's Broadcasting Service v. Secretary of DOLE, G.R. No. 179652,
March 6,2012).

“The DOLE has the authority to rule on the existence of an employer-employee

relationship between the parties, considering that such relationship is a condition
precedent for the exercise of its visitorial and enforcement powers.” (Manggagawa sa
Komunikasyon ng Pilipinas v. PLDT, Inc. GR Nos 244695, 244752 & 245294,
February 14, 2024)

DEPARTMENT ORDER NO. 283-23 S. 2023

2.10) What is the role of the Secretary in visitorial and enforcement under Art. 128 of
the Labor Code?
ANSWER: An order issued by the duly authorized representative of the DOLE Secretary
under this Article may be appealed to the latter. In case said order involves a monetary
award, an appeal by the employer may be perfected only upon the posting of a cash or
surety bond issued by a reputable bonding company duly accredited by the DOLE
Secretary in the amount equivalent to the monetary award in the order appealed from
(LABOR CODE, Art. 128 (b)).

Consequently, D.O. No. 238, series of 2023, issued on April 12, 2023, provides for the
Rules on the Administration and Enforcement of Labor Standards pursuant to Art. 128.
Rule IX therein likewise reiterates the present rule that an appeal may be filed with the
Secretary.

2.11) What is the visitorial power in relation to labor organizations?

ANSWER: The Secretary or his duly authorized representative is empowered to inquire into
the financial activities of legitimate labor organizations upon the filing of a complaint under
oath and duly supported by the written consent of at least 20% of the total membership of
the labor organization concerned and to examine their books of accounts and other records
to determine compliance or non-compliance with the law and to prosecute any violations of
the law and the union constitution and by-laws.

The inquiry or examination shall not be conducted during the 60-day freedom period nor
within the 30 days immediately preceding the date of election of union officials (LABOR
CODE, Art. 274).

3. Power to suspend effects of termination

3.1) Who has the power to suspend effects of termination?

ANSWER: The Secretary may suspend the effects of the termination pending resolution of
the dispute in the event of a prima facie finding by the appropriate official of DOLE before
whom such dispute is pending that the termination may cause a serious labor dispute or is
in implementation of a mass lay-off (LABOR CODE, Art. 292 (b)).
3.2) What are the grounds before a DOLE Secretary may suspend the effects of
termination pending resolution of a labor dispute?
ANSWER: The DOLE Secretary may suspend the effects of termination pending resolution
of the dispute in the event of prima facie finding by the appropriate official of the DOLE
before whom the dispute is pending that:
1. The termination may cause a serious labor dispute; and/or
2. The termination is in implementation of a mass lay-off (LABOR CODE, Art.
292(b)).

3.3) Does the suspension of the effects of termination pending resolution of the case
entitle the employees to immediate reinstatement?
ANSWER: Suspension of the effects of termination will necessarily result in the immediate
reinstatement of the terminated employees. An order of reinstatement pending resolution of
the case may thus be issued by the DOLE Secretary pursuant to this power.

DEPARTMENT ORDER NO. 183 S. 2017

3.4) What is compliance order under DO No 183-17?

ANSWER: Compliance Order is a directive issued by DOLE Regional Director which
instructs an employer to rectify identified labor standards violations discovered during a
labor inspection, requiring them to take specific actions to comply with Philippine labor
laws within a given timeframe.

3.5) What is the effect of a compliance order?

ANSWER: In case the Compliance Order issued by the Regional Director includes a
directive to regularize workers, the employment of workers ordered to be regularized
shall not be terminated pending appeal. Concerned principals and contractors shall
submit a notarized commitment to the Regional Director that workers ordered to be
regularized shall not be terminated pending appeal. Said workers shall receive all their
entitlements under existing laws, rules, and regulations (D.O. No. 183-17, Rule XI, Sec
2).
Group 2
Pimentel
Raran
Valdez
Gallardo
Lugatiman

