Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Save to My Library
Look up keyword
Like this
20Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Labor Rd8 Compiled

Labor Rd8 Compiled

Ratings: (0)|Views: 347 |Likes:
Published by cmv mendoza

More info:

Published by: cmv mendoza on Jul 07, 2010
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

02/23/2013

pdf

text

original

 
LABOR LAW 2
A2010 235
Disini
(The CASE UNDER CIVIL REMEDIES)
NUEVA ECIJA I ELECTRIC COOP, INC.,(NEECO I) EMPLOYEES ASSO. V NLRC323 SCRA 86QUISUMBING; January 24, 2000
FACTS
-Petitioners Reynaldo Fajardo, Ernesto Marin, Ever Guevarra, PetroniloBaguisa, Victorino Carillo, and Erdie Javate were permanent employeesof respondent Nueva Ecija I Electric Cooperative (NEECO I). They weremembers of petitioner NEECO I Employees Association, a labor organization established for the mutual aid and protection of itsmembers. Petitioner Rodolfo Jimenez was the president of theassociation.-Respondent NEECO I is an electric cooperative under the generalsupervision and control of the National Electrification Administration(NEA). The management of NEECO I is vested on the Board of Directors. Respondent Patricio dela Peña was NEECO's generalmanager on detail from NEA.-The Board of Directors adopted Policy No. 3-33, which set theguidelines for NEECO I's retirement benefits. All regular employeeswere ordered by NEECO I to accomplish applications for either retirement, resignation, or separation from service.-The applications of Baguisa and Guevarra were approved; they werepaid the appropriate separation pay. These successive events, followedby the promotion of certain union officers to supervisory rank, causedapprehension in the labor association. They were considered asharassment threatening the union members, and circumventing theemployees' security of tenure. To strengthen and neutralizemanagement's arbitrary moves, the union held a "snap election" of officers.-Petitioner labor association passed a resolution withdrawing theapplications for retirement of all its members, but petitioners Marin,Fajardo and Carillo were compulsorily retired by management. Theyreceived their separation pay under protest. Javate was terminated fromemployment allegedly due to misappropriation of funds and dishonesty.He was not paid separation or retirement benefits.-Petitioners and Erdie Javate instituted a complaint for illegal dismissaland damages with the NLRC Regional Arbitration Branch in SanFernando. They alleged they were purposely singled out for retirementfrom a listing of employees who were made to submit retirement forms,even if they were not on top of the list because they were union officers,past officers or active members of the association. Further, petitionersclaimed that their acceptance of the money offered by NEECO I did notconstitute estoppel nor waiver, since their acceptances were withvehement objections and without prejudice to all their rights resultingfrom an illegal dismissal. Additionally, Javate averred he was framed upand dismissed without due process.-The labor arbiter rendered judgment declaring the employer guilty of illegal dismissal and unfair labor practice act, as charged; orderingrespondents to reinstate individual complainants to their former positionswithout loss of seniority rights and other privileges, either physically or inthe payroll, at the option of the respondents, with payment of fullbackwages; and ordering respondents to pay complainants moral andexemplary damages, attorney’s fees and the costs of litigation.-Private respondents appealed to the NLRC and posted a surety bond(P244,891.93). But herein petitioners filed an omnibus motion to dismisson the ground of late appeal, claiming that insufficient bond was filed byNEECO I only on January 5, 1993. The bond excluded the award of moral and exemplary damages, attorneys' fees and costs of litigation.-Respondent NLRC denied the motion and instead gave due course tothe appeal, and later modified the decision, by deleting the awards of moral and exemplary damages, attorney's fees and cost of litigation; andruling that the amounts of retirement benefits received by the individualcomplainants are to be applied to the backwages that may be due tothem.-Meanwhile, petitioners were reinstated by NEECO I pending appeal.Erdie Javate withdrew his complaint and opted to receive his retirementbenefits (P42,114.09).-Both parties filed MFRs, which were both denied, Hence this specialcivil action under Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of Court, by thepetitioners.
ISSUES:
1. WON the appeal taken by the NEECO I from the NLRC-RAB-III DOLE to NLRC Manila was perfected within the reglementaryperiod2. WON NLRC acted without or in excess of jurisdiction when itresolved to delete
en toto
moral damages, exemplary damages,attorney's fees and costs of litigation the factual basis of whichwere ascertained by the labor arbiter below3. WON the order to apply and deduct receivable backwagesfrom received benefits is unrealistic and arbitrary.
HELD
1. NO, but there was substantial compliance.Indisputable is the legal doctrine that the appeal of a decisioninvolving a monetary award in labor cases may be perfected"only upon the posting of a cash or surety bond.” (see Art. 223 of the Labor Code, as amended by RA 6715). Also, the perfectionof an appeal within the reglementary period and in the manneprescribed by law is jurisdictional, and noncompliance with suchlegal requirement is fatal and effectively renders the judgmentfinal and executory.-However, in a number of cases, this Court relaxed the rule toresolve controversies on the merits, specifically, when there arespecial meritorious circumstances and issues, such as whenthere was substantial compliance with the rule, so that onbalance, SC made technical considerations to give way to equityand justice.-In this case, the decision of the labor arbiter was issued onDec21,92. Respondents filed their appeal on Dec28,92 barelyseven days from receipt thereof. The bonding company issuedthe bond dated Jan4,93 the last day for filing an appeal.However, it was forwarded to NLRC only on the following day,Jan5,93. Considering these and the holiday season, SC finds itequitable to ease the rules.-As to the amount of bond, we note that there had been changesin the Rules promulgated by the NLRC. Previously thecomputation of the cash or surety bond to be posted by anemployer who wishes to appeal contained in the original ruleswas "exclusive of moral and exemplary damages and attorney'sfees". It was later deleted sometime in 1991 and 1992, thenrestored on Nov20,93. It may be noted that while NLRC in itsResolution No. 11-01-91 dated Nov7,91 deleted the phrase"exclusive of moral and exemplary damages as well asattorney's fees" in the determination of the amount of the bond, itprovided a safeguard against the imposition of excessive bondsproviding "(T)he Commission may, in meritorious cases andupon Motion of the Appellant, reduce the amount of the bond."-The unreasonable and excessive amount of bond would beoppressive and unjust and would have the effect of depriving aparty of his right to appeal. Besides, private respondents stressthat the petitioners were paid their retirement benefits and thatthe cooperative has sufficient assets from which the other claimsfor damages and attorney's fees may be obtained.2. YES. But the award given by the Labor Arbiter, beingexcessive, is reduced.-To warrant an award of moral damages, it must be shown thatthe dismissal of the employee was attended to by bad faith, or constituted an act oppressive to labor, or was done in a manner contrary to morals, good customs or public policy. The Labor Arbiter ruled that there was unfair labor practice.
-Unfair labor practices violate the constitutional rights of workers and employees to self-organization, are inimical tothe legitimate interests of both labor and management,including their right to bargain collectively and otherwisedeal with each other in an atmosphere of freedom andmutual respect; and disrupt industrial peace and hinder thepromotion of healthy and stable labor-managementrelations. As the conscience of the government, it is theCourt's sworn duty to ensure that none trifles with labor rights.
 
