LABOR RELATIONS- BOOK V OF THE LABOR CODE

A. Right to Self-Organization
B. Right to Collective Bargaining

C. Union Security

D. Unfair Labor Practice in Collective Bargaining

E. Unfair Labor Practice

F. Right to Peaceful Concerted Activities

Meaning of Labor Relations:

The term denotes all aspects of employer-

employee relationship which involve concerted action
on the part of the workers. It is usually associated
with all the ramifications of unionism, collective
bargaining and negotiations and concerted activities
such as strike, picket, mass leave and the like.

The usual relationship between management and labor

is one of continuing distrust. Distrust, of course, is the
breeding ground of industrial dispute sacrificing harmony in
the real, of industrial democracy. In fact, their continuing rift
is uneconomic, for it deprives them tremendously of their
respective daily subsistence. To arrest their relationship of
this stumbling block, a machinery of labor relations is
instituted. It is therefore, the object of labor relations
to adjust and align the conflicting interests between
labor and management to deter the incubation of
industrial dispute which may inevitably lead to
convulsive strike.

CONSTITUTIONAL BASES:
Under the 1987 Constitution-
 1. The STATE affirms labor as a primary social
economic force. It shall protect the rights of workers and
promote their welfare. (Sec. 18, Art. II –Declaration of
Principles and State Policies)

2. The STATE is required to guarantee the rights of all

workers to self-organization, collective bargaining and
negotiations, and peaceful concerted activities, including the
right to strike in accordance with law. (Sec. 3, Art. XII-Social
Justice and Human Rights)

3. The right of the people including those employed in

the public and private sectors, to form unions, associations
or societies for purposes not contrary to law, shall not be
abridged. (Sec. 8, Art. III-Bill of Rights)

LEGAL BASES:

The LABOR CODE (PD 442) declares as a basic policy

that the STATE:

1) shall assure the rights of workers, inter alia, to self-

organization and collective bargaining. (Art. 3)
2) shall promote free trade unionism as an instrument
for the enhancement of democracy and the
promotion of social justice and development, and
3) shall foster the free and voluntary organization of a
strong united labor movement. (Art. 211, b and c)
4) shall promote and emphasize the primacy of free
and responsible exercise of the right to self-
organization and collective bargaining, either
through single enterprise level negotiations or
through the creation of a mechanism by which
different employers and recognized or certified labor
unions in their establishments bargain collectively.
(Sec. 1, Rule XVI, Book V, Rules to Implement the
Labor Code as amended by Department Order No.
40-03, Series of 2003, Feb. 17, 2003)
CONCEPTS IN LABOR LAWS:

“The State is bound under the Constitution to afford full

protection to labor and when conflicting interests of labor
and capital are to be weighed on the scales of social justice
the heavier influence of the latter should be counterbalanced
with the sympathy and compassion the law accords the less
privileged workingman. This is only fair if the worker is to be
given the opportunity and the right to assert and defend his
cause not as a subordinate but as part of management with
which he can negotiate on even plane. Thus labor is not a
mere employee of capital but its active and equal partner. “

“While the employer is not precluded from prescribing

rules and regulations to govern the conduct of his
employees, these rules and their implementation must be
fair, just and reasonable. It must be underscored that no
less than our Constitution looks with compassion on the
workingman and protects his rights not only under a general
statement of a state policy, 21 but under the Article on Social
Justice and Human Rights, thus placing labor contracts on a
higher plane and with greater safeguards. Verily, relations
between capital and labor are not merely contractual. They
are impressed with public interest and labor contracts must,
perforce, yield to the common good.”

“In the absence of the appropriate offense which

defines complainant's infraction in the company's Rules and
Regulations, equity dictates that a penalty commensurate to
the infraction be imposed.”

