JURISDICTION
There is here a
CBA; Implementation & Interpretation
How are cases arising from the Interpretation or
implementation of collective
bargaining agreements handled and
disposed?
Through the grievance machinery and if not
resolved by the grievance machinery, through
voluntary arbitration.
Bureau of Labor Relations; Compromise
Agreement
May the NLRC or the courts take jurisdictional
cognizance over compromise
agreements/settlements involving labor matters?
No, any compromise agreement, including those
involving labor standards laws, voluntary agreed
upon by the parties with the assistance of the
Bureau or the regional office of the Department of
labor, shall be final and bidding upon the parties.
The national Labor Relations Commission or any
court shall not assume jurisdiction over issues
involved therein except in case of non-
compliance thereof or if there is prima facie
evidence that the settlement was obtained
through fraud, misrepresentation, or coercion
(Art. 227, Labor Code).
Damages; Absence of E-E
Relationship
The damage suit filed by the manager against
Pablo does not arise from employer-employee
relationship. While the case involves an employer
and his employee, it is not the employer-
employee relationship between the two that gives
rise to the damage suit. Instead, it is based solely
on an alleged tort which could give rise to a
damage suit under the Civil Code. Thus, the
Labor Arbiter has no jurisdiction over the damage
suit.
Damages; Not arising from the E-E
Relations
1. It is a regular court and not a Labor Arbiter that
has jurisdiction on the suit for damages.The
damages are not arising from the employer-
employee relations which would have placed the
suit under the jurisdiction of a Labor Arbiter. The
suit arises from the fact that the President of the
company shouted invectives at the employee in
the presence of employees and visitors. Her
complaint for damages is against an officer of the
Company based on slanderous language
allegedly made by the latter. This falls under the
Jurisdiction of the ordinary courts.
simple action for damages for tortuous acts
allegedly committed by the defendant. Such
being the case, the governing statute is the Civil
Code and not the Labor Code. (Medina v. Castro-
Bartolome, 116 SCRA 597)
2. According to the Labor Code (in Article 217
(a) 4), the Labor Arbiter has original and
exclusive jurisdiction to hear and decide,
among others, claims for actual, moral,
exemplary and other forms of damages arising
from the employer- employee relations.
The claim for damages in the case in question
arose from the fact that the President of the
Company shouted invectives at the employee in
the presence of employees and visitors for a
minor infraction she committed. If the infraction
has something to do with her work, then, the
claim for damages could be considered as
arising from employer-employee relations. Thus,
the claim is under the exclusive jurisdiction of
the Labor Arbiter.
Dismissal; Intl Agency
1. The defense that I will put up will be to claim
that being an international agency, the ILO
enjoys immunity, namely functional
independence and freedom from control of the
state in whose territory its office is located and
is thus beyond the jurisdiction of the Labor
Arbiter. (Southeast Asian Fisheries Development
Center - Aqua Culture Department, et al vs.
National Labor Relations Commission, et al G.R
No, 86773, 14 February 1992)
2. If I were the Labor Arbiter. I will grant the
motion to dismiss. The ILO being an International
agency, the same is beyond the jurisdiction of
the Labor Arbiter and immune from the legal
writs and processes of the administrative
agencies of the country, where it is found, for
the reason that the subjection of such an
organization to the authority of the local
agencies would afford a convenient medium
through which the host government may
interfere in its operations or even influence or
control its policies and decisions, and besides,
such subjection to local jurisdiction would
Impair the capacity of such body to impartially
discharge its responsibilities.
Intra-corporate Matters/Officers
The dismissal of an Executive Vice-president of a
Corporation, who is a corporate officer, by the
Board of Directors of the corporation is not a
termination dispute under the Jurisdiction of a
Labor Arbiter. It is an intra-corporate dispute that
is under the jurisdiction of the Securities and
Exchange Commission.

Intra-corporate Matters/Officers
The election of as Vice President of New Wave
Beauty Shop, Inc, made him a corporate officer.
His subsequent dismissal as such corporate
officer is considered an intra-corporate matter.
Thus, the dismissal is not a case of a termination
dispute which is under the Jurisdiction of a
Regional Branch of the NLRC. Instead, it is under
the Jurisdiction of the Securities and Exchange
Commission, it having jurisdiction over intra-
corporate matters.
