CASES

SEPARATION PAY; "STRAINED RELATIONS" BETWEEN THE EMPLOYER AND THE EMPLOYEE.

 However, separation pay shall be allowed as a measure of social justice in those cases where the
employee is validly dismissed for causes other than serious misconduct or those reflecting on his
moral character, but only when he was illegally dismissed.
 The award of separation pay cannot be justified solely because of the existence of "strained
relations" between the employer and the employee. It must be given to the employee only as an
alternative to reinstatement emanating from illegal dismissal. 
 When there is no illegal dismissal, even if the relations are strained, separation pay has no legal
basis
 The doctrine on "strained relations" cannot be applied indiscriminately. 
 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.
 Article 110 of the Labor Code does not create a lien in favor of workers or employees for unpaid
wages either upon all of the properties or upon any particular property owned by their employer.
 A preference applies only to claims which do not attach to specific properties. A lien creates a
charge on a particular property. The right of first preference as regards unpaid wages recognized
by Article 110 does not constitute a lien on the property of the insolvent debtor in favor of workers.
It is but a preference of credit in their favor, a preference in application. It is a method adopted to
determine and specify the order in which credits should be paid in the final distribution of the
proceeds of the insolvent’s assets. It is a right to a first preference in the discharge of the funds of
the judgment debtor.
 Even if Article 110 and its Implementing Rule, as amended, should be interpreted to mean
`absolute preference,’ the same should be given only prospective effect in line with the cardinal
rule that laws shall have no retroactive effect, unless the contrary is provided. To give Article 110
retroactive effect would be to wipe out the mortgage in DBP’s favor and expose it to a risk which it
sought to protect itself against by requiring a collateral in the form of real property.

SUPERVISORY EMPLOYEES; ELIGIBLE TO FORM A SUPERVISORY UNION

 "the fact that their work descriptions are either managers or supervisors is of no moment
considering that it is the nature of their functions and not the said nomenclatures of titles of their
jobs which determines their statuses."
 the job descriptions of the Production Supervisor, Superintendent (Production) and Manager
(Production) to show that indeed petitioning employees are exercising managerial powers and
prerogatives.

STRIKE

 A no strike, no lock out provision can only be invoked when the strike is economic in nature, i.e. to
force wage or other concessions from the employer which he is not required by law to grant. Such a
provision cannot be used to assail the legality of a strike which is grounded on unfair labor practice
 whether or not there was indeed unfair labor practice does not affect the strike.
 The evidence on record show that the violence cannot be attributed to the striking employees alone
for the company itself employed hired men to pacify the strikers. With violence committed on both
sides, the management and the employees, such violence cannot be a ground for declaring the
strike as illegal.
THE LABOR ARBITER; JURISDICTION

 Not every controversy involving workers and their employers can be resolved only by the labor
arbiters. This will be so only if there is a "reasonable causal connection" between the claim asserted
and employee-employer relations. Absent such a link, the complaint will be cognizable by the
regular courts of justice in the exercise of their civil and criminal jurisdiction.

DISMISSAL

 The burden of proving that the dismissal of private respondents was legal and valid falls upon
petitioner.
 Anent the second issue, Article 217 (now art. 224) of the Labor Code provides that labor arbiters
have original and exclusive jurisdiction over termination disputes. A possible exception is provided
in Article 261 (now art. 274) of the Labor Code.
 Pursuant to Article 260 (now Art. 273) of the Labor Code, the parties to a CBA shall name or
designate their respective representatives to the grievance machinery and if the grievance is
unsettled in that level, it shall automatically be referred to the voluntary arbitrators designated in
advance by the parties to a CBA.
 Consequently only disputes involving the union and the company shall be referred to the grievance
machinery or voluntary arbitrators.
 It is obvious that arbitration without the union’s active participation on behalf of the dismissed
employees would be pointless, or even prejudicial to their cause.
 For a dismissal to be valid, the employer must show that: (1) the employee was accorded due
process, and (2) the dismissal must be for any of the valid causes provided for by law.
 Where the dispute is just in the interpretation, implementation or enforcement stage, it may be
referred to the grievance machinery set up in the CBA, or brought to voluntary arbitration. But,
where there was already actual termination, with alleged violation of the employees’ rights, it is
already cognizable by the labor arbiter.