Topic: Voluntary Arbitrator

H. VOLUNTARY ARBITRATOR

A. General Concept
a. What is Voluntary Arbitration?
i. refers to the mode of settling labor disputes by which the parties submit
the resolution of their dispute to a competent, trained, and impartial third
person or persons who shall decide on the merits of the case and whose
decision shall be final and executory. (DOLE, Department Order No. 255,
Series of 2025)

ii. In this mode, parties agree to select a competent, trained, and impartial
third person or panel, known as a Voluntary Arbitrator (VA) or Panel of
Voluntary Arbitrators (in certain circumstances). This VA is tasked with
hearing the merits of the case and rendering a decision that is generally
considered final and executory. It is distinct from compulsory
arbitration handled by the National Labor Relations Commission
(NLRC), primarily because jurisdiction is conferred by the parties'
agreement, often stipulated in their CBA or submission agreement .
It covers unresolved grievances arising from the interpretation or
implementation of CBAs and company personnel policies.

iii. The Labor Code promotes voluntary arbitration not just as an alternative
but often as the primary mechanism for resolving specific types of
disputes (Article 273, Labor Code), aiming to foster harmony and
ensure quick resolution without resorting to prolonged litigation or
disruptive actions like strikes.

b. Purpose, Policy Rationale.

i. What is the purpose of voluntary arbitration?
1. The primary purposes of voluntary arbitration are:

a. To provide a speedy, economical, and less adversarial

method for resolving labor disputes compared to court
litigation. ( DOLE, Department Order No. 255, Series of
2025)

b. To promote industrial peace by empowering parties to

resolve their differences through a mutually agreed-upon
process and neutral third party.

c. To ensure the mutual observance of the terms and

conditions of Collective Bargaining Agreements and
company personnel policies by providing a final step in the
grievance machinery. (Article 273, Labor Code)

d. To strengthen the implementation of CBAs and plant-level

dispute resolution mechanisms.

e. To provide a final and binding resolution to disputes,

minimizing further conflict and disruption.

c. Voluntary Arbitrators, Selection.

i. Who may serve as a Voluntary Arbitrator?
 1. A Voluntary Arbitrator may be:
a. Any person accredited by the National Conciliation and
Mediation Board (NCMB).
b. Any person named or designated in the CBA by the parties;
c. Any person chosen by the parties with or without the
assistance of the NCMB, pursuant to a selection procedure
in the CBA; or
d. Any official that may be authorized by the DOLE Secretary
to act as a Voluntary Arbitrator upon written request and
agreement of the parties. (Art. 219 , Labor Code, as well
as DOLE Department Order No. 255, S. 2025)

d. What is the nature of a Voluntary Arbitrator's function?

i. A Voluntary Arbitrator, by the nature of their functions, acts in a quasi-
judicial capacity. They perform a state function pursuant to governmental
power delegated under the Labor Code.
ii. Their awards or decisions determine the rights of parties and,
consequently, have the same legal effect as judgments of a court. They
are considered a quasi-judicial agency, independent of and distinct from
the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC).
iii. A voluntary arbitrator by the nature of her functions acts in a quasi-judicial
capacity. (Guagua National Colleges vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No.
188492, August 28, 2018)

B. Jurisdiction
a. What cases fall under the original and exclusive jurisdiction of the
Voluntary Arbitrator?
i. A Voluntary Arbitrator or panel of Voluntary Arbitrators has original and
exclusive jurisdiction to hear and decide all unresolved grievances:
1. Arising from the interpretation or implementation of the CBA;
2. Arising from the interpretation or enforcement of company
personnel policies.
ii. Violations of the CBA which are not Gross in Character
iii. Other labor disputes, including unfair labor practices and bargaining
deadlocks, upon agreement of the parties.
iv. Wage Distortion arising from the application of new wage orders in
organized establishments. (Article 124, Labor Code)
v. National Interest Cases, but purely optional (Article. 278, Labor Code)
vi. Unresolved grievances under RA 6791 or the Productivity Incentive
Program
vii. Cases involving Overseas Filipino Workers (OFWs) with collective
bargaining agreements shall be submitted for voluntary arbitration in
accordance with Arts. 274 and 275 (previously 261 and 262) of the
Labor Code (RA 10022, Sec. 7).

b. When is Jurisdiction conferred?

