Case Digest Nov.

27, 2020

1. Lapanday v. CA, G.R. No. 112139, January 31, 2000

Facts: After the issuance of a wage order, several security guards from Commando
Security agency Petitioner Lapanday Agricultural Development Corporation and
respondent Commando Security Service Agency, Inc., entered into a Guard Service
Contract.

Respondent provided security guards in petitioner's banana plantation. Sometime in June

1986, Wage Order Nos. 5 and 6 were promulgated increasing the prevailing minimum
wage at that time.

Respondent demanded that its guard service contract with petitioner be upgraded in
compliance with the wage orders. Petitioner refused. Respondent filed a complaint with
the Regional Trial Court demanding the rate adjustment.

The trial court ruled in favor of respondent. Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration,
but was denied. Petitioner contended that it is the National Labor Relations Commission
(NLRC) and not the civil courts that has jurisdiction to resolve the issue in the present
case for it refers to the enforcement of wage orders and other benefits due to respondent
security guards.

Issue: Which between the NLRC and the regular courts has Jurisdiction
Held: RTC.

It is well settled in law and jurisprudence that where no employer-employee relationship

exists between the parties and no issue is involved which may be resolved by reference to
the Labor Code, other labor statutes or any collective bargaining agreement, it is the
Regional Trial Court that has jurisdiction.

In its complaint, private respondent is not seeking any relief under the Labor Code but
seeks payment of a sum of money and damages on account of petitioner's alleged breach
of its obligation under their Guard Service Contract. The action is within the realm of civil
law hence jurisdiction over the case belongs to the regular courts.

While the resolution of the issue involves the application of labor laws, reference to the
labor code was only for the determination of the solidary liability of the petitioner to the
respondent where no employer-employee relation exists. Article 217 of the Labor Code as
amended vests upon the labor arbiters exclusive original jurisdiction only over the
following:
 1. Unfair labor practices;

2. Termination disputes;

3. If accompanied with a claim for reinstatement, those cases that workers may 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 employer-
employee relations;

5. Cases arising from any violation of Article 264 of this Code, including questions
involving legality of strikes and lockouts; and

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.

In all these cases, an employer-employee relationship is an indispensable jurisdictional

requisite; and there is none in this case .

2. Abbot v. Abbot Union, G.R. No. 131374, January 26, 2000

Facts: Abbott Laboratories Employees Union, herein respondent union, applied for union
registration with the Bureau of Labor Relations (BLR).The same was approved but was,
however, cancelled, on motion of petitioner, by the Regional Director of the BLR on the
ground of absence of common interest among the rank and file employees in the
manufacturing unit to justify the formation of a separate bargaining unit. An appeal was
made to the Secretary of Labor who referred the same back to the Director of the BLR.

On June 21, 1996, the assailed decision was reversed by the BLR and a motion for
reconsideration was denied on July 9, 1997. Undaunted, petitioner elevated the case to
the Secretary of Labor, who in a letter addressed to petitioner's counsel, refused to act
thereon on the ground that it had no jurisdiction over decisions rendered on appeal by the
BLR in cancellation cases.

Hence, the instant petition.

Issue: WON the Secretary of Labor has jurisdiction

Held: No. The Secretary of Labor and Employment has no jurisdiction to entertain the
appeal of ABBOTT.
 The appellate jurisdiction of the Secretary of Labor and Employment is limited only to a
review of cancellation proceedings decided by the Bureau of Labor Relations in the
exercise of its exclusive and original jurisdiction.

The Secretary of Labor and Employment has no jurisdiction over decisions of the Bureau
of Labor Relations rendered in the exercise of its appellate power to review the decision
of the Regional Directors in a petition to cancel the union's certificate of registration, said
decisions being final and inappealable.

3. Deltaventures v. Cabato, G.R. No. 118216, March 9, 2000

Facts: On July 15, 1992, a decision was rendered by the National Labor Relations
Commission in the NLRC case entitled Alejandro, et al. vs. Green Mountain Farm, Roberto
Ongpin and Almus Alabe. On May 19, 1994, private respondents filed before the
Commission a motion for the issuance of a writ of execution as respondent's appeal to
the Commission and the Supreme Court were respectively denied. On June 16, 1994, the
Executive Labor Arbiter issued a writ of execution and the sheriff proceeded to enforce
the writ by garnishing certain personal properties to satisfy the monetary award, but
proceeded to levy upon a real property registered in the name of Roberto Ongpin due to
inadequacy of the personal property. On July 27, 1994, a month before the scheduled
auction sale petitioner filed before the Commission a third-party claim asserting
ownership levied upon by the sheriff's notice of sale.