Labor Arbiter
Labor Arbiters have original and exclusive
jurisdiction over:
1. unfair labor practices;
2. termination disputes;
3. cases accompanied with a claim for
reinstatement, and involving wages, rates
of pay, hours of work, and other terms and
conditions of employment;
4. claims for actual, moral, exemplary and
other forms of damages arising from
employer-employee relations:
5. cases arising from any violation of Article
264 of the Labor Code, including questions
involving the legality of strikes and lockout;
and
6. except claims of Employees Compensation,
Social Security. Medicare and maternity
benefits, all other claims arising from
employer-employee relations including
those persons in domestic or household
service, Involving an amount exceeding five
thousand pesos (P5,000 00) regardless of
whether accompanied with a claim for
reinstatement.
Labor Arbiter; Appeals
Procedurally, how do you stay a decision, award
or order of the Labor Arbiter?
1. Decisions, awards, or orders of the Labor
Arbiter may be stayed by filing an appeal to the
Commission by any or both parties within ten (10)
calendar days from receipt of such decisions,
awards, or orders.In case of appeal of on
judgment involving a monetary award, it may
only be stayed 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 (Art. 223, Labor
Code).
2. By perfecting an appeal, through the filing an
Appeal Memorandum within 10 days from receipt
of such decision, verified by the appellant and
accompanied by his Non-Forum Certification,
proof of service on the other party, proof of
payment of the appeal fee and cash or surety
bond in the amount equivalent to the monetary
award of the judgment appeal from bond issued
by a reputable bonding company duly accredited
by the Commission in the amount equivalent to
the m onetary award in the judgment appealed
from (Art. 223, Labor Code).
3. By perfecting an appeal, through the filing an
Appeal Memorandum within 10 days from receipt
of such decision, verified by the appellant and
accompanied by his Non-Forum Certification,
proof of service on the other party, proof of
payment of the appeal fee and cash or surety
bond in the amount equivalent to the monetary
award of the judgment appeal from
Reinstatement is immediately executor (Art. 223,
Labor Code).
Labor Arbiter; Compromise Agreement
May a decision of the Labor Arbiter which has
become final and executory be novated through a
compromise agreement of the parties?
1. Yes, although Article 221 of the Labor Code
requires the Labor Arbiter to exert all efforts to
amicably settle the case before him on or
before the first hearing, it must be noted that
neither the Labor Code nor its implementing rule
as well as the NLRC Rules prohibit the amicable
settlement of cases during the pendency of the
proceeding or after a judgment is issued
thereupon.
The established rule is that the compromise
agreement or amicable settlement may still be
made even after the judgment has become final
and executor. Settlement of case is encourage
abs authorized by law. Article 2040 of the Civil
Code impliedly authorizes this. It is even
encourage by express provision of law.
2. Yes, provided that the same is not
unconscionable, and the agreement was
approved by the Labor Arbiter, the NLRC or the
Court of Appeals, before whom the case is
pending.
3. Yes, provided that the new agreement is not
tainted with fraud duress or undue influence.
Labor Arbiter; Execution Order; Appeal
(2007)
Cite two instances when an order of execution
may be appealed
1. An Order of Execution may be appealed:
a. Where the Order of Execution varies or goes
beyond the terms of the judgment it seeks to
enforce or the terms of the judgment are
ambiguous (DBP v. Union Bank, 419 SCRA 131
[2004]);
b. Where the implementation of the Order was
irregular (Metrobank v. C.A. 356 SCRA 563
[2001]).
Or; a. When its execution becomes impossible or
unjust, it may be modified or altered on appeal or
harmonize the same with justice and the facts
(Torres v. NLRC, 339 SCRA 311 [2001]).
b. Supervening events may warrant modification
in the execution of the judgment, as when
reinstatement is no longer possible because the
position was abolished as a cost-cutting measure
due to losses (Abalos v. Philex Mining Corp., 393
SCRA 134 [2000]).
Labor Arbiter; Execution, Orders or Awards
How do you execute a labor judgment which, on
appeal, had become final and executory? Discuss
fully.