i. The Voluntary Arbitrator or Panel of Voluntary Arbitrators shall acquire
jurisdiction over a dispute upon receipt and acceptance of any of the
following:
1. A submission agreement duly signed by both parties;
2. A notice to arbitrate, when the Voluntary Arbitrator or Panel of
Voluntary Arbitrators is named in the Collective Bargaining
Agreement (CBA), in the grievance machinery of a Labor-
Management Cooperation Committee (LMCC), or in any similar
mechanism in an unorganized company or enterprise; or
3. A notice of selection as Voluntary Arbitrator or Panel of Voluntary
Arbitrators in either of the following instances:
4. When the parties fail to select an arbitrator; or
 5. When there is no named arbitrator in the CBA, in the grievance
machinery of an LMCC, or in any similar mechanism in an
unorganized company or enterprise, and the party upon whom the
notice to arbitrate is served does not favorably reply within seven
(7) calendar days from receipt of such notice. (DOLE Department
Order No. 255, S. 2025)

c. What happens if a case under the VA's exclusive jurisdiction is filed with
the Labor Arbiter, DOLE Regional Office, or NLRC?
i. if filed before a Labor Arbiter, shall be dismissed by the Labor Arbiter for
lack of jurisdiction and referred to the concerned NCMB Regional Branch
for appropriate action towards an expeditious selection by the parties of
voluntary arbitrator or panel of arbitrators based on the procedures
agreed upon in the CBA. (DOLE POLICY INSTRUCTIONS NO. 56, April
06, 1993)

d. Does the Voluntary Arbitrator have broad powers in deciding cases?

i. Yes. The VA has plenary jurisdiction and authority to interpret the CBA
and determine the scope of their own authority. While generally expected
to decide only questions expressly stated in the submission agreement ,
the arbitrator can assume the necessary power to make a final settlement,
as arbitration is the final resort. The VA can look beyond the literal text of
the CBA to discover the parties' intentions and consider industry
practices . This leeway aims to accomplish speedy labor justice, subject
to judicial review. (Article 124, Labor Code)

e. Does the Voluntary Arbitrator (VA) had jurisdiction to rule on the propriety
of the company’s withholding of income tax from the salaries of the
employees covered by the collective bargaining agreement?
i. Voluntary Arbitrators have jurisdiction only over labor disputes arising
from CBA interpretation or company policies. Issues involving taxation or
income tax withholding fall under the exclusive jurisdiction of the BIR/CIR,
and jurisdiction cannot be conferred by agreement or participation of the
parties. (Victoria Manufacturing Corp. Employees Union v. Victoria
Manufacturing Corp., G.R. No. 234446, July 24, 2019)

f. Does the Voluntary Arbitrator (VA) have jurisdiction to resolve a claim for
damages arising from acts committed during a labor dispute or strike?
i. No. The jurisdiction of a Voluntary Arbitrator is confined to disputes
involving the interpretation or implementation of a Collective Bargaining
Agreement (CBA) and company personnel policies, as well as those
voluntarily submitted by the parties pursuant to Article 262-A of the Labor
Code. Claims for damages resulting from acts committed during a labor
dispute or strike are not within the VA’s jurisdiction unless expressly
referred to arbitration by agreement of the parties. When the Secretary of
Labor assumes jurisdiction over the dispute under Article 278(g), such
authority extends to all incidents arising therefrom, to the exclusion of all
other fora. (Philippine Airlines, Inc. v. ALPAP, G.R. No. 200088,
February 26, 2018; see also Goodrich Employees Association v.
Flores, G.R. No. 167187, March 3, 2008)

C. Remedies
a. What is the nature and finality of a Voluntary Arbitrator's award or decision?
i. The award or decision of the VA or Panel of VAs must state the facts and
the law upon which it is based. It becomes final and executory after ten
(10) calendar days from receipt of the copy thereof by the counsel or
authorized representative on record, or by the parties themselves in the
absence of counsel, unless a Motion for Reconsideration is seasonably
filed within that 10-day period. (DOLE Department Order No. 255, S.
2025)
b. What is the proper remedy from a decision of a Voluntary Arbitrator under
the Labor Code, and what is the governing rule and period for filing such
remedy? Cite legal basis and jurisprudence.
i. The proper remedy from a decision or award of a Voluntary Arbitrator is
an appeal to the Court of Appeals through a petition for review under Rule
43 of the Rules of Court. Although the decisions of Voluntary Arbitrators
are declared final and executory under Article 276 of the Labor Code,
they are still subject to judicial review in appropriate cases through Rule
43 petitions, not through Rule 65 or direct recourse to the Supreme Court.
In, the Supreme Court clarified that the ten (10)-day period mentioned in
Article 276 refers to the period for filing a motion for reconsideration with
the Voluntary Arbitrator. Only after the resolution of such motion may the
aggrieved party file a petition for review under Rule 43 with the Court of
Appeals within fifteen (15) days from notice of the denial of the motion, in
accordance with Section 4, Rule 43. (Guagua National Colleges v.
Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 188492, August 28, 2018)

c. What is the remedy and period to assail a decision of a Voluntary Arbitrator?