“The constitutional policy of providing full protection to

labor is not intended to oppress or destroy management.
The commitment of this Court to the cause of labor does not
prevent us from sustaining the employer when it is in the
right, as in this case.”
 “Social justice ceases to be an effective instrument for
the "equalization of the social and economic forces" by the
State when it is used to shield wrongdoing. While it is true
that compassion and human consideration should guide the
disposition of cases involving termination of employment
since it affects one's source or means of livelihood, it should
not be overlooked that the benefits accorded to labor do not
include compelling an employer to retain the services of an
employee who has been shown to be a gross liability to the
employer. It should be made clear that when the law tilts
the scale of justice in favor of labor, it is but a recognition of
the inherent economic inequality between labor and
management. The intent is to balance the scale of justice; to
put the two parties on relatively equal positions. There may
be cases where the circumstances warrant favoring labor
over the interests of management but never should the
scale be so tilted if the result is an injustice to the employer,
Justicia remini regarda est (Justice is to be denied to none).
“

"The Social Justice policy mandates a compassionate

attitude toward the working class in its relation to
management. In calling for the protection to labor, the
Constitution does not condone wrongdoing by the employee,
it nevertheless urges a moderation of the sanctions that may
be applied to him in the light of the many disadvantages
that weigh heavily on him like an albatross on his neck.”

“It should be borne in mind that in termination cases,

the employer bears the burden of proving that the dismissal
is for just cause failing which would mean that the dismissal
is not justified and the employee is entitled to
reinstatement. The essence of due process in administrative
proceedings is the opportunity to explain one's side or a
chance to seek reconsideration of the action or ruling
complained of. The twin requirements of notice and hearing
constitute the essential elements of due process. This simply
means that the employer shall afford the worker ample
opportunity to be heard and to defend himself with the
assistance of his representative, if he so desires. Ample
opportunity connotes every kind of assistance that
management must accord the employee to enable him to
prepare adequately for his defense including legal
representation.”

“Time and again, this Court has reminded employers

that while the power to dismiss is a normal prerogative of
the employer, the same is not without limitations. The right
of an employer to freely discharge his employees is subject
to regulation by the State, basically through the exercise of
its police power. This is so because the preservation of the
lives citizens is a basic duty of the State, an obligation more
vital than the preservation of corporate profits.”

“In carrying out and interpreting the Labor Code's

provisions and its implementing regulations, the
workingman's welfare should be the primordial and
paramount consideration. This kind of interpretation gives
meaning and substance to tile liberal and compassionate
spirit of the law as provided for in Article 4 of the Labor
Code, as amended, which states that ''all doubts in the
implementation and interpretation of the provisions of the
Labor Code including its implementing rules and regulations
shall be resolved in favor of labor, as well as the
Constitutional mandate that the State shall afford full
protection to labor and promote full employment
opportunities for all. Likewise, it shall guarantee the rights of
all workers to security of tenure. Such constitutional right
should not be denied on mere speculation of any unclear and
nebulous basis.”

“The employer as owner of the business, also has

inherent rights, among which are the right to select the
persons to be hired and discharge them for just and valid
cause; to promulgate and enforce reasonable employment
rules and regulations and to modify, amend or revoke the
same; to designate the work as well as the employee or
employees to perform it; to transfer or promote employees;
to schedule, direct, curtail or control company operations; to
introduce or install new or improved labor or money savings
methods, facilities or devices; to create, merge, divide,
reclassify and abolish departments or positions in the
company and to sell or close the business.

Even as the law is solicitous of the welfare of the

employees it must also protect the right of an employer to
exercise what are clearly management prerogatives. The
free will of management to conduct its own business affairs
to achieve its purpose can not be denied.”

“It is the employer's prerogative to abolish a position

which it deems no longer necessary, and the courts, absent
any findings of malice on the part of the management,
cannot erase that initiative simply to protect the person
holding office” (Great Pacific Life Assurance Corporation vs.
NLRC, et al., G.R. No. 88011, July 30, 1990)

“The age-old rule governing the relation between labor

and capital, or management and employee of a "fair day's
wage for a fair day's labor" remains as the basic factor in
determining employees' wages. If there is no work
performed by the employee there can be no wage or pay
unless, of course, the laborer was able, willing and ready to
work but was illegally locked out, suspended or dismissed,
or otherwise illegally prevented from working..”