Execution shall issue upon an order, resolution or
decision that finally disposes of the action or
proceedings after the counsel of record and the
parties shall have been furnished with copies of
the decision in accordance with these Rules but
only after the expiration of the period of appeal if
no appeal has been duly perfected.
The Labor Arbiter, the Regional Director, or his
duly authorized hearing officer of origin shall,
motu proprio or upon motion of any interested
party, issue a writ of execution on a judgment
only within five (5) years from the date it
becomes final and executory, so requiring the
sheriff or duly deputized officer to execute the
same. No motion for execution shall be
entertained nor a writ be issued unless the labor
Arbiter is in possession of the records of the case
which shall include an entry of judgment in case
of appeal except hat, as provided for in Section
10 Rule VI, and in those cases where partial
execution is allowed by law, the Labor Arbiter
shall restrain duplicate original copies thereof for
the purpose of its immediate enforcement.
Labor Arbiter; Labor Disputes; Barangay
Lupong Tagapamayapa
1. Requiring conciliation of labor dispute before
the Barangay Lupon Tagapamayapa would defeat
the salutary purposes of the law. Instead of
simplifying labor proceedings designed at
expeditious settlement or referral to the proper
courts or office to decide it finally, the conciliation
of the issues before the Barangay Lupong
Tagapamayapa would only duplicate the
conciliation proceedings and would unduly delay
the disposition of labor cases (Montoya v. Escayo,
171 SCRA 446 [1989]).
2. Under Article 217 of the Labor Code, the Labor
Arbiter exercises original and exclusive
jurisdiction to hear and decide cases involving all
workers, whether agricultural or non-agricultural.
3. P.D. 1508 does not apply to labor dispute
because labor cases have their own grievance
and mediation processes.
Labor Arbiter; Money Claims (2009)
1. The Labor Arbiter has jurisdiction. Section 10,
R.A. No. 8042, reads:
Money Claims. Notwithstanding any provision
of law to the contrary, the Labor Arbiters of the
National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) shall
have the original and exclusive jurisdiction to
hear and decide, within ninety (90) calendar days
after the filing of the complaint, the claims arising
out of an employer employee relationship or by
virtue of any law or contract involving Filipino
workers for overseas deployment including claims
for actual, moral, exemplary and other forms of
damages.
2. The Labor Arbiter has no jurisdiction over the
case. The failure to deploy a worker within the
prescribed period without valid reason is a
recruitment violation under the jurisdiction of the
POEA.
Labor Arbiter; Reinstatement Pending
Appeal
1. The posting of the bond of the employer does
not have the effect of staying the execution of the
reinstatement aspect of the decision of the Labor
Arbiter (Pioneer Texturizing Corp. v. NLRC,280
SCRA 806 [1997]).
2. Art. 223. Appeal xxx In any event, the
decision of the Labor Arbiter reinstating a
dismissed or separated employee, insofar as the
reinstatement aspect is concerned shall be
immediately executor, even pending appeal and
the posting of a bond.
Labor Arbiter; ULP; Damages and Reliefs
Article 247 of the Code, the civil aspects of all
cases involving unfair labor practices, which may
include claims for damages and other affirmative
relief, shall be under the jurisdiction of the labor
arbiters. (National Union of
Bank Employees v. Lazaro, G.R. No. 56431,
January 19, 1988). Besides, what the parties have
is a labor dispute as defined in Article 212 (I) of
the LaborCode regardless of whether the
disputants stand in the proximate relation of
employer and employee.
Being so, the RTC is prohibited by Art. 254 of the
Code from excercising jurisdiction over the case.
Labor Arbiter; Appeals
1. The NLRC should dismiss the appeal outright
because the same was filed beyond the
reglementary period of appeal. Article 223 of the
Labor Code reads:
"Decisions, 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 orders."
2. The NLRC could dismiss outright the appeal
for being filed out of time. But if there are good
reasons that may justifiably explain why there
was a delay in the filing of the appeal,
substantial justice may be the basis for the NLRC
to take cognizance of the appeal.
Labor Dispute ( 2001)
1. In the case of Delta Ventures Resources vs.
Hon. Fernando P. Labato, G.R. No. 118216, March
9, 2000, the Supreme Court ruled that the
regular courts have no jurisdiction to act on
labor cases or various incidents arising
therefrom, including the execution of decisions,
awards or orders.