LABOR LAW 2
A2010 236
Disini
-
For this reason, we find it proper in this case to impose moral andexemplary damages on private respondent. However, the damagesawarded by the labor arbiter, to our mind, are excessive. In determiningthe amount of damages recoverable, the business, social and financialposition of the offended parties and the business and financial positionof the offender are taken into account.
 
It is our view that herein privaterespondents had not fully acted in good faith. However, we arecognizant that a cooperative promotes the welfare of its own members.The economic benefits filter to the cooperative members. Either equallyor proportionally, they are distributed among members in correlation withthe resources of the association utilized. Cooperatives help promoteeconomic democracy and support community development. Under thesecircumstances, we deem it proper to reduce the award for moral andexemplary damages.3. NO.-Having been illegally dismissed, individual petitioners are entitled toreinstatement from the time they were illegally dismissed, until they werereinstated on March 16, 1993. For that period they are likewise entitledto backwages minus the amount petitioners were forced to receive as"retirement" pay. A recomputation is therefore proper and in the eventthat the amount of "retirement" pay received by an individual petitioner exceeds the amount of his backwages, the excess should be deemed asadvances of salary which should be refundable until fully repaid by him.
Disposition
Petition partially granted.
PART 9CONCERTED ACTIVITIES
9.01 BASIS OF RIGHT TO ENGAGE INCONCERTED ACTIVITIES
1.CONSTITUTION- ART XIII, SEC. 3
 
LABOR 
Section 3. The State shall afford full protection tolabor, local and overseas, organized andunorganized, and promote full employment andequality of employment opportunities for all.It shall guarantee the rights of all workers to self-organization, collective bargaining and negotiations, andpeaceful concerted activities, including the right to strike inaccordance with law. They shall be entitled to security of tenure, humane conditions of work, and a living wage. Theyshall also participate in policy and decision-making processesaffecting their rights and benefits as may be provided by law.The State shall promote the principle of sharedresponsibility between workers and employers andthe preferential use of voluntary modes in settlingdisputes, including conciliation, and shall enforcetheir mutual compliance therewith to fosterindustrial peace.The State shall regulate the relations betweenworkers and employers, recognizing the right of labor to its just share in the fruits of productionand the right of enterprises to reasonable returnsto investments, and to expansion and growth.
LUZON MARINE DEPT., UNION V ROLDAN(LUZON STEVEDORING CO.)86 PHIL 507OZAETA; MAY 30, 1950
NATURE
 