Due to this claim, the Executive Labor Arbiter issued an order suspending the auction
sale until the merits of petitioner's claim had been resolved. Inspite of the filing of the
third party complaint, petitioner filed with the Regional Trial Court of La Trinidad, Benguet
a complaint for injunction and damages with prayer for the issuance of a TRO. Private
respondents-laborers moved for the dismissal of the complaint on the ground of the
court's lack of jurisdiction over the case. On November 7, 1994, after both parties had
submitted their respective briefs, respondent court rendered a decision dismissing the
case for lack of jurisdiction. Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration, but the same
was denied. Hence, this petition.

The Supreme Court found the petition devoid of merit. The Court ruled that the complaint
filed before the trial court was for recovery of possession and injunction, but in essence it
was an action challenging the legality or propriety of the levy vis-à-vis the alias writ of
execution, including the acts performed by the Labor Arbiter and the Deputy Sheriff
implementing the writ.

The complaint was in effect a motion to quash the writ of execution of a decision
rendered on a case properly within the jurisdiction of the Labor Arbiter, to wit, illegal
 dismissal and unfair labor practice. Considering the factual setting, it is then logical to
conclude that the subject matter of the third party claim is but an incident of the labor
case, a matter beyond the jurisdiction of the regional trial courts.

Thus, the Court found no grave abuse of discretion on the part of respondent Judge in
denying petitioner's motion for the issuance of an injunction against the execution of the
decision of the National Labor Relations Commission. Accordingly, the petition was
denied and the assailed orders of respondent judge were affirmed.

Issue: WON NLRC has jurisdiction

Held: Yes. Ostensibly the complaint before the trial court was for the recovery of
possession and injunction, but in essence it was an action challenging the legality or
propriety of the levy vis-a-vis the alias writ of execution, including the acts performed by
the Labor Arbiter and the Deputy Sheriff implementing the writ. The complaint was in
effect a motion to quash the writ of execution of a decision rendered on a case properly
within the jurisdiction of the Labor Arbiter, to wit: Illegal Dismissal and Unfair Labor
Practice.

Considering the factual setting, it is then logical to conclude that the subject matter of the
third party claim is but an incident of the labor case, a matter beyond the jurisdiction of
regional trial courts. Precedent abound confirming the rule that said courts have no
jurisdiction to act on labor cases or various incidents arising therefrom, including the
execution of decisions, awards or orders.

Jurisdiction to try and adjudicate such cases pertains exclusively to the proper labor
official concerned under the Department of Labor and Employment. To hold otherwise is
to sanction split jurisdiction which is obnoxious to the orderly administration of justice.

4. Baez v. Valdevilla, G.R. No. 128024, May 9, 2000

Facts: After the NLRC ruling that petitioner was illegally dismissed by his employer, Oro
Marketing, Inc. became final, Oro Marketing, Inc. filed a complaint for damages against
petitioner in the RTC. Petitioner moved for the dismissal of the same alleging that the
action was within the jurisdiction of the NLRC, having arisen from an employer-employee
relationship. The RTC, however, declared that it has jurisdiction over the subject matter of
the instant controversy. Hence, this petition.

Art. 217(a) of the Labor Code bestows upon the Labor Arbiter original and exclusive
jurisdiction over ALL claims for damages arising from employer-employee relations. This
means the Labor Arbiter has jurisdiction to award not only the reliefs provided by labor
laws, but also damages governed by the Civil Code. This includes the claim of an
employer for actual damages against its dismissed employee, where the basis for the
claim is necessarily connected with the fact of termination. Hence, the claim should have
 been entered as a counterclaim in the illegal dismissal case and not subject of a separate
action for damages. Appeal from the Labor Arbiter's decision should have been the proper
remedy, but the same is no longer available with the finality of the decision of the NLRC.
The petition was granted, and the complaint before the trial court against petitioner was
dismissed.

Issue: WON NLRC has jurisdiction

Held: No. The provision in Art. 217(a) should be distinguished from cases of actions for
damages where the employer-employee relationship is merely incidental and the cause of
action proceeds from a different source of obligation. Thus, the jurisdiction of regular
courts was upheld where the damages claimed for were based on tort, malicious
prosecution, or breach of contract, as when the claimant seeks to recover a debt from a
former employee or seeks liquidated damages in enforcement of a prior employment
contract.