2. The action before the Regional Trial Court is
tenable if said action is limited to the filing of a
damage suit against the Labor Arbiter because
there exists no employer-employee relationship
between "B" and the Labor Arbiter, and there is
no labor dispute between them. In Agricultural
Labor Arbiter; Voluntary Arbitration
Can a dispute falling within the exclusive
jurisdiction of the Labor Arbiter be submitted to
voluntary arbitration? Why or why not?
Yes, provided that the parties to the dispute
falling within the exclusive jurisdiction of the
Labor Arbiter states in unequivocal language that
they conform to the submission of said dispute to
the voluntary arbitration (Vivero v. CA, G.R. No .
138938, October 24, 2000).
Development Corporation vs. Court of
Appeals, G.R. No. 112139. January 31, 2000, the
Supreme Court, ruled:
"It is well settled in law and jurisprudence
that where NO employer-employee
relationship exists between the parties
and no issue is involved which may be
resolved by reference to the Labor Code,
other labor statutes or any collective
bargaining agreement, it is the Regional
Trial Court that has jurisdiction."
Med-arbiter
The complaint will not prosper before the Labor
Arbiter because there is here an intra-union
conflict which is under the Jurisdiction of the Med-
Arbiter. (See Art, 226 and Rule V of Book V of the
Rules and Regulations Implementing the Labor
Code).
DOLE Regional Director; Visitorial and
Enforcement Power; Compliance Order
1. The Regional Director exercises only visitorial
and enforcement power over the labor standard
cases, and the power to adjudicate uncontested
money claims of employees. The Regional
Director has no power to rule on SDSs 5-month
term policy.
2. The Secretary of Labor and Employment or his
duly authorized representatives has the power to
issue compliance orders to give effect to the
labor standards based on the findings of labor
employment and enforcement officers or
industrial safety engineers
made during inspection. The Secretary ot his duly
authorized representatives may issue writs of
execution to the appropriate authority for the
enforcement of their orders (Art. 128, Labor
Code; V.L. Enterprises and/or Visitacion v. CA, G.R.
No. 167512, March 12, 2007).
DOLE Regional Director; Visitorial and
Enforcement Power; Money Claims (2009)
The visitorial and enforcement power of the DOLE
Regional Director to order and enforce
compliance with labor standards laws can be
exercised even when the individual claims
exceeds P5,000.00 the authority under Article
128 may be exercised regardless of the monetary
value involved. Under Article 129, however the
authority is only for claims not exceeding
P5,000.00 per claimant.
Money Claims; Reinstatement
Art. 128 is not applicable because the case did
not arise as a result of the exercise of visitorial
and enforcement powers by the Regional
Director, as the duly authorized representative
of the Secretary of Labor and Employment.
Instead, the case is a simple money claim under
Art. 129, which could be under the jurisdiction of
the Regional Director if the claim does not
exceed P5,000.
But the claim exceeds P5,000.00. Thus, it is the
Labor Arbiter who has jurisdiction under Art.
217(a) of the Labor Code.
It is the Labor Arbiter that has jurisdiction. It is
true that the money claim no longer exceeds
P5,000. But there is a claim for reinstatement.
Thus, this claim is under the jurisdiction of a
Labor Arbiter, per Art. 129 of the Labor Code.
Natl Labor Relations Commission
Jurisdiction of the NLRC:
1. exclusive appellate jurisdiction over all
cases decided by Labor Arbiter;
2. exclusive appellate jurisdiction over all
cases decided by Regional Directors or
hearing officers involving the recovery of
wages and other monetary claims and
benefits arising from employer-employee
relations where the aggregate money claim
of each employee or househelper does not
exceed five thousand pesos (P5,000.00);
3. original Jurisdiction to act as a compulsory
arbitration body over labor disputes
certified to NLRC by the Secretary of Labor
and Employment; and
4. power to issue a labor injunction.
Natl Labor Relations Commission
1. The Supreme Court, in many cases, has ruled
that decisions made by the NLRC may be based
on position papers. In the question, it is stated
that the parties agreed to submit the case for
resolution after the submission of position
papers and evidence. Given this fact, the striker-
members of B cannot now complain that they
were denied due process. They are in estoppel.
