MILLORA, Aidan Frank F

ELE1-LM1-2
Atty. Jimenez
Feb. 12, 2021

FRANCISCO GUICO vs. HON. LEONARDO QUISIMBING et. al. G.R. No. 131750.
November 16, 1998
Facts: The case started when the Office of the Regional Director, Department of Labor and
Employment (DOLE), Region I, San Fernando, La Union, received a lettercomplaint dated
April 25, 1995, requesting for an investigation of petitioner's establishment, Copylandia
Services & Trading, for violation of labor standards laws. Pursuant to the visitorial and
enforcement powers of the Secretary of Labor and Employment or his duly authorized
representative under Article 128 of the Labor Code, as amended, inspections were
conducted at Copylandia's outlets on April 27 and May 2, 1995. The inspections yielded the
following violations involving twenty-one (21) employees who are copier operators: (1)
underpayment of wages; (2) underpayment of 13th month pay; and (3) no service incentive
leave with pay.
Issue: Whether or not the Regional Director has jurisdiction over the labor standards case.
Ruling: The petition was dismissed. The Court sustained the jurisdiction of the respondent
Secretary. As the respondent correctly pointed out, this Court's ruling in Servando case that
the visitorial power of the Secretary of Labor to order and enforce compliance with labor
standard laws cannot be exercised where the individual claim exceeds P5,000.00, can no
longer be applied in view of the enactment of R.A. No. 7730 amending Article 128 (b) of the
Labor code.

Batong Buhay Gold Mines vs. Dela Serna 312 SCRA 22

Facts: Respondents Ty et.al. filed a complaint against Batong Buhay Gold Mines, Inc. for:
(1) Non-payment of their basic pay and allowances for the period of July 1983 to July 1984,
inclusive, under Wage Order No.2, (2) Non-payment of their basic pay and allowances for
the period June 1984 to October 1986, inclusive under Wage Order No. 5, (3) Non-payment
of their salaries for the period March 1986 to the present, (4) Non-payment of their 13th
month pay for 1985, 1986 and 1987, (5) Non-payment of their vacation and sick leave, and
the compensatory leaves of mine site employees, and (6) Non-payment of the salaries of
employees who were placed on forced leaves since November, 1985 to the present, if this is
not feasible, the affected employees be awarded corresponding separation pay.
On February 27, 1987, the complainants filed a Motion for the issuance of an inspection
authority. After said inspection, the Labor Standards and Welfare Officers submitted their
report with the recommendations that an Order of Compliance be issued directing Batong
Buhay Gold Mines Inc. to pay complainants' Elsie Rosalina Ty, et al. P4,818,746.40 by way
of unpaid salaries of workers from March 16, 1987 to present, unpaid and ECOLA
differentials under Wage Order Nos. 2 and 5 unpaid 13th month pay for 1985 and 1986, and
unpaid (sic) vacation/sick/compensatory leave benefits.

Issue: Whether or not the Regional Director has jurisdiction over the complaint filed by the
employees of BBGMI.
Ruling: Yes. The Regional Director has jurisdiction over the BBGMI employees. The subject
labor standards case of the petition arose from the visitorial and enforcement powers by the
Regional Director of the Department of Labor and Employment.
Luzon Dev. Bank v. NLRC GR 120319, Oct 6, 1995
Facts: From a submission agreement of the LDB and the Association of Luzon Development
Bank Employees (ALDBE) arose an arbitration case to resolve the following issue:
Whether or not the company has violated the CBA provision and the MOA on promotion.
At a conference, the parties agreed on the submission of their respective Position Papers.
Atty. Garcia, in her capacity as Voluntary Arbitrator, received ALDBE’s Position Paper ; LDB,
on the other hand, failed to submit its Position Paper despite a letter from the Voluntary
Arbitrator reminding them to do so. As of May 23, 1995 no Position Paper had been filed by
LDB.
Without LDB’s Position Paper, the Voluntary Arbitrator rendered a decision disposing as
follows:
WHEREFORE, finding is hereby made that the Bank has not adhered to the CBA provision
nor the MOA on promotion.
Hence, this petition for certiorari and prohibition seeking to set aside the decision of the
Voluntary Arbitrator and to prohibit her from enforcing the same.
Issue: Whether or not a voluntary arbiter’s decision is appealable to the CA and not the SC
Ruling: The  jurisdiction conferred by law on a voluntary arbitrator or a panel of such
arbitrators is quite limited compared to the original jurisdiction of the labor arbiter and the
appellate jurisdiction of the NLRC for that matter. The “decision, awards, or orders of the
Labor Arbiter are final and executory unless appealed to the Commission …” Hence, while
there is an express mode of appeal from the decision of a labor arbiter, Republic Act No.
6715 is silent with respect to an appeal from the decision of a voluntary arbitrator.
Yet, past practice shows that a decision or award of a voluntary arbitrator is, more often than
not, elevated to the SC itself on a petition for certiorari, in effect equating the voluntary
arbitrator with the NLRC or the CA. In the view of the Court, this is illogical and imposes an
unnecessary burden upon it.
G.R. No. 203957; July 30, 2014 UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS FACULTY UNION,
Petitioner, vs. UNIVERSITY OF STO. TOMAS, Respondent.