i. The Supreme Court held that the 10-day period under Article 276 of the
Labor Code is for filing a motion for reconsideration before the Voluntary
Arbitrator, and if denied, the aggrieved party has 15 days from notice of
such denial to file a petition for review under Rule 43 before the Court of
Appeals. (DORELCO Employees Union-ALU-TUCP v. DORELCO, Inc.
G.R. No. 240130, March 15, 2021)
GROUP 8
ABREGANA, MARVIN A.
DAYADAYA, ROGIE JOHN B.
GALAY, JERRY JEANETTE S.
HADJI AMER, JOHARI K.
PEGARIDO, KENT JAIME F.

TOPIC: PRESCRIPTION OF ACTIONS

I. Prescription of Actions

1. Labor Code

a. Money Claims

1. What is the general prescriptive period for all money claims arising from
employer-employee relations?

The prescriptive period is three (3) years from the time the cause of action accrued, as
mandated by Article 306 (formerly Article 291) of the Labor Code of the Philippines.

This three-year period applies to all statutory benefits, including unpaid wages, overtime
pay, and retirement benefits.

2. What types of claims are typically covered by the three-year prescriptive period
under the Labor Code?

The three-year period applies to monetary entitlements directly arising from

employment and labor standards laws, such as:

● Unpaid wages.
● Overtime pay.
● Holiday pay.
● Service incentive leave pay.
● Salary differentials.

3. When does the three-year prescriptive period for money claims typically begin to
run, according to Supreme Court jurisprudence?

The three-year prescriptive period for a labor money claim, as consistently held by the
Supreme Court, begins to run when the employee's specific right to the monetary benefit
is first violated or when the specific payment becomes legally due and demandable,
generally upon the termination of employment or the date of non-payment, as illustrated
in Rodriguez v. Park N Ride, Inc. (G.R. No. 222980, March 20, 2017).

The Court also clarified that if the monetary claims arise due to termination, the
prescriptive period starts from the date of termination, since that is when the right to
such benefits (like backwages or separation pay) accrues.

4. Does the three-year prescriptive period for money claims cover disputes arising
from a Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA), which is a written contract?

Yes. The Supreme Court has consistently held that the specific three-year limitation
provided in the Labor Code (Article 306) is a special law that prevails over the general
ten-year period for written contracts under the Civil Code (Article 1144). The nature of
the claim as arising from the employer-employee relationship subjects it to the shorter,
specialized labor bar.

The controlling case that firmly established this doctrine is:

 De Guzman v. Court of Appeals (G.R. No. 132257, October 12, 1998)

In this case, the Supreme Court unequivocally ruled:

"The language of Article 291 [now Article 306] of the Labor Code does not limit its
application only to 'money claims specifically recoverable under said Code,' but
covers all money claims arising from employer-employee relations. Since
petitioners' demand for unpaid retirement/separation benefits is a money claim
arising from their employment... Article 291 of the Labor Code is applicable."

Therefore, even if a Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) is a written contract,

any monetary benefit claimed under it is deemed a money claim arising from
employer-employee relations and must be filed within three (3) years from the
time the cause of action accrued.

5. How is the running of the three-year prescriptive period for money claims
interrupted?

The Labor Code does not specify how the period may be interrupted, so the
mechanisms provided in Article 1155 of the Civil Code are applied suppletorily.

The three recognized modes of interruption are:

(1) the filing of an action,

(2) a written extrajudicial demand by the creditor, or

(3) a written acknowledgment of the debt by the debtor.

6. Does the three-year prescriptive period apply if the money claim is only incidental
to an illegal dismissal case?

No. Article 306 of the Labor Code applies to purely money claims as a consequence of
employer-employee controversies. Where the dispute involves questions arising
primarily from injury to one's rights (under contract or substantive provisions of the Labor
Code) other than sheer monetary demands, and in which such monetary claims are only
coincidental to the main complaint, the pertinent provisions of the Civil Code, rather than
the Labor Code, prevail.

The core of the legal principle lies in distinguishing between a " pure money claim" and
a claim for " injury to rights."