ABANDONMENT OF WORK

 For abandonment to constitute a valid cause for termination of employment there must be a
deliberate unjustified refusal of the employee to resume his employment
 no abandonment of work, entitled to reinstatement with back wages.

REGIONAL DIRECTOR

 Regional Director had no jurisdiction to try and decide claims of workers and employees of their
illegal dismissal from employment, and for their reinstatement and recovery of monetary and other
benefits consequent thereto.
 The Labor Arbiters shall have the original and exclusive jurisdiction to hear and decide within thirty
(30) working days after submission of the case by the parties for decision, whether agricultural or
nonagricultural:

1. Unfair labor practice cases;

2. Those that workers may file involving wages, hours of work and other terms and conditions of
employment;

3. All money claims of workers, including those based on non-payment or underpayment of wages,
overtime compensation, separation pay and other benefits provided by law or appropriate
agreement, except claims for employees’ compensation, social security, medicare and maternity
benefits;

4. Cases involving household services; and

 5. Cases arising from any violation of Article 265 of this Code, including questions involving the
legality of strikes and lockouts.

 When the employer contests the findings of the Regional Director, the case must be referred to the
Labor Arbiter. This is also a question of fact which cannot be dealt with by the Regional Director in
view of the summary nature of the proceedings attendant to the exercise of his visitorial powers
(See Art. 128 [b])
 It is a rule that when a tribunal acts in excess or lack of jurisdiction, all decisions, orders and
processes emanating thereform are null and void.
 Thus, on the issue regarding the denial of appeal, suffice it to say that in taking cognizance of the
case at the first instance, the Regional Director already acted beyond the scope of his jurisdiction.
Necessarily, all orders and processes subsequently issued by him are without force and effect.
 The DOLE Regional Director has visitorial and enforcement powers to order and enforce
compliance with labor standard laws can be exercised even where the individual claim exceeds
P5,000.00.
 Pursuant to Section 1 of Republic Act 7730 [Approved on June 2, 1994] which amended Article 128
(b) of the Labor Code, the Secretary of Labor and Employment or his duly authorized
representative, in the exercise of their visitorial and enforcement powers, are now authorized to
issue compliance orders to give effect to the labor standards provisions of this Code and other labor
legislation based on the findings of labor employment and enforcement officers or industrial safety
engineers made in the course of inspection, sans any restriction with respect to the jurisdictional
amount of P5,000.00 provided under Article 129 and Article 217 of the Code.

SCOPE- LA / NLRC?

 Whether or not an enforceable contract, albeit implied arid innominate, had arisen between
petitioner Corporation and private respondent Vega in the circumstances of this case, and if so,
whether or not it had been breached, are preeminently legal questions, questions not to be
resolved by referring to labor legislation and having nothing to do with wages or other terms and
conditions of employment, but rather having recourse to our law on contracts

METRO

 petitioner METRO is covered by the Labor Code despite its later acquisition by petitioner LRTA.
petitioner METRO has no original charter; hence, it is the Department of Labor and Employment,
and not the Civil Service Commission, which has jurisdiction over disputes arising from the
employment of its workers.
 Labor law claims against government-owned and controlled corporations without original charter
fall within the jurisdiction of the Department of Labor and Employment and not the Civil Service
Commission.
 Consequently, the terms and conditions of such employment are governed by the Labor Code and
not by the Civil Service Rules and Regulations.
 There should be no dispute then that employment in petitioner LRTA should be governed only by
civil service rules, and not the Labor Code and beyond the reach of the Department of Labor and
Employment, since petitioner LRTA is a government-owned and controlled corporation with an
original charter, Executive Order No. 603, Series of 1980, as amended.

PRESCRIPTION; FILING AN ACTION

 The right of action accrues when there exists a cause of action, which exists when an act or
omission on the part of the defendant violative of the right of the plaintiff has taken place.
 Administrative policies have the force and effect of law and have in their favor a presumption of
legality. Therefore, Petitioner only required her right of action at the time that such presumption
was rebutted.
 within the 10-year prescriptive period.
BUREAU OF LABOR RELATIONS