“In determining the existence of an employer-employee

relationship, the following elements are considered: (1) the
selection and engagement of the workers; (2) power of
dismissal; (3) the payment of wages by whatever means;
and (4) the power to control the worker's conduct, with the
latter assuming primacy in the overall consideration. The
power of control refers to the existence of the power and not
necessarily to the actual exercise thereof. It is not essential
for the employer to actually supervise the performance of
duties of the employee; it is enough that the employer has
the right to wield that power.”

Parties in a labor relations case:

Every labor relations case involves a) the employees,

b) the management or employer, and c) the State.

This is so because the relations between capital and

labor laws are not merely contractual but so impressed with
public interest that labor contracts must yield to the
common good.

The employer and the employees are the active parties

while the State is the passive party. However, the
government plays an active role when it directly intervenes
in the resolution of a labor conflict that affects an industry
indispensable to national interest under compulsory
arbitration.

The new Civil Code mandates capital and labor not to

act oppressively against each other or impair the interest or
convenience of the public under the principle of non-
oppression. Thus, the protection to labor clause in the
Constitution is not designed to oppress or destroy capital.
(Capili vs. NLRC, 270 SCRA 488)

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION

It is an administrative quasi-judicial body. It is in charge of

deciding labor cases through compulsory arbitration. It is characterized
by its tripartite composition, namely: a) representatives of workers, b)
the employers, and c) the public. This is known as “tripartism” in
labor relations. It is autonomous for it is attached to the
Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) for program and
policy coordination only.
 It is an administrative body conceived to be the vehicle
for speedy settlement of labor disputes. Speedy labor justice is
the guiding ideology that led to the creation of the NLRC.

Presided by a Chairman. It has eight (8) divisions all over the

country. Each division has three (3) commissioners. The Chairman
of the Commission may convene and preside over the session.

The Commission shall sit EN BANC only for the following

purposes:

1) Promulgating rules and regulations governing hearing and

disposition of cases before its divisions, RABS, SRABs; and

2) Formulating policies affecting its administration and operation.

3) The Commission En Banc may also allow cases within the

jurisdiction of any division to be heard by any other division but only
on temporary or emergency basis where the docket allows the
additional workload and such transfer will not expose litigants to
unnecessary additional expense.

Division of the NLRC

Unless otherwise provided by law, the Commission shall exercise

adjudicatory and other powers, functions through its Divisions with
each division consisting of :

1) a member from the PUBLIC SECTOR- Presiding Commissioner

2) a member from the workers sector
3) a member from the employers sector

Regional Arbitration Branch (RAB) per region under a particular

Division by way of geographic location

Acts as a labor court to receive, hear complaints and renders decision.

Has original jurisdiction over labor disputes. Is headed by an Executive
Labor Arbiter.

NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE LABOR ARBITER

a) Non-Litigious in nature
b) Subject to the requirements of Due Process
 c) Technicalities of Law and Procedure and the rules
obtaining in the courts of law shall not apply
d) Labor Arbiter may avail of all reasonable means to
ascertain the facts of the controversy, including OCULAR
INSPECTION.

MANDATORY CONCILIATION/MEDIATION CONFERENCE

Is called for the purpose of

 amicably settling the case upon a fair compromise

 determining the real parties in interest
 the necessity of amending the complaint to
include all causes of action
 defining/simplifying the issues
 entering into admissions or stipulation of facts,
and
 thresh out all other preliminary matters

Role of the Labor Arbiter During Hearing and Clarificatory

Conference:

a) Labor Arbiter shall conduct personally the

hearing/clarificatory conference;
b) He determines the order of presentation of evidence by
the parties subject to the requirements of due process;
c) He takes FULL CONTROL of the proceedings
d) He examines parties and witnesses to satisfy himself
on the matters at issue
e) Asks questions to clarify points of law or facts involved
in the case.

