LABREV 5/10/2023

Remember that when an ee is illegally terminated there are reliefs available to him based on LC.
Reinstatement – granted to ee; xcpt: when there is strained relations.

Whenever LA orders reinstatement, reinstatement may be done in 2 ways: physical or actual; or payroll
reinstatement. Option will not be exercised by the EE, but it will be the ER.

When LA declares EE is illegally terminated and should be reinstated, the order of reinstatement is
immediately executory. Meaning even if the ER would later on file a timely appeal, all the other orders
(e.g. payment of backwages etc.) of the LA in the decision will not be implemented except
reinstatement.

Another relief: payment of backwages. GR: reckoned from the time when ee was illegally terminated or
when he was not required to report for work.

XCPT: What if the ER filed an appeal and was later on decided that ee was indeed illegally terminated,
[NOTE: it would take time to be finally resolved since dadaan pa sa NLRC etc, tas magkakaron pa ng
increased salary para dun sa mga ee na nagremain] what would be the amount or the basis of the
backwages? Are we going to compute backwages based on the salary of the ee when the ee was
terminated or based on the salary on the time of finality of decision?

Backwages should be computed based on the EXISTING/PREVAILLING SALARY RATE of the EE as of the
date of the final and executory decision of the Court.

XCPT to XCPT: If the benefits and other incentives will be based on variables, i.e., productivity of the EE,
satisfactory performance of the EE. If that is the case, the monetary benefits will not be computed based
on the prevailing salary rate as of the final and executory date, but rather it will be pegged at such time
that the EE was terminated. Why? Since there would be no basis since the ee did not actually performed
work.

JURISDICTION AND REMEDIES

Know the prescription period for actions.

ULP - 1 year from the commission of the alleged ULP. Remember 2 aspects: admin and civil. If admin is
filed within 1 year, prescriptive period is tolled. Yung sa criminal which should be filed 6 months from
finality of civil, tolled until finality of civil (?)

Money claims: violations of the LC – 3 years from the time when ee should have been paid for his money
claims.

Illegal dismissal: reparation for acts done in violation of LC – 20 violations in LC including prohibition
against strike – ER has 3 years. For EE in case of illegal dismissal – 4 yrs (basis is civil code)
With respect to prescription, the case of Montero vs Times Transportation: you know that when an
aggrieved party would file a complaint it would toll the running of prescription period, however, what
happened in this case is that the ee filed an illegal dismissal complaint within 3 years. However, during
the pendency of the complaint, the EEs filed a withdrawal. Tapos nag re-file ng complaint. However, the
2nd complaint was filed beyond the original 3-year period.

SC said that when you withdraw an illegal dismissal case, it is as if you did not file a complaint in the first
instance. So the prescription period would run even if you originally filed a complaint which you
withdrew later on.

JURISDICTION – who are the different personalities who have different jurisdiction?

DOLE: VA, BLR, SOLE, RD

NLRC: LA, NLRC as a commission

CA

SC

RD – Art. 128 and 129 = visitorial and enforcement powers and adjudicatory powers. An authorized
representative of SOLE. Remember the monetary limit of 5k pesos or even if lower but coupled with
reinstatement, in which case it is a complaint for illegal dismissal and RD has no jurisdiction, but it is the
LA.

However, because of the Kasambahay Law, the complaints by the kasambahay for money claims
regardless of the amount and regardless if it is coupled with claims of reinstatement, it is only the RD
who will exercise jurisdiction.

LA – 2 exceptions to its general jurisdiction in termination cases: 1. VA if submitted by the parties; 2. If

termination arises from an industrial dispute and SOLE assumed jurisdiction. In view of the Kasambahay
Law, there is another exception, yung nasa taas.

VA – all matters submitted by the parties to voluntary arbitration will be within the jurisdiction of the
VA. So if ULPs will be agreed upon by the parties to be resolved by the VA, then it will be resolved by the
VA even if ULP is within the jurisdiction of the LA.

Under the LC, VA also has jurisdiction over all matters that is not resolved by grievance machinery within
7 days. It would be upon the agreement of the parties which matters would be grievable.
VA has also jurisdiction over implementation and interpretation of CBA. Also, implementation and
interpretation of company rules and policies.