Petition for certiorari to review a resolution of theCourt of Industrial Relations.
FACTS
- June 17, 1948: Petitioner Luzon Marine Union (UNION)presented to respondent Luzon Stevedoring Co. (LSC) a petitioncontaining demands, including that it be granted of fullrecognition “with the right to collective bargaining, closed-shopand check-off.” The Union initiated the petition in the CIR prayingthat LSC be directed to comply immediately with the demands.- The Union de Obreros Estivadores de Filipinas (UOEF) a labor organization divided into units of which Universal Marine Union isa part, intervened on behalf of the Union because it alleged thatthe demand of the Union for recognition with the right tocollective bargaining, closed-shop, etc. would violate anagreement entered into between LSC and UOEF, where thecompany recognized UOEF as the labor organization of theworkers rendering services to LSC., with full right of collectivebargaining.- UOEF moved for dismissal for lack of jurisdiction, on theground that the Union did not count with more than 30 membersemployed in the LSC. Judge Bautista issued an order denyingthe motion to dismiss. Before the receipt of the order, 65 allegedmembers of the Union initiated a strike without notice (July 19). Itwas only on July 21 that the LSC received the notice of strike.- July 20, 1948: Union filed with CIR a petition alleging that all itsmembers (more than 300) went on strike on July 19 due to therefusal of LSC to grant their demands, and prayed for theissuance of a restraining order to prevent the respondent fromemploying strike breakers.- August 16, 1948: Judge Bautista issued an order directing thestrikers to return to work, and the LSC to reinstate them in their previous positions. Acting on a motion for reconsideration, thecourt set said order aside on the ground that the strike wasunjustified and illegal.- Judges Roldan and Castillo held that although Sec. 19 of Commonwealth Act 103 provides that
pending award or decision by the CIR, the employee, tenant or laborer shallnot strike or walk out of his employment when so enjoinedby the Court, and although the Court had not enjoined thepetitioner NOT TO STRIKE, it does not necessarily followthat the strike was legal and justified xxx Although the Actrecognizes the laborers’ right to strike, it also creates all themeans by which a resort thereto may be avoided, “becausea strike is a remedy essentially coercive in character andgeneral in its disturbing effects upon the social order andthe public interests.”
- The CIR found out that the reason the members wenton strike was because the “opposite party claims or asserts that they had no members inside the company,and because they were becoming impatient.” From Thecourt concluded that the purpose of the strike was toinfluence the decision and to compel the Court to decidepromptly. The union insists that the strike was called for a lawful purpose: 1) to show they had more than 30members; 2) to answer the challenge of Alejo Villanuevathat he will dismiss the members from the company.ISSUESWON the strike was called for a lawful purpose.HELD
1.NO
Ratio
In cases not falling within the prohibition against strikes,the legality or illegality of a strike depends upon the 1) purpose
 
LABOR LAW 2
A2010 237
Disini
for which it is maintained, and 2) upon the means employed in carrying iton.- The law does not look with favor upon strikes and lockouts because of their disturbing and pernicious effects upon the social order and thepublic interests.
Reasoning 
The reasons presented by the Union do not justify thedrastic measure of a strike, which necessarily entails perniciousconsequences not only to the company but also to the laborersthemselves and public.- If the purpose of a strike is trivial, unreasonable or unjust, or if violencewas committed, the strike, although not prohibited by injunction, may bedeclared by the court illegal, with adverse consequences to the strikers.- If the laborers resort to a strike to enforce their demands (instead of exhausting legal processes first) they do so at their own risk, and shouldthe court find the strike was unjustified, the strikers would suffer theadverse consequences.
DISPOSITION
The petition appealed from is affirmed.
STANFORD MARKETING CORP V JULIANBLT BUS CO V NLRC212 SCRA 792CRUZ; August 21, 1992
NATURE
Special civil action for certiorari
FACTS
- Tinig at Lakas ng Manggagawa sa BLTB Co. NAFLU, an affiliate of NAFLU, filed a Notice of Strike against the Batangas Laguna TayabasBus Company (BLTB Co.) on the grounds of unfair labor practice andviolation of the CBA.- BLTB Co. asked the Sec. of Labor to assume jurisdiction or to certify itto the NLRC. The Acting Sec of Labor later certified it to the NLRC. Acopy of the certification order was served upon NAFLU. The unionsecretary, however, refused to receive it.- The officers and members of TLM-BLTBCo-NAFLU went on strike. TheNLRC issued a resolution ordering the employees to stop the strike.BLTBCo caused the publication of the resolution and called on allstriking workers to return to work.- Of the some 1,730 BLTBCo employees who went on strike, only 1,116reported back for work. Seventeen others were later re-admitted.Subsequently, about 614 employees, including those who wereallegedly dismissed for causes other than the strike, filed individualcomplaints for illegal dismissal. Their common ground was that theywere refused admission when they reported back for work.- The NLRC issued a resolution ordering the reinstatement of the unionmembers.
ISSUE/S
1. WON the union members who participated in the illegal strike shouldbe reinstated
HELD1. YES.
Reasoning 
 