The Decision of the Labor Arbiter shall be:

1) Clear and concise;

2) Shall include a brief statement of:

a) the facts of the case

b) the issues involved
c) applicable rules and law
d) conclusions and reasons therefore; and
e) specific remedy or relief granted
 f) and the particular party entitled thereto or liable
therefore.

3) In cases involving monetary awards, the decision or

order must contain the amount awarded.

4.) In case the decision includes an order of

reinstatement, the same shall be immediately executory
pending appeal. The order of reinstatement shall indicate that
the employee shall EITHER be ADMITTED BACK TO WORK under
the same terms and conditions prevailing prior to his dismissal
or separation or at the OPTION of the EMPLOYER, merely
reinstated in the payroll. If he disobeys the Writ of Execution to
reinstate the employee, the employer may be cited for
contempt and shall be directed to pay accrued salaries of the
employee as a consequence thereof.

NLRC CASE FLOW PER RULES OF PROCEDURE:

SINGLE ENTRY APPROACH (SENA) issues Certification for

Compulsory Arbitration

Case complaint filed/docketed/raffled

Labor Arbiter Conducts:

 Mandatory Conference explores

settlement/simplifies issues
 Identifies Real Parties in Interest
 Orders submission of position
papers/replies/rejoinders (if needed)
 Orders Submission of Cases for Resolution
 Resolves Case
- Case Terminated/executed
- Issues Entry of Finality of Judgement

Unless, any party appeals to

Commission (7th Division, NLRC)

  Reviews case (may call on parties)
 Resolves appealed case
 If there is a Motion for Reconsideration (MR),
resolves the MR
 Case resolved- Records are returned to the Labor
Arbiter of
Origin for Execution
 Issues Entry of Finality of Judgment

Unless, any party petitions the Court of Appeals for

Certiorari under

Rule 65 (60 days from receipt of the Decision by the

Counsel)

Court of Appeals

 Resolves issue/petition, May issue a TRO to stop

execution
 Case Issues terminated, records returned to the
Labor Arbiter of origin

Unless any party petitions the SC under Rule 45

(within 15 days from receipt of the Decision)

Supreme Court

 Resolves issue/petition, May issue a TRO

 Case terminated, orders execution when
applicable upon issuance of Entry of Judgment
(Pendency of Civil Action for Certiorari before the
Higher Courts SHALL NOT INTERRUPT the course of
the principal case unless TRO or Writ of Preliminary
Injunction is issued against NLRC)

Execution by the Labor Arbiter of Origin

Case Records Archived.

 JURISDICTION OF LABOR ARBITERS

What is the nature of jurisdiction of Labor Arbiters? *Art. 217

(now Art. 223) of the Labor Code

The jurisdiction is original and exclusive in nature.

Labor Arbiters have no appellate jurisdiction.

What are the cases falling under the jurisdiction of the Labor
Arbiters?

Labor Arbiters have jurisdiction over the following cases

1.Unfair labor practice (ULP) cases;

2.Termination disputes (or illegal dismissal cases);
3. Cases that workers may file involving wages, rates of pay, hours of
work and other terms and conditions of employment, if accompanied
with claim for reinstatement;
4. Claims for actual, moral, exemplary and other forms of damages
arising from the employer-employee relations;
5. Cases arising from any violation of Article 264 of this Code,
including questions involving the legality of strikes and lockouts;
andvirtual law
6. Except claims for Employees’ Compensation, Social Security,
Medicare and maternity benefits, all other claims arising from
employer-employee relations, including those of 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.v law library

What are the money claims over which Labor Arbiters have
jurisdiction?

