1. Jurisdiction of Labor tribunals.

Labor Arbiter

A: Exclusive and original jurisdiction to hear and decide the following cases involving all workers:

1. ULP cases
2. Termination disputes
3. If accompanied with a claim for reinstatement, those that workers file 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 Er‐Ee relations
5. Cases arising from any violation of Art. 264, including questions involving the legality of
strikes and lockouts
6. Except claims for Employment Compensation, Social Security, Philhealth and maternity
benefits, all other claims arising from Er‐Ee relations, including those of persons in domestic
or household service, involving an amount exceeding P5000 regardless of whether
accompanied with a claim for reinstatement
7. Monetary claims of overseas contractnworkers arising from Er‐Ee relations under the
Migrant Worker’s Act of 1995 as amended by RA 10022
8. Wage distortion disputes in unorganized establishments not voluntarily settled by the
parties pursuant to RA 6727
9. Enforcement of compromise agreements when there is non‐compliance by any of the
parties pursuant to Art. 227 of the Labor Code (LC), as amended.

Regular Court

1. Foreign governments (JUSMAG‐Phils. v. NLRC, G.R. No. 108813, Dec. 15, 1994)
2. Int’l agencies (Lasco v. NLRC, G.R. Nos. 109095‐109107, Feb. 23, 1995)
3. Intra‐corporate disputes which fall under P.D. 902‐A and now falls under the jurisdiction of
the regular courts pursuant to the new Securities Regulation Code (Nacpil v. IBC, G.R. No.
144767, Mar. 21, 2002)
4. Executing money claims against government (Dept of Agriculture v. NLRC, G.R. No. 104269,
Nov. 11, 1993)
5. Cases involving GOCCs with original charters which are governed by civil service law, rules or
regulations (Art. IX‐B, Sec.2, No.1, 1987 Constitution)
6. Local water district (Tanjay Water District v. Gabaton, April 17, 1989) except where NLRC
jurisdiction is invoked (Zamboanga City Water District v. Buat, G.R. No. 104389, May 27,
1994)
7. The aggregate money claim does not exceed P5000 and without claim for reinstatement
(Rajah Humabon Hotel, Inc. v. Trajano, G.R. Nos. 100222‐23, Sep.14, 1993)
8. Claim of employee (Ee) for cash prize under the Innovation Program of the company,
although arising from Er‐Ee relationship, is one requiring application of general civil law on
contracts which is within the jurisdiction of the regular courts (SMC v. NLRC, G.R. No. 80774,
May 31, 1988)
 9. Cause of action based on quasi‐delict or tort which has no reasonable connection with any
of the claims enumerated in Art.217 of the LC (Ocheda v. CA, G.R. No. 85517, Oct. 16, 1992)
10. Complaint arising from violation of training agreement (Singapore Airlines v. Pano, G.R. No.
L‐47739, June 22, 1983)

2. Management Prerogative

GR: It is the right of an Er to regulate, according to his own discretion and judgment, all aspects
of employment, including:

a. Hiring
b. Work assignments
c. Working methods
d. Time, place and manner of work
e. Tools to be used
f. Processes to be followed
g. Supervision of workers
h. Working regulations
i. Transfer of Ees
j. Work supervision
k. Lay‐off of workers
l. Discipline
m. Dismissal
n. Recall of workers

Exception: Otherwise limited by special laws.

Note: So long as a company’s prerogatives are exercised in good faith for the advancement of
the Er’sinterest and not for the purpose of defeating or circumventing the rights of the Ees
under special laws or under valid agreements, the Supreme Court will uphold them.

3.