After voluntarily submitting a case and
encountering an adverse decision on the merits,
it is too late for the loser to question the
jurisdiction or power of the court. A party cannot
adopt a posture of double dealing. (Marquez vs.
Secretary of Labor, 16 March 1989).
2. In CMP Federal Security Agency vs. NLRC, G.R.
No. 125298, February 11, 1999, the Supreme
Court ruled:
"The standard of due process that must be
met in administrative tribunals allows a
certain degree of latitude as long as fairness
is not ignored. Hence, it is not legally
objectionable for being violative of due
process, for the labor arbiter to resolve a case
based solely on the position papers, affidavits
or documentary evidence submitted by the
parties. The affidavits of witnesses in such
case may take the place of direct testimony."
Natl Labor Relations Commission
In Barles vs. Bitonio, G.R. No. 120220, June 16,
1999, the Supreme Court ruled:
'Appellate authority over decisions of the
Regional Director involving examination of
union accounts is expressly conferred on the
BLR under the Rule of Procedure on
Mediation- Arbitration.
xxx
Section 4. Jurisdiction of the Bureau (b)
The Bureau shall exercise appellate
jurisdiction over all cases originating from
the Regional Director involving ....
Complaints for examination of union books
of accounts.
The language of the law is categorical. Any
additional explanation on the matter is
superflous."
Natl Labor Relations Commissions
1. Art. 223 of the Labor Code reads:
"In case of a judgment involving a monetary
award, an appeal by the employer may be
perfected only upon the posting of cash or
surety bond... In the amount equivalent to
the monetary award in the judgment
 appealed from."
In ABA vs. NLRC, G.R. No. 122627. July 18, 1999,
the Supreme Court ruled:
"An appeal bond is necessary......the appeal
may be perfected only upon the posting of
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."
2. It is true that the Labor Code (in Art. 223)
provides that appeal is perfected only upon the
posting of a cash or surety bond. But if
Company A filed a motion for the reduction of
the bond, and said motion was only acted upon
after the reglementary period, then, the NLRC,
in the interest of substantial justice, may still
take cognizance of the appeal.
Natl Labor Relations Commission
1. The review power of the NLRC in perfected
appeals is limited only to those issues raised on
appeal. Hence, it is grave abuse of discretion for
the NLRC to resolve issues not raised on appeal
(United Placement International v. NLRC, 221
SCRA 445 [1993]).
2. In the exercise of its jurisdiction, the NLRC is
empowered to determine even the issues not
raised on appeal in order to fully settle the issues
surrounding the case [See: Art. 218(e), now Art.
224(e)].
Overseas Employment; Claim; Torts
In Tolosa v. NLRC, (G.R. 149578, April 10,2003),
the Supreme Court held that what we have in this
case is a claim arising from tort or quasi-delict. In
such a situation, the seaman who died on
November 18, 1992, cannot sue before the Labor
Arbiter. But this will not apply now, as under Sec.
10, R.A. 8042, [effective June 7, 1995], what we
have is a claim "arising out of an employer-
employee relationship or by virtue of any law or
contract involving Filipino workers for overseas
deployment including claims for actual, moral,
exemplary and other forms of damages",
cognizable by the "Labor Arbiters of the National
Labor Relations Commission" (NLRC) who have
the original and exclusive jurisdiction thereon.
Overseas Employment; Mandatory
Remittance; Foreign Exchange
Can an overseas worker refuse to remit his
earnings to his dependents and deposit the same
in the country where he works to gain more
interests?
NO. Art. 22 of the Labor Code provides that it
shall be mandatory for all Filipino workers abroad
to remit a portion of their foreign exchange
earnings to their families, dependents, and/or
beneficiaries in accordance with the rules and
regulations prescribed by the Secretary of Labor
and Employment. Executive Order No. 857
prescribes the percentage of foreign exchange
remittance from 50% to 80% of the basic salary,
depending on the worker's kind of job.
Hence, an overseas worker cannot refuse to remit
his earnings. Otherwise, he shall be suspended or
excluded from the list of eligible workers for
overseas employment and in cases of subsequent
violations; he shall be repatriated at his own
expense or at the expense of his employer as the
case may be.