 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.
 The Bureau shall have fifteen (15) working days to act on all labor cases, subject to extension by
agreement of the parties, after which the Bureau shall certify the cases to the appropriate Labor
Arbiters. The 15-working day deadline, however, shall not apply to cases involving deadlocks in
collective bargaining which the Bureau shall certify to the appropriate Labor Arbiters only after all
possibilities of voluntary settlement shall have been tried.
 It is the said Bureau and its divisions, and not the barangay Lupong Tagapayapa, which are vested
by law with original and exclusive authority to conduct conciliation and mediation proceedings on
labor controversies before their endorsement to the appropriate Labor Arbiter for adjudication.
 The Bureau of Labor Relations and the Labor relations divisions in the regional officer of the
Department of Labor shall have original and exclusive authority to act, at their own initiative or
upon request of either or both parties, on all inter-union and intra-union conflicts, and all disputes,
grievances or problems arising from or affecting labor-management relations in all workplaces
whether agricultural or non-agricultural, except those arising from the implementation or
interpretation of collective bargaining agreements which shall be the subject of grievance
procedure and/or voluntary arbitration.
 “(n)o special assessment or other extra-ordinary fees may be levied upon the members of a labor
organization unless authorized by a written resolution of a majority of all the members at a general
membership meeting duly called for the purpose.”

NLRC-

 Under Art. 221 of the Labor Code, the rules of evidence prevailing in courts of law do not control
proceedings before the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC. Administrative bodies like the NLRC are not
bound by the technical niceties of law and procedure and the rules obtaining in courts of law.

 Decisions of NLRC shall be final and unappealable except:

o Abuse of discretion

o Fraud or coercion

o Questions of law

o Serious errors in the findings of facts which would cause grave or irreparable damage or
injury to appellant.

NLRC- SALARY DIFFERENTIAL PAY AND UNPAID OVERTIME PAY

 In labor cases, the rules of evidence prevailing in courts of law or equity are not controlling (Article
221, Labor Code).
 The law requires the Commission and its members and the Labor Arbiters to use every and
reasonable means to ascertain the facts in each case speedily and objectively in the interest of due
process (ibid). The essence of due process is to be found in the reasonable opportunity to be heard
and to submit any evidence one may have in support of one's defense.

NLRC- MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

 Appeal. In any event, the decision of the Labor Arbiter reinstating a dismissed or separated
employee, insofar as the reinstatement aspect is concerned, shall immediately be executory, even
pending appeal.

TECHNICAL RULES

 It is well settled that the application of technical rules of procedure may be relaxed in labor cases to
serve the demands of substantial justice. Thus, in the interest of justice, procedural lapses may be
disregarded by the Court to allow an examination of the conflicting rights and responsibilities of the
parties in a case
 . Immediately after the submission by the parties of their position papers/memorandum, the Labor
Arbiter shall motu proprio determine whether there is need for a formal trial or hearing. At this
stage, he may, at his discretion and for the purpose of making such determination, ask clarificatory
questions to further elicit facts or information, including but not limited to the subpoena of relevant
documentary evidence, if any(,) from any party or witness."
 We held that the argument that the affidavit is hearsay because the affiants were not presented for
cross-examination is not persuasive because the rules of evidence are not strictly observed in
proceedings before administrative bodies like the NLRC where decisions may be reached on the
basis of position papers only.
 To require for the presence of the affiants to appear and testify and be cross-examined would be to
negate the rationale and purpose of the summary nature of the proceedings mandated by the Rules
and to make mandatory the application of the technical rules of evidence.
 Under Art. 221 of the Labor Code, the rules of evidence prevailing in courts of law do not control
proceedings before the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC. Administrative bodies like the NLRC are not
bound by the technical niceties of law and procedure and the rules obtaining in courts of law.