If VA resolves the matter, what is the remedy of the aggrieved? In the case of Guagua National Colleges,
the SC said that under the LC ang magic number palagi to appeal the decision under the LC is 10 days
from resolution of VA, RD, BLR etc. The reglementary period to file an MR or appeal is always 10 days
from resolution. VA’s resolution thus becomes final after 10 days. The remedy is petition for review
under R43, ROC. But petition for review under R43 would tell us that it should be filed within 15 days
from resolution. Now which between 10 days or 15 days should be followed for R43 petition? SC said
that it should be 15 days under the ROC, the 10 days will be an opportunity to file an MR before the
NCMB then 15 days from resolution of NCMB to file PFR. Guagua is the prevailing doctrine in case of r43
remedy against VA resolution.

In Bonpak vs Samahan decided last year lang din, reiterated the case of Guagua, that the reglementary
period is 15 days. However, in this case, the SC did not apply the ruling in Guagua because the
circumstances of the case arose before the decision in Guagua, the case was filed in 2015, hence 10
days yung finollow. SC made reference that the NCMB had already revised its rules saying that MR
should be filed…. ambilis ni mam

When a VA would settle conflicts, the power of the VA similar to the assumption of the SOLE is also
plenary in the sense that if the matter is submitted by the parties to VA, all related issued may be
resolved by the VA in order to resolve the main issue.

In one case, SC said that VA has no jurisdiction to decide on matters pertaining to taxes or withholding
taxes. It is the BIR who has jurisdiction over these matters.

Mandatory provision one of which is no strike-no lockout clause.. di ko na nasundan nag lag. Nasa case
to, under VA jurisdiction.

In Michelin Asia vs Ortiz, remember that procedural rules may be set aside under the principle of social
justice especially if the one pleading for liberality is the EE. However, in this case SC did not apply the
social justice principle but adhered to strict construction of procedural rules. Why? Masyado na
madaming blunders si EE, andaming delays on filing, tas may instances pa na hindi sya nagfile talaga.
Too many procedural mistakes committed by EE, thus no GAD on the part of CA in not applying social
justice principle.

BLR – a repository of all documents filed by labor unions. So all matters that LUs would want the DOLE to
act upon will be filed with BLR or if the operations of the company is localized in such a a way that
registration of LUs is filed with the RO, then RO will rule on the matter.

Denial of registration of LUs is within jurisdiction of BLR. Again, 10 days is the magic period. If
registration is filed with RO, then appeal to BLR, then appeal by r43 from BLR decision. If registration is
filed original with BLR, then appeal to SOLE, then appeal to CA by r43.
SOLE – Has several appellate jurisdictions, ang exclusive and original nya ay yung assumption of
jurisdiction and art. 128

In assumption, may plenary power sya to resolve all matters related to the issue. SOLE may certify the
case to NLRC, personally assume the case or refer the matter to LA.

Read: NFL vs Leguesma and DOLE vs Kentex (?) manufacturing. Andito din yung tungkol sa original or
appellate jurisdiction of BLR. Important cases to, crucial for bar exam.

In the case of PAL vs Airlines Pilots Assoc, SC said that damages arising from a strike is civil in nature,
however, these would arise from a strike wherein, in this case, the SOLE assumed jurisdiction. And
remember may plenary power nga sya to resolve matters involving industrial dispute.

SC said that because of the plenary power of the SOLE, the damages now being asked by PAL should
have been immediately filed before the SOLE while the SOLE was exercising its jurisdictional powers
during the resolution of the industrial dispute.

LA – Remember yung 3 exceptions.

LA will only entertain a case when there is ee-er relationship. Corporate officers ang important dito.
How to know if corporate officer? Look at the corporation code or look at the by-laws. As to cooperative
officers, look at the cooperative code or by-laws of the cooperative.

Under 217, you would have to add wage distortion issues when establishment is not organized. Also add
money claims of OFWs arising from ee-er relationship including claims for damages (basis Migrant
Workers Act)

Under 128, when ER would question the jurisdiction of SOLE in exercise of 128, the matter will be
referred to the LA.

Monetary claims exceeding 5k under 129. Xcpt: kasambahay

If LA would rule in favor of ee, in such a case that he is declared to be illegally terminated, the portion of
the decision which says that the ee should be reinstated is immediately executory. Remember also the 2
types of reinstatement (actual and payroll) and who has the option to choose between the 2. ER has to
immediately choose. If ER would delay, then it would be based on the decision of the EE.

When the LA would decide the case for EE, again magic number is 10 days for ER. There is no MR under
the LC. If MR will be filed by the ER, there would be no MR entertained. What will happen is that the MR
will be treated as an appeal and will be elevated to the NLRC.