Money claims falling within the original and exclusive jurisdiction of the
Labor Arbiters may be classified as follows:

1. any money claim, regardless of amount, accompanied with a claim

for reinstatement (which involves a termination case); or chanrobles
virtual law library
2. any money claim, regardless of whether accompanied with a claim
for reinstatement, exceeding the amount of P5,000.00 per claimant
(which does not necessarily involve termination of employment).
What are the cases which do not fall under the jurisdiction of
the Labor Arbiters?

a. JURISDICTION OVER INTRA-CORPORATE DISPUTES. -Labor

Arbiters have no jurisdiction over termination of corporate
officers and stockholders which, under the law, is considered
intra-corporate dispute. It must be emphasized that a corporate
officer’s dismissal is always a corporate act and/or intra-corporate
controversy and that nature is not altered by the reason or wisdom
which the Board of Directors may have in taking such action. The
Regional Trial Courts (not SEC) now have jurisdiction under R. A. 8799
(Securities Regulation Act of 2000). Jurisdiction of RTC includes
adjudication of monetary claims of the corporate officer who was
dismissed, (such as unpaid salaries, leaves, 13th month pay, bonuses,
etc.), damages and attorney's fees.

Who are corporate officers?

There are specifically three (3) officers which a corporation must

have under the statute: president, secretary, and treasurer.
However, the law does not limit corporate officers to these three.
Section 25 of the Corporation Code gives corporations the widest
latitude to provide for such other offices, as they may deem
necessary. The by-laws may and usually do provide for such
other officers, e.g., vice president, cashier, auditor, and general
manager. Consequently, the Supreme Court has held that one
who is included in the by-laws of a corporation in its roster of
corporate officers is an officer of said corporation and not a
mere employee.

One who rose from the ranks is a regular employee and not a
mere corporate officer.

In Prudential Bank and Trust Company vs. Reyes, [G. R. No. 141093,
February 20, 2001], the Assistant Vice-President was appointed
Accounting Clerk by the Bank on July 14, 1963. From that position,
she rose to become supervisor. Then in 1982, she was appointed
Assistant Vice-President which she occupied until her illegal dismissal
on July 19, 1991. The Bank’s contention that she merely holds an
elective position and that, in effect, she is not a regular employee is
belied by the nature of her work and her length of service with the
Bank. As earlier stated, she rose from the ranks and has been
employed with the Bank since 1963 until the termination of her
employment in 1991. As Assistant Vice President of the foreign
department of the Bank, she is tasked, among others, to collect checks
drawn against overseas banks payable in foreign currency and to
ensure the collection of foreign bills or checks purchased, including the
signing of transmittal letters covering the same. It has been stated
that “the primary standard of determining regular employment
is the reasonable connection between the particular activity
performed by the employee in relation to the usual trade or
business of the employer.” Additionally, “an employee is
regular because of the nature of work and the length of service,
not because of the mode or even the reason for hiring them.”
As Assistant Vice-President of the Foreign Department of the
Bank she performs tasks integral to the operations of the bank
and her length of service with the bank totaling 28 years
speaks volumes of her status as a regular employee of the
bank. In fine, as a regular employee, she is entitled to security
of tenure; that is, her services may be terminated only for a
just or authorized cause. This being in truth a case of illegal
dismissal, it is no wonder then that the Bank endeavored to the
very end to establish loss of trust and confidence and serious
misconduct on the part of private respondent but to no avail.
chry

A corporate officer may also be an employee whose dismissal may vest

jurisdiction on the Labor Arbiter. chanrobles virtual law library

A corporate officer may also be, at the same time, an employee,

as held in Rural Bank of Coron [Palawan], Inc. vs. Cortes, [G.R. No.
164888, Dec. 6, 2006]. While, indeed, respondent was the Corporate
Secretary of the Rural Bank of Coron, she was also its Financial
Assistant and the Personnel Officer of the two other petitioner
corporations. The case of Mainland Construction Co., Inc. vs. Movilla,
[320 Phil, 353 (1995)], instructs that a corporation can engage its
corporate officers to perform services under a circumstance
which would make them employees. The Labor Arbiter has
thus jurisdiction over respondent’s complaint.