1. The Three-Year Rule (Pure Money Claim)

Governing Law: Article 306 (formerly Article 291) of the Labor Code.

Applicability: Applies strictly to pure money claims arising from the normal employer-
employee relationship, such as:

 Unpaid wages,
 Overtime pay,
 Holiday pay,
 Service Incentive Leave pay, or
 Salary differentials.

Prescriptive Period: Three (3) years from the time the cause of action accrued.

2. The Four-Year Rule (Incidental Money Claim)

Governing Law: Article 1146 of the Civil Code of the Philippines.

Applicability: Applies to the main complaint of illegal dismissal, which is treated as an

" injury to the rights of the plaintiff" under the Civil Code.
 Incidental Claims: Monetary claims that are consequential to (or "incidental to") the
finding of illegal dismissal follow the same four-year period. These include:

 Backwages, and

 Damages (moral and exemplary) resulting from the illegal dismissal.

Rationale: The Supreme Court has repeatedly clarified that an award of backwages is
merely a consequence of the finding of illegal dismissal, which is the primary cause of
action for injury to the employee's rights. Therefore, the prescriptive period for
backwages and damages is four (4) years, not three.

Controlling Jurisprudence

The leading case that clarifies and reinforces this distinction is Arriola v. Pilipino Star
Ngayon, Inc. (G.R. No. 175689, August 13, 2014). In this case. the Supreme Court
specifically held that the four-year prescriptive period under Article 1146 of the Civil
Code, not the three-year period under Article 306 of the Labor Code, applies to claims
for backwages and damages due to illegal dismissal.

b. Illegal Dismissal

7. What is the prescriptive period for filing a complaint for illegal dismissal and why
is this period applied?

The prescriptive period for filing a complaint for illegal dismissal is four (4) years,
reckoned from the date the employee received notice of the dismissal. This is because
the action is treated by jurisprudence as one "upon an injury to the rights of the plaintiff,"
governed by Article 1146 of the Civil Code, not Article 306 of the Labor Code. The right
to one's job is considered a fundamental property right subject to constitutional
protection.

"When one is arbitrarily and unjustly deprived of his job or means of livelihood, the action
instituted to contest the legality of one's dismissal from employment constitutes, in
essence, an action predicated 'upon an injury to the rights of the plaintiff,' as
contemplated under Art. 1146 of the New Civil Code, which must be brought within four
years."

(Florencio B. Nedira v. NJ World Corporation, G.R. No. 240005, December 6, 2022)

8. Does the four-year prescriptive period for illegal dismissal also apply to claims
for backwages and damages?

Yes. The four-year period applies to the principal action for illegal dismissal and all its
consequential reliefs, including backwages and damages.Backwages are not treated as
ordinary money claims under the Labor Code’s three-year bar (Article 306) but rather as
an indemnification imposed upon the employer for the unlawful act of violating the
employee's security of tenure.

Controlling Jurisprudence

The doctrine has been consistently applied and clarified in numerous Supreme Court
decisions, most notably in Arriola v. Pilipino Star Ngayon, Inc. (G.R. No. 175689, August
13, 2014).

This case explicitly held that the four-year prescriptive period under the Civil Code
applies to claims for backwages and damages due to illegal dismissal, affirming that
these are consequential to the injury to the employee's rights.

9. What is the nature of an action for illegal dismissal, and what prescriptive period
governs it?
 An action for illegal dismissal is essentially considered a complaint for "injury to rights,"
which falls under Article 1146 of the Civil Code of the Philippines.

The prescriptive period for filing a complaint for illegal dismissal is four (4) years from the
time the cause of action accrued. (An action for illegal dismissal or when one is
arbitrarily and unjustly deprived of his job or means of livelihood is essentially a
complaint for 'injury to rights,' which falls under Article 1146 of the Civil Code of the
Philippines. (Gallego vs. Wallem Maritime Services, Inc. G.R. No. 216440, February 19,
2020).

10. How does the Supreme Court treat the monetary components of an illegal
dismissal claim (like backwages and damages) in relation to the prescriptive
periods?

The Supreme Court distinguishes between the principal cause of action and the resulting
monetary reliefs. Claims for backwages, moral damages, and attorney's fees arising
from illegal dismissal are not subject to the three-year Labor Code rule but instead follow
the four-year rule under the Civil Code, as these claims are merely incidental to the
violation of the right to security of tenure (e.g., Nedira v. NJ World Corporation, G.R. No.
240005. December 06, 2022).