Recovery of Wages
The provisions of P.D. No. 1508 requiring the
submission of disputes before the Barangay
Lupong Tagapayapa prior to their filing with the
court or other government offices are not
applicable to labor cases.
Article 129 of the Labor Code empowers the
Regional Director to hear and decide any matter
involving the recovery of wages and other
monetary claims and benefits owing to an
employee or person employed in domestic or
household service, provided that the money
claim does not exceed P5.OOO.OO.
(Montoya vs .Escayo, G.R. Nos, 82211-12,
March 21. 1989)
Remedies; illegal dismissal
An employee can file a Motion for
Reconsideration with the NLRC after ten (10)
calendar days from receipt of the decision.
If the NLRC denies the Motion for
Reconsideration, BOI can file a petition for
certiorari with the Court of Appeals under Rule
65 of the Rules of Court since the decision of the
NLRC is final and executory.
The same remedy is available to a party to the
case, pursuant to the Labor Code (Article 223)
and the Rules of Court (Rule 65). If one did not
appeal, he cannot avail of the remedy.
Secretary of Labor; Authority
The Secretary of Labor and Employment has the
authority to approve a policy dealing with the
retirement of flight attendants of airlines.
Article 132 (d) of the Labor Code provides that
the Secretary of Labor and Employment shall
establish standards that will ensure the safety
and health of women employees, including the
authority to determine appropriate minimum age
and other standards for retirement or termination
in special occupations such as those of flight
attendants and the like.
CAVEAT:
It could be argued that Article 132 (d)
may be unconstitutional because this
may constitute discrimination in violation
of the spirit of Section 14 of Article XIII
of the Constitution which provides that
the State shall protect working women by
providing safe and healthful working
conditions, taking into account their
maternal functions, and such facilities
and opportunities that will enhance their
welfare and enable them to realize their
full potential in the service of the nation.
Secretary of Labor; Dismissal of Employees
The Secretary of Labor and Employment has the
authority to enjoin an employer from terminating
the employment of workers.
The Labor Code (in Article 377(b) provides that
the Secretary of Labor and Employment may
suspend the effectivity of the termination of
workers pending the resolution of a labor dispute
in the event of a prima facie finding of an
appropriate official of the Department of Labor
and Employment before whom such dispute is
pending that the termination may cause a
serious labor dispute or is in implementation of a
mass lay off.
Sec. of Labor; Assumption over Labor
Dispute
The power of the Secretary of Labor under Article
263(g) is plenary. He can rule on all issues,
questions or controversies arising from the labor
dispute, including the legality of the strike, even
those over which the Labor Arbiter has exclusive
jurisdiction (Bangong Pagkkaisa ng mga
Manggagawa sa Triumph International v.
Secretary, G.N. No. 167401 and 167407, July 5,
2010).
Sec. of Labor; Assumption over Labor
Dispute
The Secretary of Labor and Employment has
plenary power to assume jurisdiction under
Article 263(g) of the Labor Code. When in his
opinion, there exists a labor dispute causing or
likely to cause a strike or lockout in an industry
indispensable to the national interest, the
Secretary of Labor may assume jurisdiction over
the dispute and decide it or certify it to the NLRC
for compulsory arbitration (Art. 263[g], Labor
Code). This extraordinary authority given to the
Secretary of Labor is aimed at arriving at a
peaceful and speedy solution to labor disputes,
without jeopardizing national interests (Steel
Corporation v. SCP Employees Union, 551 SCRA
594 [2008]). Such assumption shall have the
effect of automatic enjoining an impending strike
or lockout, or an order directing immediate return
to work and resume operations, if a strike
already took place, and for the employer to re-
admit all employees under the same terms and
conditions prevailing before the strike or lockout
(Art. 263(g), Labor Code; Sec. 15, Rule XXII, Dept.
Order No. 40-G-03).
Sec. of Labor; Assumption over Labor
Dispute (2010)
The Secretary of Labors order will be inconsistent
with the established policy of the State of
enjoining the parties from performing acts that
undermine the underlying principles embodied in
Article 263(g) of the Labor Code.