NOTICE

 The rule reads: “shall serve all parties and counsels processes, notices of hearings, copies of
decisions/orders issued by the Commission by mail or by personal service and immediately attach
the returns thereof to the records.”
 Sec 4 of Rule XII of the New Rules of Procedure of the NLRC is entitled Duties and Functions of the
Executive Clerk/Deputy Executive Clerk and enumerates the powers and duties of the Clerk/Deputy
Executive Clerk of the NLRC. It does not prescribe the manner by which service of processes of the
NLRC should be made. It is 3, Rule 1 of the NLRC Rules of Procedure which provides the rule for
service of notices and resolutions of the commission. 
 that when a party is represented by counsel, notices should be made upon the counsel of record at
his given address, to which notices of all kinds emanating from the court should be sent.
 the failure of a partys counsel to notify him on time of the adverse judgment to enable him to
appeal therefrom is negligence, which is not excusable.
 Notice sent to counsel of record is binding on the client and is not a ground for setting aside a
judgment valid and regular on its face.
 According to the Supreme Court, the posting of order when personal service was impossible
because the striking employees were not at the strike area is not sanctioned by either the NLRC
Revised Rules of Procedure or the Revised Rules of Court. Section 6 of the NLRC revised rules of
procedures provides that: Section 6. Service of Notices and Resolutions (a)
 Notices or summons and copies of orders, shall be served on the parties to the case personally by
the Bailiff or duly authorized public officer within three (3) days from receipt thereof or by
registered mail; Provided that in special circumstances, service of summons may be effected in
accordance with the pertinent provisions of the Rules of Court; Provided further, that in cases of
decisions and final awards, copies thereof shall be served on both parties and their counsel or
representative by registered mail; Provided further, that in cases where a party to a case or his
counsel on record personally seeks service of the decision upon inquiry thereon, service to said
party shall be deemed effected upon actual receipt thereof; Provided finally, that where parties are
so numerous, service shall be made on counsel and upon such number of complainants, as may be
practicable, which shall be considered substantial compliance with Article 224(a) of the Labor Code,
as amended.
 And under the revised rules of court, it provides that: Rule 13. Filing and Service of Pleadings,
Judgments And Other Papers.
 Section 6. Personal service. – Service of the papers may be made by delivering personally a copy to
the party or his counsel, or by leaving it in his office with his clerk or with a person having charge
thereof. if no person is found in his office, or his office is not known, or he has no office, then by
 leaving a copy, between the hours of eight in the morning and six in the evening, at the party’s or
counsel’s residence, if known, with a person of sufficient age and discretion then residing therein.
And the SUPREME COURT alsow said that the respondent union in this case complied with the
procedures in staging a strike. For a strike to be valid, the following requisites must concur:

(1) the thirty-day notice or the fifteen-day notice, in case of unfair labor practices;

(2) the two-thirds (2/3) required vote to strike done by secret ballot; and

(3) the submission of the strike vote to the Department of Labor and Employment at least
seven days prior to the strike.

In addition, in case of strikes in hospitals, clinics and medical institutions, it shall be the duty of the
striking employees to provide and maintain an effective and skeletal workforce of medical and other health
personnel in order to insure the proper and adequate protection of the life and health of its patients. These
procedural requirements, along with the mandatory cooling off and strike ban periods had been fully
observed by the respondent union and there is no proof that the strike was done illegally so there is no
valid reason to dismiss the union officer.

APPLICATION OF THE PRINCIPLE OF RES JUDICATA:

The Court stated therein that the principle of res judicata may not be invoked in labor relations
proceedings considering that Section 5, Rule XIII, Book V of the Rules and Regulations Implementing the
Labor Code provides that such proceedings are "non-litigious and summary in nature without regard to
legal technicalities obtaining in courts of law." Said pronouncement is in consonance with the
jurisprudential dictum that the doctrine of res judicata applies only to judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings
and not to the exercise of administrative powers.

COMPULSORY ARBITRATION IS A “MANDATORY ACTIVITY?

 This is not the "mandatory activity" under the Code which dispenses with individual written
authorizations for check-offs, notwithstanding its "compulsory" nature.
 The cardinal principle should be borne in mind that employees are protected by law from
unwarranted practices that diminish their compensation without their knowledge and consent.
 Article 222 (b) does not exempt a CBA, later placed under compulsory arbitration, from the ambit of
its prohibition. Hence, individual written authorizations for check-offs are not dispensed with, even
if the CBA provides so.