However, under the MATLING INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL

CORP. VS. RICARDO COROS (GR No. 157802, October 12, 2010)
doctrine, the following rules should be observed:

1) The dismissal of regular employees falls under the

jurisdiction of the Labor Arbiters while that of
 corporate officers falls within the jurisdiction of the
regular courts.
2) The term “corporate officers” refers only to those
expressly mentioned in the Corporation Code and By-
laws; all other officers not so mentioned therein are
deemed “employees”

3) Corporate officers are elected or appointed by the

directors or stockholders, and those who are given that
character either by the Corporation Code or by the
corporation’s by-laws;

4) The Corporation Code specifically mentions only the

following corporate officers, to wit: President,
Secretary and Treasurer and such other officers as may
be provided for in the by-laws.

5) The Board of Directors can no longer create corporate

offices because the power of the Board of Directors to
create corporate office cannot be delegated. Therefore,
the term “corporate officers” should only refer to the
above and to no other. A different interpretation can
easily leave the way open for the Board of Directors to
circumvent the constitutionally guaranteed security of
tenure of the employee by the expedient inclusion in
the By-laws of an enabling clause on the creation of
just any corporate officer position.

6) Because of the Matling Doctrine, the rulings in Tabang

and Nacpil are no longer controlling because they are
“too sweeping and do not accord with reason, justice
and fair play.

7) The status of an employee as director and stockholder

does not automatically convert his dismissal into an
intra-corporate dispute.

8) The Nature of the Controversy Test- The mere fact that

a person was a stockholder at the time of the filing of
the illegal dismissal case does not make the action an
intra-corporate dispute. (See Cosare vs. Broadcom Asia
Inc. GR No. 201298, 05 February 2014; Barba vs. Liceo
de Cagayan University, GR No. 193857, 28 Nov. 2012,
 Real vs. Sangu Philippines, Inc., GR No. 168757, 19
Jan. 2011, 640 SCRA 67)

b. JURISDICTION OVER GOVERNMENT CORPORATIONS WITH

ORIGINAL CHARTERS. - Labor Arbiters have jurisdiction over
cases involving employees of government-owned or controlled
corporationswithout original charters(organized under the
Corporation Code). They have no jurisdiction if entity has original
charter.

c. JURISDICTION OVER IMMUNED ENTITIES. - Labor Arbiters

have no jurisdiction over labor cases involving entities immuned from
suit. Exception: when said entities perform proprietary activities (as
distinguished from governmental functions).

For instance, in an illegal dismissal case filed against the Asian

Development Bank (ADB), the Supreme Court ruled that it enjoys
immunity from legal process of every form and, therefore, the suit
cannot prosper. ADB's officers, on their part, enjoy immunity in
respect of all acts performed by them in their official capacity. The
Charter and the Headquarters Agreement granting these
immunities and privileges are treaty covenants and
commitments voluntarily assumed by the Philippine
government which must be respected. (Department of Foreign
Affairs vs. NLRC, et al., G. R. No. 113191, September 18, 1996, 262
SCRA 39, 43-44).

In 1995, the Supreme Court had occasion to assert and reiterate said
rule in an illegal dismissal case filed against a specialized agency of the
United Nations. In dismissing the case, the Court said that being
a member of the United Nations and a party to the Convention
on the Privileges and Immunities of the Specialized Agencies of
the United Nations, the Philippine Government adheres to the
doctrine of immunity granted to the United Nations and its
specialized agencies. Both treaties have the force and effect of
law. (Lasco, et al. vs. United Nations Revolving Fund for Natural
Resources Exploration [UNRFNRE], et al., G. R. Nos. 109095-109107,
February 29, 1995; World Health Organization vs. Aquino, 48 SCRA
242 [1972]).