Facts: In a letter dated February 6, 2007, [USTFU] demanded from [UST], through its
Rector, Fr. Ernesto M. Arceo, O.P. ("Fr. Arceo"), remittance of the total amount of
P65,000,000.00 plus legal interest thereon, representing deficiency in its contribution to the
medical and hospitalization fund ("fund") of [UST’s] faculty members. [USTFU] also sent
[UST] a letter dated February 26, 2007, accompanied by a summary of its claims pursuant to
their 1996-2001 CBA.
On March 2, 2007, Fr. Arceo informed [USTFU] that the aforesaid benefits were not meant
to be given annually but rather as a one-time allocation or contribution to the fund.[USTFU]
then sent [UST] another demand letter dated June 24, 2007 reiterating its position that [UST]
is obliged to remit to the fund. Thus, on September 5, 2007 [USTFU] filed against [UST], a
complaint for unfair labor practice, as well as for moral and exemplary damages plus
attorney’s fees before the arbitration branch of the NLRC.
[UST] sought the dismissal of the complaint on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. It contended
that the case falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of the voluntary arbitratoror panel of
voluntary arbitrators because it involves the interpretation and implementation of the
provisions of the CBA; and the conflict between the herein parties must be resolved as
grievance under the CBA and not as unfair labor practice.
In 24 September 2010, the LA ordered the (UST) to remit P18,000,000.00 to the
hospitalization and medical benefits fund. The other claims were dismissed for lack of merit.
In 8 June 2011, the NLRC ordered UST to remit to the University of Santo Tomas Faculty
Union (USTFU) the amounts of P80,000,000.00 for the fund pursuant to the CBA. The NLRC
denied UST’s motion for reconsideration for lack of merit.
In its 13 July 2012 decision, the CA found grave abuse of discretion on the part of NLRC and
set aside the decisions. The CA denied USTFU’s motion for reconsideration for lack of merit.
Issue: Whether or not NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion in hearing the case and
and in giving an award not prayed for in petitioner USTFU’s complaint
Ruling: The petition has no merit. SC affirms with modification the ruling of the CA. The
Labor Arbiter has no jurisdiction over the present case. The Voluntary Arbitrator or Panel of
Voluntary Arbitrators will have original and exclusive jurisdiction over money claims "arising
from the interpretation or implementation of the Collective Bargaining Agreement and, those
arising fromthe interpretation or enforcement of company personnel policies," under Article
261.
USTFU’s claims under the 1996-2001 CBA, whether characterized as one for unfair labor
practice or for money claims from employer-employee relations, have already prescribed
when USTFU filed a complaint before the LA.
The 1996-2001 CBA established the fund, with an initial remittance of P2, 000, 000. 00 for
school year 1996-1997. UST bound itself to augment the fund by contributing P1,000,000.00
per year for school years 1997-1998 and 1998-1999. The 1999 Memorandum of Agreement
merely stated that UST will deposit P4,000,000.00 to the fund. UST faithfully followed the
clear provisions of the agreements.

St. Martin Funeral Homes v. NLRC (G.R. No. 130866 September 16, 1998)
Facts: The respondent was dismissed by St. Martin Funeral Homes for misappropriating
funds amounting to P38,000.00 which was supposed to be use for the payment of taxes to
the BIR. The respondent filed a case for an illegal dismissal against St. Martin Funeral
Homes to the NLRC. Petitioner’s contention is that the respondent is lacking an employer-
employee relationship and is not considered as an employee. Also, respondent is not listed
for the Funeral Homes monthly payroll. The labor arbiter ruled in favor of the petitioner.
There can be no illegal dismissal because there is no existing employer-employee
relationship between both parties.
The respondent appealed to the secretary of NLRC who set aside the decision and
remanded the case to the labor arbiter. A motion for reconsideration was filed by the
respondent but was denied by NLRC.Thereafter, petitioner appealed to the SC, alleging that
NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion.
Issue: Whether or not the petitioner’s petition for certiorari was properly filed in the Supreme
Court.
Ruling: No. Decisions from NLRC were appealable to the Secretary of Labor, whose
decisions are appealable to the Office of the President. However, new rules do not anymore
provide provisions regarding appellate review for decisions rendered by NLRC. However, in
this case, the Supreme Court took it upon themselves to review such decisions from the
NLRC by virtue of their role under the check and balance system and the perceived intention
of the legislative body who enacted the new rules.The motion for reconsideration is rightfully
filed by the petitioners, but the petition for certiorari should be filed initially to the CA, in
consideration of the principle of hierarchy of courts.