APPEAL; DOCKET FEEES

 Art. 292, par. (d), of the Labor Code which provides that no docket fee shall be assessed in labor
standards disputes
 No appeal bond was necessary as the decision being appealed did not contain any monetary award.
Nowhere is it written that payment of appeal docketing fee is necessary for the perfection of the
appeal. Therefore, there is no question that the appeal in the instant case has been perfected and
the failure to pay the appeal docketing fee is not fatal.
 Appeal means the elevation by an aggrieved party of any decision or award of a lower body to a
higher body by means of a pleading which includes the assignment of errors, arguments in support
thereof, and the relief prayed for.  On the other hand, "perfection of an appeal" includes the filing,
within the prescribed period, of the memorandum of appeal containing, among others, the
assignment of error/s, arguments in support thereof, the relief sought, and in appropriate cases,
posting of the appeal bond.
 An appeal bond is necessary, only in case of a judgment involving a monetary award, in which case,
the appeal may be perfected only 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
  Finality of judgment becomes a fact upon the lapse of reglementary period of appeal if no appeal is
perfected.
 Finality of judgment becomes a fact upon the lapse of reglementary period of appeal if no appeal is
perfected. The prevailing party is thus entitled as a matter of right to a writ of execution.
 While it is true that the decision itself has become final and executory and so can no longer be
challenged, there is no question wither that it must be enforced in accordance with its terms and
conditions. Any deviation therefrom can be the subject of a proper appeal.
 The appeal made by private respondent, not having been perfected on time for failure to file the
appeal bond, the decision of the Labor Arbiter became final and executory.

APPEAL

 It is true that the perfection of an appeal in the manner and within the period prescribed by law is
not only mandatory but jurisdictional, and failure to perfect an appeal has the effect of rendering
the judgment final and executory.
 for the purposes of computing the period of appeal, the same shall be counted from receipt of the
decision, award or order by the counsel of record of the party. 
 "the aggrieved party may appeal ... within ten (10) working days, as per NLRC Resolution No. 1,
series of 1977." [Decision of NLRC, p. 1; Rollo, p. 13; Emphasis supplied.]
 In the case of Firestone Tire and Rubber Co. of the Phil. v. Lariosa, [supra], which has substantially
the same set of facts as this case, the Court accepted the party's reliance on the erroneous notice
in the labor arbiter's decision as a reasonable ground for excusing non-compliance with the ten (10)
calendar day period for appeal.
 when the last day for filing an appeal falls on a legal Holiday, the same can be filed on the next
business day following said Legal Holiday. In fact, the Revised Administrative Code, specifically,
Sec. 31, Art. VIII thereof, clearly provides that:

Sec. 31. Pretermission of Holiday. — Where the day, or the last day, for doing any act
required or permitted by law falls on a holiday, the act may be done on the next succeeding
business day.

REGLEMENTARY PERIOD

 10 days contemplates calendar days and not working days

 This means that Saturdays, Sundays and Legal Holidays are not to be excluded, but included, in
counting the 10-day period. This is in line with the objective of the law for speedy disposition of
labor cases with the end in view of protecting the interests of the working man.
 i.e., where the 10th day is a Sunday or a Legal Holiday, in which event, the appeal can be filed on
the next business day. Consequently, in such a case, the supposedly last day to appeal will not be
deemed the last day because it happens to be a Sunday or Legal Holiday. Instead, the act can be
done on the next business day following that Sunday or Legal Holiday.
 To be noted is the fact that Saturday (unless legally declared a holiday) is considered a business
day and therefore if the last day to appeal falls on a Saturday, the act is still due on that day and
not on the next succeeding business day.
 The Labor Code is silent with regard to cases when the ten-day reglementary period within which to
perfect an appeal falls on a Saturday, which is not a holiday.

EMPLOYER
  Employer cannot be legally compelled to continue with the employment of a person who admittedly
was guilty of misfeasance or malfeasance towards his employers, and whose continuance in the
service of the latter is patently inimical to his interest

EMPLOYEE

 An employee is entitled to be protected not only from a company which disregards his rights but
also from his own Union the leadership of which could yield to the temptation of swift and arbitrary
expulsion from membership and hence dismissal from his job.
 The Court also considers that because the charges raised against petitioner and unanswered by
him have marked overtones of dishonesty, this is not a case where "financial (humanitarian)
assistance" to the dismissed employee is warranted.

NEGLIGENCE

 Well recognized is the rule that the negligence of counsel binds his client.

PROCEDURE

 On the procedural issues raised, the Court held that where an interlocutory order was allegedly
issued with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, such order may be
questioned before this Court on a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of Court.
 To delay the review of the order until the appeal from the decision of the main case, would not
afford the party adversely affected by the said order a speedy, plain and adequate remedy.
 the provisions of Article 223 of the Labor Code, as amended by R.A. No. 6715, requiring the posting
of cash or surety bond in appeals from decisions of Labor Arbiter granting monetary awards, are
self-executing and do not need any administrative rules to implement them.