In this case, excepting the employees terminated
due to redundancy form those who are required
to return-to-work, which was the very labor
dispute that sparked the union to strike, the
Secretary of Labor comes short of his duty under
Article 263(g) to maintain status quo or the terms
and conditions prevailing before the strike. In
fact, the Secretary could be accused of disposing
of the parties labor dispute without the benefit of
a hearing, in clear derogation of due process of
law.
Sec. of Labor; Assumption over Labor
Dispute
There was a defiance of the assumption order of
the Secretary of Labor by the union. The
assumption order is immediately executory.
Following an assumption order by the strikers is
not a matter of option or voluntarinesss but of
obligation on their part (Marcopper Mining
Corporation v. Brillantes, G.R. No. 119381, March
11, 1996; Art. 264[a], Labor Code).
Sec. of Labor; Assumption over Labor
Dispute; National Interest
Although the Secretary of Labor has wide
discretion in exercising jurisdiction over labor
dispute, he may not enjoin the strike because
SDSs is not indispensable to the national interest
(Art. 263[g], Labor Code).
Voluntary Arbitrator
State the cases when a labor dispute would fall
under the Jurisdiction of voluntary arbitrators or
panel of voluntary arbitrators.
A labor dispute falls under the jurisdiction of a
voluntary arbitrator or a panel of voluntary
arbitrator if a labor disputes arises from an
unresolved grievance which in turn arises from
the interpretation or implementation of a
Collective Bargaining Agreement or of company
personnel policies. [Art. 261)
Upon agreement of parties, a voluntary
arbitrator or panel of voluntary arbitrators may
also hear and decide all other labor disputes
including unfair labor practices and bargaining
deadlock. (Art. 262)
Voluntary Arbitrator
1. A voluntary arbitrator chosen under the
Grievance Machinery of a CBA can exercise
jurisdiction not only on disputes involving
interpretation/implementation of a CBA and/or
company rules, personnel policies (Art. 261,
Labor Code) but also, upon agreement of the
parties, "all other labor disputes including unfair
labor practice' (Art. 262, Labor Code). As no
objection was raised by any of the parties when
'the dispute was referred to a voluntary
arbitrator who later ruled on the issues raised by
the parties", it follows that what we have is
voluntary arbitration agreed upon by the parties.
His decision is binding upon the parties and may
be enforced through any of the sheriffs,
including those of the NLRC, he may deputize.
2. The award of voluntary arbitrators acting
within the scope of their authority determines the
rights of the parties, and their decisions have the
same legal effects as a judgment of the Court.
Such decisions on matters of fact or law are
conclusive, and all matters in the award are
thenceforth res judicata on the theory that the
matter has been adjudged by the tribunal which
the parties have agreed to make final as tribunal
of last resort. [Volkschel Labor Union v. NLRC. 98
SCRA 314 (1980).
Voluntary Arbitrators
1. Termination cases arising in or resulting from
the interpretation and implementation of the
collective bargaining agreements, and
interpretation and enforcement of company
personnel policies which were initially processed
at the various steps of the plant-level Grievance
Procedure under the parties collective bargaining
agreements, fall within the original and exclusive
jurisdiction of the voluntary arbitrator pursuant to
Article 217 (c) of the Labor Code.
2. The Regional Trial Court has jurisdiction to hear
and decide the prohibitory injunction case filed by
Union X against Company C to enjoin the latter
from implementing the memorandum-policy
against use of cell phones in the factory. What is
at issue in Union Xs challenge against the
validity and constitutionality of the cell phone ban
being implemented by Company C. the issue,
therefore, does not involve the interpretation of
the memorandum-policy, but its intrinsic validity
(Haliguefla v. PAL, 602 SCRA 297 [2009]).
Voluntary Arbitrator; Conciliation;
Mediation; Arbitration
There is a DOLE official called a
Conciliator Mediator. He is an officer of the
NCMB whose principal function is to assist in the
settlement and disposition of labor
management disputes through conciliation and
preventive mediation. However, he does not
promulgate decisions that settle controversies
about rights, which are demandable and
enforceable. The latter is called arbitration and is
the function of a labor arbiter or a voluntary
arbitrator.
or;
CONCILIATION is the process of dispute
management whereby parties in dispute are
brought together for the purpose of: (1) amicably
settling the case upon a fair compromise; (2)
determining the real parties in interest; (3)
defining and simplifying the issues in the case;
(4) entering into admissions or stipulations of
facts; and (5) threshing out all other preliminary
matters
(Section 3, Rule V, 2005 NLRC Rules of
Procedure). In resolving labor disputes, this
comes before arbitration, as a mandatory
process, pursuant to the State policy of
promoting and emphasizing conciliation as modes
of settling labor disputes (Art. 211 (A)(a), Labor
Code).