Estoppel does not confer jurisdiction over an immune entity

since estoppels does not operate to confer jurisdiction to a tribunal
that has none over a cause of action. (Ebro III vs. NLRC, GR No.
110187, 04 Sept. 1996, 261 SCRA 399)
There is an exception to the immunity rule as exemplified by the
case of United States vs. Hon. Rodrigo, [G. R. No. 79470, Feb.
26, 1990, 182 SCRA 644, 660]. Here, it was held that when the
function of the foreign entity otherwise immune from suit,
partakes of the nature of a proprietary activity, such as the
restaurant services offered at John Hay Air Station undertaken
by the United States Government as a commercial activity for
profit and not in its governmental capacity, the case for illegal
dismissal filed by a Filipino cook working therein is well within
the jurisdiction of Philippine courts. The reason is that by entering
into the employment contract with the cook in the discharge of its
proprietary functions, it impliedly divested itself of its sovereign
immunity from suit.Dd

DOCTRINE OF FORUM NON-CONVENIENS-This is an international

law principle which has been applied to labor cases. Its requisites:

1) That the Philippine court is one to which the parties may

conveniently resort;
2) That the Philippine court is in a position to make an intelligent
decision as to the law and the facts, and

3) That the Philippine court has or is likely to have power to enforce

its decision.

d. JURISDICTION OVER LOCAL WATER DISTRICTS. - In Hagonoy

Water District vs. NLRC, [G. R. No. 81490, August 31, 1988], the
Supreme Court ruled that local water districts are quasi-public
corporations and, therefore, the dismissal of their employees
are governed by the civil service laws, rules and regulations.
(See also Tanjay Water District vs. Gabaton, G. R. No. 63742, April 17,
1989).

However, although the Labor Arbiter has no jurisdiction, the Supreme

Court, in Zamboanga City Water District vs. Buat, [G. R. No. 104389,
May 27, 1994], did not allow petitioner to belatedly raise the issue of
jurisdiction before it, considering that it never raised said issue before
the Executive Labor Arbiter, the NLRC or even before the Supreme
Court in another related case. In fact, it was petitioner itself
which filed the complaint before the Executive Labor Arbiter
and sought affirmative relief therefrom and participated
actively in the proceedings therein. Although jurisdiction over
strikes and dismissals of employees in local water districts is
lodged not with the NLRC but with the Civil Service
Commission, here, the petitioner is already estopped from
assailing the jurisdiction of the NLRC and is, therefore, bound
to respect all the proceedings therein.

e. JURISDICTION OVER TORTS. - As earlier emphasized, Labor

Arbiters and the NLRC have no power or authority to grant
reliefs from claims that do not arise from employer-employee
relations. They have no jurisdiction over quasi-delict or tort per
Article 2176 of the Civil Code that have no reasonable causal
connection to any of the claims provided for in the Labor Code, other
labor statutes, or collective bargaining agreements. chanrobles virtual
law library

In Tolosa vs. NLRC, [G. R. No. 149578, April 10, 2003], a complaint
was lodged with the Labor Arbiter but later, the Supreme Court ruled
that the Labor Arbiter has no jurisdiction over the case because it was
established that the same was in the nature of an action based on a
quasi-delict or tort, it being evident that the issue presented therein
involved the alleged gross negligence of the co-employees (shipmates)
of Captain Tolosa, the deceased husband of the complainant, with
whom Captain Tolosa had no employer-employee relationship.

f. CRIMINAL AND CIVIL ACTIONS ARISING FROM VIOLATIONS

OF THE PENAL PROVISIONS OF THE LABOR CODE-jurisdiction is
with the Regional Trial Courts.

g. Constitutionality of Labor Contract Stipulations- In Halaguena vs.

PAL Inc. (GR No. 172013, 02 October 2009, the SC pronounced that it
is not the Labor Arbiter but the regular court which has jurisdiction to
rule on the constitutionality of labor contracts such as a CBA. The case
is an ordinary civil action which is beyond the jurisdiction of labor
tribunals. The issue cannot be resolved solely by applying the Labor
Code. It requires the application of the Constitution, labor disputes,
law on contracts and the CEDAW. The power to apply and interpret the
constitution and CEDAW is within the jurisdiction of trial courts, a court
of general jurisdiction. The employer-employee relationship between
the parties is merely incidental and the cause of action ultimately
arose from different sources of obligation i.e. Constitution and CEDAW.