5. NDC-Guthrie Plantations, Inc. v. NLRC, August 9, 2001

Facts: Petitioner companies are both government-controlled corporations, 60% of their

stocks being owned by the National Development Corporation. They were incorporated in
the early 1980's to develop, operate and maintain integrated palm projects in Agusan del
Sur. Pursuant to their purpose clause, petitioner corporations, NGPI and NGEI, hired
hundreds of farm workers to establish and maintain their respective plantations as well as
several supervisors to oversee and superintend their workers. Because of tremendous
losses, NGPI terminated the services of seventy-two (72) field workers. NGEI was not
spared and was compelled to take the same course of action undertaken by NGPI and
retrenched eighty-eight (88) farm workers in December 1989, seven (7) field workers in
February 1990 and fifty-eight (58) farm helpers in September 1990. As a result, several
employees of petitioner companies bonded together and formed the NDC-GUTHRIE Staff
Workers Union. Believing that their dismissal was resorted to because of their union
activities and hence, in violation of their rights to self-organization and to collective
bargaining, the seventeen (17) employees, herein private respondents, who were laid off,
filed with the Labor Arbiter a complaint for illegal dismissal and unfair labor practice
against petitioner companies. Petitioners, on the other hand, denied the claim of illegal
dismissal and asserted that it was their prerogative to lay off their employees to prevent
or forestall further losses. The petitioner companies presented financial statements
prepared by the Commission on Audit showing tremendous losses for four (4)
consecutive years, i.e., from 1987 to 1990. They further claimed that the retrenchment of
private respondents was done in good faith as it was based on a number of criteria,
namely, seniority, service record and performance. The Labor Arbiter rendered judgment
ordering the reinstatement of private respondents, with full backwages. On appeal, the
NLRC dismissed the appeal and affirmed the decision of the labor arbiter. Hence, the
present petition.
 Issue: WON NLRC has jurisdiction

Held: Yes.

The Court was convinced that there truly existed a persistent and irreversible financial
instability in petitioner companies justifying their resort to drastic cuts in personnel. The
financial documents submitted by petitioner and duly audited by the Commission on Audit
constitute the normal and reliable method of proof of the profit and loss performance of a
government-controlled corporation. Proof was also presented supporting petitioners'
claim that even prior to the dismissal of private respondents, hundreds of farm workers of
petitioner companies had already been retrenched to save on much needed capital. The
Court also ruled that the prevailing guidelines in the implementation of retrenchment
programs were faithfully observed by petitioner companies. The Court stressed that the
retrenchment programs undertaken by the two companies were purely business decisions
properly within the reasonable exercise of management prerogative, and the NLRC has no
authority to delve into their wisdom and soundness.

The 1990 Rules of Procedure of the National Labor Relations Commission grant labor
arbiters with the power to issue preliminary injunction or restraining order "as an incident
to cases pending before them in order to preserve the rights of the parties during the
pendency of the cases but excluding labor disputes involving strike or lock-out." The said
Rules, however, limit the exercise of the power over labor disputes only, which as defined,
refer to "any controversy or matter concerning terms and conditions of employment or the
association or representation of persons in negotiating, fixing, maintaining, changing or
arranging the terms and conditions of employment, regardless of whether the disputants
stand in the proximate relation of employer and employee." In the present case,
petitioners' supposed attempt to seize the said motorcycles from the private respondents
is not a labor, but a civil, dispute. The issue, inasmuch as it relates directly to the
enforcement of the loan agreement, between petitioners and private respondents,
involves debtor-creditor relations founded on a contract and does not in any way concern
employer-employee relations. As such, it should be enforced through a separate civil
action in the regular courts and not before the Labor Arbiter. Since the seizure of the
motorcycles is unrelated to any labor dispute under which an injunction may be issued by
a labor arbiter, it was plain grave abuse of discretion for Labor Arbiter Petilla to have
issued a writ of injunction restraining the petitioner companies from seizing the
motorcycles subject of the loan agreement between petitioner companies and private
respondents.

6. Nova v. Judge Dames, March 28, 2001

Facts: In 1995, complainant Gregorio S. Nova filed with the NLRC Regional Arbitration,
Branch V, Legaspi City, a complaint for illegal dismissal, underpayment of wages, non-
payment of holiday pay, rest day, overtime pay, 13th month pay and other allowances,
backwages, separation pay and damages against the R.A. Broadcasting
Corporation/Station DZRM, represented by its Vice President for Operations Vilma J.
Barcelona and Station Manager Deo Trinidad.

On July 31, 1996, Labor Arbiter Fructuoso T. Aurellano rendered a judgment ruling in favor
of the plaintiff.

In time, respondent appealed the decision to the NLRC in Quezon City.