- First, there was inadequate service of the certification order on theunion as of the date the strike was declared and there was no showingthat the striking members had been apprised of such order by theNAFLU.- Second, by virtue of the priniciple of vicarious liability, only the unionofficers deserve not to be reinstated. The leaders of the union are themoving force in the declaration of the strike and the Rank-in-fileemployees merely followed. Likewise, viewed in the light of Article 264,paragraph (e), those who participated in the commission of illegal actswho stood charged criminally thereof in court must be penalized- The contention of the petitioner that the private respondentsabandoned their position is also not acceptable. An employee whoforthwith takes steps to protest his lay-off cannot by any logic be said tohave abandoned his work.-The loss of employment status of striking union members is limited tothose "who knowingly participates in the commission of illegal acts."(Article 264, Labor Code) Evidence must be presented tosubstantiate the commission thereof and not merely anunsubstantiated allegation- The right to strike is one of the rights recognized and guaranteed bythe Constitution as an instrument of labor for its protection againstexploitation by management. By virtue of this right, the workers areable to press their demands for better terms of employment with moreenergy and persuasiveness, poising the threat to strike as their reaction to the employer's intransigence. The strike is indeed apowerful weapon of the working class. But precisely because of this, itmust be handled carefully, like a sensitive explosive, lest it blow up inthe workers' own hands. Thus, it must be declared only after the mostthoughtful consultation among them, conducted in the only wayallowed, that is, peacefully, and in every case conformably toreasonable regulation. Any violation of the legal requirements andstrictures, such as a defiance of a return-to-work order in industriesaffected with public interest, will render the strike illegal, to thedetriment of the very workers it is supposed to protect
Disposition
 
Petition dismissed
2.STATUTORY- 263 (b)
STRIKES AND LOCKOUTS
ART. 263. Strikes, picketing and lockouts. - (a)xxx(b) Workers shall have the right to engage inconcerted activities for purposes of collectivebargaining or for their mutual benefit andprotection. The right of legitimate labororganizations to strike and picket and of employersto lockout, consistent with the national interest,shall continue to be recognized and respected.However, no labor union may strike and noemployer may declare a lockout on groundsinvolving inter-union and intra-union disputes.
BLT BUS CO V NLRC212 SCRA 792CRUZ; August 21, 1992
NATURE
Special civil action for certiorari
FACTS
- Tinig at Lakas ng Manggagawa sa BLTB Co. NAFLU, anaffiliate of NAFLU, filed a Notice of Strike against the BatangasLaguna Tayabas Bus Company (BLTB Co.) on the grounds of unfair labor practice and violation of the CBA.- BLTB Co. asked the Sec. of Labor to assume jurisdiction or tocertify it to the NLRC. The Acting Sec of Labor later certified it tothe NLRC. A copy of the certification order was served uponNAFLU. The union secretary, however, refused to receive it.- The officers and members of TLM-BLTBCo-NAFLUwent on strike. The NLRC issued a resolution ordering theemployees to stop the strike. BLTBCo caused the publication of the resolution and called on all striking workers to return to work.- Of the some 1,730 BLTBCo employees who went on strike,only 1,116 reported back for work. Seventeen others were later re-admitted. Subsequently, about 614 employees, includingthose who were allegedly dismissed for causes other than thestrike, filed individual complaints for illegal dismissal. Their common ground was that they were refused admission whenthey reported back for work.- The NLRC issued a resolution ordering the reinstatement of theunion members.
ISSUE/S
1. WON the union members who participated in the illegal strike

Activity (20)

You've already reviewed this. Edit your review.
1 hundred reads
1 thousand reads
Clint M. Maratas liked this
Rona Pascual liked this
Rona Pascual liked this
Lara Magulta liked this
Rona Pascual liked this
kirsten_bri16 liked this

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->