SUMMARY OF OTHER ISSUES BEYOND JURISDICTION OF THE

LABOR ARBITERS OR NLRC.

In addition to the foregoing, other issues over which the Labor Arbiter
or NLRC has no jurisdiction may be summed up as follows:
1. Cases involving claims for Employees Compensation,
Social Security, Medicare and maternity benefits. (Article 217
[6], Labor Code).

2. Issue of replevin intertwined with a labor dispute.

(Basaya, Jr. vs. Militante, 156 SCRA 299). chanrobles virtual law
library

3. Cases arising from violation of training agreement.

(Singapore Airlines vs. Hon. Ernani Cruz Pano, G. R. No. L-47739,
June 22, 1983; 122 SCRA 671).

4. Cases involving claim for liquidated damages for breach of

a contractual obligation. Also the issue of liability in suretyship.
(Singapore Airlines vs. Hon. Ernani Cruz Pano, G. R. No. L-47739,
June 22, 1983; 122 SCRA 671).

5. Cases involving issue of whether sale of property being

levied on execution was done in bad faith. (Asian Footwear vs.
Soriano, 142 SCRA 49).

6. Cases of contempt involving a judge of the regular court.

(Tolentino vs. Inciong, 91 SCRA 563). chanrobles virtual law library

7. Cases involving an injunction filed by a third party with

the regular court against the sheriff enforcing a decision in a
labor case. (Philippine Association of Free Labor Unions [PAFLU]
vs. Salas, 158 SCRA 53).

8. Cases involving claim of employee for cash prize offered

under the Innovation Program of a company which,
although arising from employer-employee relationship,
require the application of general civil law on contracts. (San
Miguel Corporation vs. NLRC, 161 SCRA 719).

9. Cases initiated by employer against an employee for sum

of money and damages for cost of repair jobs made on an
employee’s personal cars as well as for the purchase price of
parts and vehicles. (Molave Motor Sales, Inc. vs. Laron, 129
SCRA 485).

10. Claims for commissions and certain reimbursements

made by an independent contractor. (Sara vs. Agarrado, 166
SCRA 625).
11. Cases filed by government-owned corporations
performing governmental functions. (National Housing
Corporation vs. Juco, 134 SCRA 172; Metropolitan Waterworks and
Sewerage System vs. Hernandez, 143 SCRA 602; PNOC-
Exploration Corporation vs. NLRC, 164 SCRA 501).

12. Violation of labor laws which are penal in nature.

Examples are illegal recruitment cases, (Section 10, Rule X, Book
II, Rules and Regulations Governing Overseas Employment) or
criminal offenses or felonies committed in the course of strikes and
lockouts. (Article 264, Labor Code).

13. Insolvency proceedings in the enforcement of the worker

preference ordained under Article 110 of the Labor Code.

14. Exercise of equity jurisdiction to enjoin activities for

purposes of compelling an employer to ignore a clear
mandate of the law. (Bulletin Publishing Corporation vs. Sanchez,
144 SCRA 678).

15. Administrative action against the licensee or holder of

authority cognizable by the POEA which could proceed
independently from the criminal action. (Section 12, Rules
and Regulations Implementing the Migrant Workers and Overseas
Filipinos Act of 1995).

16. Review of recruitment violation cases and other related

cases decided by the POEA. The Secretary of Labor and
Employment has exclusive jurisdiction over these cases. (Section 1,
Rule IV, Book VI, Rules and Regulations Governing Overseas
Employment). chanrobles virtual library

17. Cases involving issues which do not arise from, or has no

reasonable causal connection with, employer-employee
relationship. (Pepsi-Cola Distributors vs. Galang, 201 SCRA 695;
Grepalife Assurance Corporation vs. NLRC, 187 SCRA 694;
Cosmopolitan Funeral Homes vs. Maalat, 187 SCRA 773; Insular
Life vs. NLRC, 179 SCRA 459).