2. Civil Code

11. What are the primary prescriptive periods for actions under the Civil Code?

The primary periods governing actions under the Civil Code (Republic Act No. 386) are
determined by the nature of the obligation:

Prescriptive Nature of Action Legal

Period Basis

Ten (10) Years Actions upon a written contract, an obligation Article

created by law, or a judgment. 1144

Six (6) Years Actions upon an oral contract. Article

1145

Four (4) Years Actions upon an injury to the rights of the plaintiff Article
or upon a quasi-delict. 1146

The ten-year period applies to obligations evidenced by formal documentation:

( "The following actions must be brought within ten years from the time the right of action
accrues: 1) Upon a written contract; 2) Upon an obligation created by law; 3) Upon a judgment." )
(Philippine Savings Bank v. Manalac, Jr., G.R. No. 211564, November 15, 2017)

12. Under the Civil Code, how is the running of a prescriptive period, such as the four-
year period for illegal dismissal, generally interrupted?

According to Article 1155 of the Civil Code, the prescriptive period is interrupted in three
ways:

● When an action is filed before the court.

● When there is a written extrajudicial demand by the creditor (employee).
 ● When there is a written acknowledgment of debt by the debtor (employer).

13. Can the right of a registered owner to recover land covered by a Torrens Title be
defeated by prescription or laches?

No. The right of a registered owner to recover possession of land covered by a Torrens
Title is generally imprescriptible, meaning it cannot be barred by either statutory
prescription or the equitable defense of laches. The certificate of title serves as
indefeasible and incontrovertible proof of ownership.

"No amount of possession of the property may defeat the registered owners' proprietary
rights thereon, and the owners' right to institute an action to recover possession of the
land based on the Torrens Title is imprescriptible and not barred under the doctrine of
laches."

(Heirs of Wenceslao Ebancuel v. Acierto, G.R. No. 214540, July 28, 2021)

14. Is Article 1711 of the Civil Code, regarding employer compensation for work-
related death or injury, still applicable?

No, Article 1711 of the Civil Code is declared impliedly repealed by Title II, Book IV of
the Labor Code of the Philippines, which covers Employees Compensation and State
Insurance Fund.

This repeal is justified because the Labor Code covers the whole subject of
compensation for work-related injury or death, and Article 1711 is irreconcilably
inconsistent with the Labor Code's system of shifting liability to the State Insurance Fund.
(Article 1711 of the Civil Code of the Philippines is declared IMPLIEDLY REPEALED by
Title II, Book IV of the Labor Code of the Philippines.

In the case of Oceanmarine Resources Corporation v. Nedic, G.R. No. 236263, July 19,
2022, the Court explicitly held, “Article 1711 of the Civil Code has been impliedly
repealed by the Labor Code, particularly Title II, Book IV thereof which provides for
compensation for work-related injury or death. The Labor Code now governs employee
compensation, establishing a comprehensive and exclusive system of liability through
the State Insurance Fund.”

15. In cases of work-related injury or death, what is the selective choice of remedy of
the employee or their heirs?

In cases of work-related injury or death, the employee or their heirs have a selective
choice of remedy: either claiming compensation under the Labor Code or suing for
damages under the Civil Code.

The choice of one remedy generally precludes the pursuit of the other (doctrine of
election of remedies).

Exception: A claimant may still sue for damages under the Civil Code after accepting
compensation if the choice of the first remedy was based on ignorance or a mistake of
fact, or upon subsequent supervening facts. (Oceanmarine Resources Corporation v.
Nedic, G.R. No. 236263, July 19, 2022)

16. Can the filing of a related criminal proceeding suspend the prescriptive period for
a labor action?

No. As established in Bani Rural Bank, Inc. v. De Guzman G.R. No. 170904, November
13, 2013), criminal and labor (or administrative) proceedings are separate and distinct;
thus, the pendency of one does not suspend the prescriptive period for the other.

Note: The cited case remains controlling. Criminal and labor (or administrative)
proceedings are separate, and the pendency of one does not suspend the prescriptive
period for the other. No recent Supreme Court decision post-2017 has overruled or
modified that rule; recent applications continue to assume its validity when discussing
overlapping procedural events.