If there is an illegally terminated employee, there would be an order requiring er to pay ee a certain
amount. The order would always include a computation, hence the amount would be definite. So if the
er would file an appeal with NLRC, there should be an appeal bond included in the memo of appeal.
Filing of appeal bond is jurisdictional. Appeal bond should be to such an amount equivalent to the award
of the LA. If ER has meritorious grounds, er may file a motion to reduce appeal bond which should be
filed with the memorandum of appeal and the appeal bond itself, which should be in a sufficient amount
awarded by the LA.
In the case of guanzon,10% of the award is sufficient. In another case, 25% daw, in another 20% daw.

The motion will not be automatically granted because NLRC has to decide whether there are meritorious
reasons. In one case, er was required to post bond equal to almost billions of pesos kaso naghihirap na
sya, meritorious reason daw yun.

In a case, it was provided that the bond with the NLRC should be either a surety or cash bond.

There is one 2020 decision Karj Global Marketing, stating that there are instances where ER is exempted
from filling appeal bond: 1 st, no amount na sinabi si LA sa decision; 2nd, when the er is judicially declared
insolvent or undergoing liquidation proceedings.

The usual issue is … What you should apply is the reasonable connection rule: there should be a
reasonable connection between the issue involved and the ee-er relationship. Damages for instance,
how will you know if the complaint should be filed with the LA or with the regular courts? All you have
to do is ask yourself, did the cause of action arise from a violation of ee-er relationship or employment
contract. If not, then jurisdiction is with the regular courts.

In one case, if there is a violation of a goodwill clause, it is not a matter arising from ee-er relationship,
but is a civil issue which should be resolved by regular courts.

In another case, when the CBA provisions are being questioned for unconstitutionality, the jurisdiction
will not pertain to the LA because LA has no jurisdiction to decide on whether a matter is constitutional
but it is the regular courts which can resolve matters involving constitutionality of agreements. So even
if the provisions questioned is under CBA, regular courts paden if constitutionality ang issue.

Ecclesiastical affairs not within LA and regular courts, in view of the separation of church and state.

SC in the case of PAL vs Airline Pilots, said that ER may also file a corresponding monetary claim before
the LA as long as it will arise from EE-ER relationship, hindi lang si EE ang entitled to file a complaint.

NLRC – when NLRC decides a case, the next step is to file MR as a requirement preparatory to R65
petition (St. Martin’s Funeral and NFL cases.) If ER appeal from LA to NLRC, then NLRC denied, file MR
with NLRC within 10 days. If NLRC reverses its decision and rules in favor of ER, what would be the
remedy of the EE? It is not to file r65 with CA, but should be MR with the NLRC. Remember also that in
the NLRC, a second MR is a prohibited pleading. Dun sa example, hindi sya second MR since si EE nagfile
nung pangalawa. So the rule on prohibition against second MR should be construed with reference to
the movant.

In one case, MR was not filed, but instead the aggrieved ER directly filed r65 with the CA. SC said, that ER
was justified in filing directly the r65 petition. Why? NLRC in its dispositive portion said that no MR will
be entertained.

After r65 with CA, the remedy is r45 with SC raising only questions of law.

In Nedira vs MJ World Corporation decided last year lang, it was said that substitution by the heirs over
complaint filed by a deceased ee is not by virtue of a cause of action that is civil in nature but by virtue
of the constitutional provision on security of tenure. Also, employment contracts are imbued with public
interest and cannot be likened to ordinary civil actions.

SINGLE ENTRY APPROACH (SENA PROCEDURE)

When we say SENA, all complaints that will be filed by the EEs will have to go through the SENA, so there
is a DOLE officer who will be in charge of resolving complaints filed through the SENA procedure. There
are cases not covered by SENA.

Yung cases not covered, jurisdiction pertains to other DOLE agencies. Now, compare them with matters
within the SENA coverage.

Isn’t termination within the jurisdiction of LA? Yes, however, the purpose of the SENA is speedy
disposition, since mediation lang naman ang purpose ng SENA conference.

First question of the LA is did you go under SENA? If not, ibabato ni LA sa SENA.

What will happen if SENA is not successful? SENA officer will write a certification that the matter was not
resolved by SENA procedure, which certification will be presented with the NLRC/LA.

SENA PROCEDURE
Yung conciliation-mediation may be extended further by the SENA officer when there is a possibility of
pagbabati. Is SENA procedure jurisdictional? No, it is only a matter of procedure, parang barangay
conciliation lang. Hence, waived sya unless raised as an affirmative defense.