PETER JOHN D. CALDERON, Petitioner, v.

BARTOLOME CARALE

G.R. No. 91636. April 23, 1992.

SYLLABUS : APPOINTMENT OF CHAIRMAN AND COMMISSIONERS OF NLRC

FACTS :

Sometime in March 1989, RA 6715 (Herrera-Veloso Law), amending the Labor Code (PD 442) was approved. It
provides in Section 13 thereof as follows:.. “The Chairman, the Division Presiding Commissioners and other
Commissioners shall all be appointed by the President, subject to confirmation by the Commission on Appointments. ..

Petition for prohibition questions the constitutionality and legality of the permanent appointments extended by the
President of the Philippines to the respondents Chairman and Members of the National Labor Relations Commission
(NLRC), without submitting the same to the Commission on Appointments for confirmation pursuant to Art. 215 of
the Labor Code as amended by said RA 6715.” Petitioner insists on a mandatory compliance with RA 6715 which has
in its favor the presumption of validity.

ISSUE : Whether or not Congress may, by law, require confirmation by the Commission on Appointments of
appointments extended by the President to government officers additional to those expressly mentioned in the first
sentence of Sec. 16, Art. VII of the Constitution whose appointments require confirmation by the Commission on
Appointments.an

HELD : Petition is DISMISSED. Art. 215 of the Labor Code as amended by RA 6715 insofar as it requires the confirmation
of the Commission on Appointments of appointments of the Chairman and Members of the National Labor Relations
Commission (NLRC) is hereby declared unconstitutional and of no legal force and effect.

Confirmation is not required when the President appoints other government officers whose appointments are not
otherwise provided for by law or those officers whom he may be authorized by law to appoint

Indubitably, the NLRC Chairman and Commissioners fall within the second sentence of Section 16, Article VII of the
Constitution, more specifically under the "third groups" of appointees referred to in Mison, i.e. those whom the
President may be authorized by law to appoint. Undeniably, the Chairman and Members of the NLRC are not among
the officers mentioned in the first sentence of Section 16, Article VII whose appointments requires confirmation by
the Commission on Appointments. To the extent that RA 6715 requires confirmation by the Commission on
Appointments of the appointments of respondents Chairman and Members of the National Labor Relations
Commission, it is unconstitutional because:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

1) it amends by legislation, the first sentence of Sec. 16, Art. VII of the Constitution by adding thereto appointments
requiring confirmation by the Commission on Appointments; and

2) it amends by legislation the second sentence of Sec. 16, Art. VII of the Constitution, by imposing the confirmation
of the Commission on Appointments on appointments which are otherwise entrusted only with the President.

Deciding on what law to pass is a legislative prerogative. Determining their constitutionality is a judicial function.
 RIZAL EMPIRE INSURANCE GROUP AND/OR SERGIO CORPUS, petitioners,
vs.
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, TEODORICO L. RUIZ, as Labor Arbiter and ROGELIO R. CORIA,

G.R. No. 73140 May 29, 1987

SYLLABUS : SCOPE OF POWERS OF NLRC ; RULE-MAKING POWER

FACTS :

Private respondent Rogelio R. Coria was hired by herein petitioner Rizal Empire Insurance Group.

On October 15, 1983, private respondent Rogelio R. Coria was dismissed from work, allegedly, on the grounds of
tardiness and unexcused absences. Accordingly, he filed a complaint with the Ministry of Labor and Employment
(MOLE), and in a Decision dated March 14, 1985 (Record, pp. 80-87), Labor Arbiter Teodorico L. Ruiz reinstated him
to his position with back wages. Petitioner filed an appeal with the National labor Relations Commission (NLRC) but,
in a Resolution dated November 15, 1985 (Ibid, pp. 31-32), the appeal was dismissed on the ground that the same
had been filed out of time.

However, the Second Division of this Court resolved to give due course to the petition and to require the parties to
submit their respective memoranda.

Hence, the instant petition. Petitioners claim, among other things, that respondent Commission committed a grave
abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction in arbitrarily dismissing petitioners' appeal on a technicality (Rollo,
p. 9). It invokes the Rules of Court provision on liberal construction of the Rules in the interest of substantial justice.

ISSUE : Whether or not it is still within the jurisdiction of this Court to review.

HELD :

Rule VIII of the Revised Rules of the National Labor Relations Commission on appeal, provides:

SECTION 1. (a) Appeal. — Decision or orders of a labor Arbiter shall be final and executory unless
appealed to the Commission by any or both of the parties within ten (10) calendar days from receipt
of notice thereof.

xxx xxx xxx

SECTION 6. No extension of period. — No motion or request for extension of the period within which
to perfect an appeal shall be entertained.

It will be noted however, that the foregoing provision refers to the Rules of Court. On the other hand, the
Revised Rules of the National Labor Relations Commission are clear and explicit and leave no room for
interpretation.

Moreover, it is an elementary rule in administrative law that administrative regulations and policies
enacted by administrative bodies to interpret the law which they are entrusted to enforce, have the force
of law, and are entitled to great respect
 PREMIERE PRODUCTIONS, INC., petitioner,
vs.
PHILIPPINE MOVIE PICTURES WORKERS' ASSOCIATION,

G.R. No. L-7338 May 31, 1955

SYLLABUS: POWER TO CONDUCT OCULAR INSPECTION.

FACTS :

Respondent filed with the Court of Industrial Relations an urgent petition seekingauthority to layoff 44
men working in three of its departments.The ground for the layoff are the financial loses which respondent was
allegedly suffering during the current year.Petitioner opposed the request alleging that the claim of financial loses has
no basis in fact it being only anact of retaliation on the part of respondent for the strike staged by the workers days
before in an attempt to harass and intimidate them and weaken and destroy the union to which they belong.

Hon. Arsenio C. Roldan, Presiding Judge of the Court of Industrial Relations, held an ocular inspection of the
studios and filming premises of respondent in the course of which he interrogated about fifteen laborers who were
then present in the place. On the strength of the evidence adduced during the ocular inspection Judge Roldan issued
an order on November 8, 1951, allowing respondent to layoff the workers mentioned in its petition with respect to
Unit No. 2 and those assigned to the Ground Maintenance Department subject to the condition that, in the event that
work is available in the future, they should be reemployed.

Subsequent hearing was held in connection with the workers assigned to Unit No. 1 and on the strength of
the evidence submitted by respondent, Judge Roldan again found the petition justifiable and authorized their layoff
in an order dated November 24, 1951, under the same condition as those contained in his previous order.

Petitioner moved for the reconsideration of both orders dated November 8 and November 24, 1951, which
motion the court in banc denied in a resolution issued on March 10, 1952. Hence this petition for review.

ISSUE : Whether or not the Court of Industrial Relations authorize the layoff of workers on the basis of an ocular
inspection without receiving full evidence to determine the cause of motive of such layoff.

HELD :

NO. The petition for layoff was predicated on the lack of work and of the further act that the company was
incurring financial loses. These allegations cannot be established by a mere inspection of the place of labor specially
when such inspection was conducted at the request of the interested party.

Had the Court of Industrial Relations after the ocular inspection of the premises of the company, continued
hearing the case; that in the course thereof, the union had full opportunity to introduce, and did introduce, its
evidence; that the evidence was so bulky, or the hearing so protracted, --under these hypothetical facts, it is clear to
us that the laying off of the employees by the company would have been justified only after the promulgation of said
decision.