MEDIATION is a voluntary process of settling
disputes whereby the parties elect a mediator to
facilitate the communication and negotiation
between the parties in dispute for the purpose of
assisting them in reaching a compromise. (Sec.
3(q), Rep. Act No. 9285 or the Alternative Dispute
Resolution Law).

ARBITRATION is a system of dispute settlement
that may be compulsory or voluntary, whereby
the parties are compelled by the government, or
agree to submit their dispute before an arbiter,
with the intention to accept the resolution of said
arbiter over the dispute as final and binding on
them. (Luzon Development Bank v. Association of
Luzon Development Employees, 249 SCRA 162
[1995]).
Or; in this jurisdiction, compulsory arbitration in
labor disputes are submitted to a labor arbiter,
whose powers and functions are clearly defined
under Article 217(a) of the Labor Code; whereas
in voluntary arbitration, the powers and functions
of the voluntary arbitrator or panel of voluntary
arbitrators elected to resolve the parties dispute
involve the interpretation and implementation of
the parties collective bargaining agreement,
pursuant to Articles 260-262 of the Labor Code.
Voluntary Arbitrator; Labor Disputes;
Voluntary Arbitration
Disputes that may be subject of voluntary
arbitration are:
1. Distortion of the wage structure within an
establishment arising from any prescribed wage
increase because of a law or wage order which
any Regional Board issues (Art. 124, Labor Code);
and
2. Interpretation and implementation of the
parties collective bargaining agreement and
those arising from the interpretation or
enforcement of company personnel policies (Art.
217, as amended by R.A. 6715; Art. 260, Labor
Code; Navarro III v. Damasco, G.R. No. 101875,
July 14, 1995).
Voluntary Arbitrator; Voluntary Arbitration;
Compulsory Arbitration (2008)
A dispute falling within the jurisdiction of a
voluntary arbitrator cannit be submitted to
compulsory arbitration. Jurisdiction in compulsory
arbitration is conferred by law, not by agreement
of the parties (Veneracion v. Moncilla, G.R. No.
158238, July 20, 2006).
The law mandated that all grievances submitted
to the grievance machinery which are not settled
shall be referred to the voluntary arbitration
prescribed in the CBA Art. 260, Labor Code). This
procedure providing for a conclusive arbitration
clause in the CBA must be strictly adhered to and
respected if the ends are to be achieved (Liberal
Labor Union v. Phil. Can Co., G.R. No. L-4834,
March 28, 1952, cited in San Miguel Corporation
v, NLRC, G.R. No. 99266, March 02, 1999). Hence,
to submit a dispute falling within the jurisdiction
of a voluntary arbitration to compulsory
arbitration would be to trifle faith the express
mandate of the law.
Voluntary Arbitrator
1. The decisions or awards of the Voluntary
Arbitrator are not appealable because according
to Article 262-A of the Labor Code, they are final
an executor after 10 calendar days from receipt
of the copy of the award or decision by the
parties.
But said award or decision can be brought to the
Supreme Court on certiorari on the ground that
the Voluntary Arbitrator committed grave abuse
of discretion amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction. The Supreme Court has taken
cognizance of petitions questioning decision of
Voluntary Arbitrator where want of jurisdiction,
grave abuse of discretion, violation of due
process, denial of substantial justice and
erroneous interpretation of the law were brought
to its attention.
Or; If his award has not yet become final and
executor within the 10 day period from receipt of
the copy of the award by the parties, the
Voluntary Arbitrator could still modify his original
award.
2. The Voluntary Arbitrator has no authority to
modify his original award. Acting on a Motion for
Clarification, he could only clarify his award. It is
in excess of his jurisdiction to go beyond
clarifying his award by radically modifying and in
fact increasing the award.
Or; Such authority has disappeared upon
rendition of an award which is final, inappealable
and executor by stipulation of the parties.