On October 7, 1996, the NLRC dismissed the appeal. Respondent moved for
reconsideration but the NLRC denied the motion as it was filed out of time. Aggrieved by
the resolution, on March 12, 1997, respondent filed with this Court a petition for certiorari.
3 On March 17, 1997, the Court dismissed the petition and also denied the motion for
reconsideration thereafter filed.

The decision having become final, on January 7, 1998, the NLRC issued an alias writ of
execution. Pursuant thereto, on February 3, 1998, Labor Sheriff Norberto B. Meteoro levied
on real property belonging to Sps. Cesar and Vilma Barcelona and scheduled the auction
sale on June 16, 1998, at 10:00 a.m.

On June 9, 1998, Vilma J. Barcelona and her husband Cesar Barcelona filed with the
Regional Trial Court, Camarines Norte, Daet a civil action for damages with temporary
restraining order due to the wrongful attachment of their property. This was raffled to
Branch 38, presided over by respondent Judge

On June 15, 1998, respondent Judge finding that there was extreme urgency and that
irreparable injury would result to the plaintiff before the matter can be heard on notice,
issued a temporary restraining order, restraining the NLRC Sheriff from conducting the
scheduled public auction on June 16, 1998.

Hence, on January 5, 1999, complainant filed this administrative charge against Judge
Sancho Dames II, alleging that the issuance of the temporary restraining order constituted
a violation of Article 254 of the Labor Code which prohibited the issuance of temporary
restraining order or preliminary injunction in a case arising from a labor dispute. He
further submitted that the regular courts had no jurisdiction to hear and decide questions
which arose and were incidental to the decisions, orders or awards rendered in labor
cases. 5

We referred the case to Court of Appeals Associate Justice Remedios A. Salazar-

Fernando, for investigation.

Issue: WON respondent judge is guilty of gross ignorance of the law.

 Held: Yes.

In her report and recommendation, Justice Fernando found that respondent Judge was
guilty of gross ignorance of the law because the regular courts in that level had no
jurisdiction or authority to issue injunction or temporary restraining order in labor cases.
She recommended that respondent Judge be fined P10,000.00, with a stern warning that
repetition of the same or similar acts in the future would be dealt with more severely.

Regular courts have no jurisdiction to hear and decide questions which arise and are
incidental to the enforcement of decisions, orders or awards rendered in labor cases by
appropriate officers and tribunals of the Department of Labor and Employment. 9
Corollarily, any controversy in the execution of the judgment shall be referred to the
tribunal which issued the writ of execution since it has the inherent power to control its
own processes in order to enforce its judgments and orders.

True, an action for damages lies within the jurisdiction of a regional trial court. However,
the regional trial court has no jurisdiction to issue a temporary restraining order in labor
cases. Indeed, the respondent Judge restrained the execution of a final decision of the
labor arbiter, which he can not lawfully do.

Justice Malcolm aptly described ideal judges as "men who have a mastery of the
principles of law, who discharge their duties in accordance with law, who are permitted to
perform the duties of the office undeterred by outside influence, and who are independent
and self-respecting human units in a judicial system equal and coordinate to the other two
departments of government." Those who wield the judicial gavel have the duty to study
the laws and their latest wrinkles. They owe it to the public to be legally knowledgeable
with basic laws and principles, for ignorance of the law is the bane of injustice.
7. Alemar's Sibal & Sons v. NLRC, G.R. No. 114761, January 19, 2000

Facts: Petitioner contended that the NLRC should have denied the order of the Labor
Arbiter for the immediate payment of separation pay in favor of private respondent.
Petitioner insisted that a stay of execution of monetary award was justified because of
the order of the Securities and Exchange Commission suspending all claims against the
petitioner pending before any court, tribunal or body. Petitioner pointed out that the SEC's
order was pursuant to the rehabilitation receivership proceedings.

Issue: WON the order by the NLRC for immediate execution valid

Held: Yes.

In dismissing the petition, the Supreme Court found no legal impediment for the execution
of the decision of the Labor Arbiter for payment of separation pay. The Securities and
 Exchange Commission already issued an order approving the proposed rehabilitation plan
of petitioner and placing it under liquidation pursuant to Presidential Decree 902-A. Since
receivership proceedings had ceased and petitioner's rehabilitation receiver and
liquidator, had been given the imprimatur to proceed with corporate liquidation, the cited
order of the Securities and Exchange Commission had been rendered functus officio.

Considering that petitioner's monetary obligation to private respondent was long overdue
and that petitioner had signified its willingness to comply with such obligation by entering
into an agreement with private respondent as to the amount and manner of payment,
petitioner can not delay satisfaction of private respondent's claim. However, private
respondent must present its claim with the rehabilitation receiver and liquidator of
petitioner, subject to the rules on preference of credits.

8. Diamonon v. DOLE, G.R. No. 108951, March 7, 2000

Facts: In a resolution approved during the meeting of the National Executive Boards of the
National Congress in the Sugar Industry of the Philippines (NACUSIP) and Philippine
Agricultural, Commercial and Industrial Workers Union (PACIWU), petitioner Jesus B.
Diamonon was removed as the National Executive Vice President of NACUSIP and Vice
President for Luzon of PACIWU. Petitioner then filed a complaint before the Department
of Labor and Employment (DOLE) questioning the validity of his removal from the said
positions. While the case was still pending, he filed a second complaint against private
respondents Atty. Zoilo V. dela Cruz, Jr., and the National Treasurer of NACUSIP and
PACIWU, Sofia P. Mana-ay, for wanton violation of the Constitution and by-laws of both
organizations, unauthorized and illegal disbursements of union funds and abuse of
authority as national officers of both organizations. In an order dated August 2, 1991, it
was held that petitioner's removal from the said positions was null and void. However, in
an order dated November 5, 1991, the Med-Arbiter dismissed the second case on the
ground of lack of personality of petitioner to file the complaint in view of his removal from
the offices he held. Petitioner appealed the decision in the second case.

Public respondent Undersecretary Bienvenido E. Laguesma dismissed petitioner's appeal

for failure to exhaust administrative remedies as provided for in the Constitution and by-
laws of both unions. In this petition, petitioner emphatically stressed that the only issue
on appeal before the DOLE was the petitioner's alleged lack of personality to file the
complaint.

Issue: WON Petitioner is correct

Held: No. In the instant case, not only did petitioner fail to comply with Section 2, Rule VIII,
Book V of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of the Labor Code as amended but
 also the record reveals that neither did he exhaust the remedies set forth by the
Constitution and by-laws of both unions. In the National Convention of PACIWU and
NACUSIP held on August 10 and 11, 1991, respectively, nothing was heard of petitioner's
complaint against private respondents on the latter's alleged unauthorized and illegal
disbursement of union funds. In fact, what the National Convention resolved was to
approve and adopt the resolution of the National Executive Board removing petitioner
from the positions he held. His failure to seek recourse before the National Convention on
his complaint against private respondents taints his action with prematurity. Petitioner's
premature invocation of public respondent's intervention is fatal to his cause of action.
Evidently, when petitioner brought before the DOLE his complaint charging private
respondents with unauthorized and illegal disbursement of union funds, he overlooked or
deliberately ignored the fact that the same is clearly dismissible for non-exhaustion of
administrative remedies. Thus, public respondent Bienvenido E. Laguesma, in dismissing
petitioner's complaint, committed no grave abuse of discretion.

The Court ruled that generally, an appellate court may only pass upon errors assigned.
However, this rule is not without exceptions. When the Constitution and by-laws of both
unions dictated the remedy for intra-union dispute, such as petitioner's complaint against
private respondents for unauthorized or illegal disbursement of union funds, this should
be resorted to before recourse can be made to the appropriate administrative or judicial
body, not only to give the grievance machinery or appeals' body of the union the
opportunity to decide the matter by itself, but also to prevent unnecessary and premature
resort to administrative or judicial bodies.

Thus, a party with an administrative remedy must not merely initiate the prescribed
administrative procedure to obtain relief, but also pursue it to its appropriate conclusion
before seeking judicial intervention. The rule clearly applies to the instant case. Evidently,
when petitioner brought before the DOLE his complaint charging private respondents with
unauthorized and illegal disbursement of union funds, he overlooked or deliberately
ignored the fact that the same was clearly dismissible for non-exhaustion of
administrative remedies. Thus, public respondent Bienvenido E. Laguesma, in dismissing
petitioner's complaint, committed no grave abuse of discretion.

9. Assumption v. NLRC, July 31, 2001

10. Food Terminal, Inc. v. NLRC, April 27, 2001

11. Curaza v. NLRC, March 15, 2001

12 PNCC v. NLRC, 292 SCRA 266

13. UERM-Memorial Medical Center v. NLRC, 269 SCRA 70

14. Biogenerics Marketing v. NLRC, Sept 8, 1999

15. Tag Fibers, Inc. v. NLRC, G.R. No. 120931, October 20. 2000
16. Yupangco Cotton Mills v. CA, G.R. No. 126322, January 16, 2002

17. Laureano v. CA, G.R. No. 114776, February 2. 2000

18. Golden Donuts v. NLRC, G.R. No. 113666-68, January 19, 2000

19. Philippine Carpet Employees v. Philippine Carpet, G.R. No. 140269-70, September 14, 2000