FEDERICO S. ROBOSA vs.

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION

G.R. No. 176085, February 8, 2012

FACTS:

The NLRC issued a TRO and directed CTMI, De Luzuriaga and other company executi
ves to cease and desist from dismissing any member of the union and from implementin
g memorandum terminating the services of the sales drivers, and to immediately reinsta
te them if the dismissals have been effected.

Allegedly, the respondents did not comply with the NLRC’s resolution. They instead mo
ved to dissolve the TRO and opposed the union’s petition for preliminary injunction. The
n, the NLRC upgraded the TRO to a writ of preliminary injunction.The respondents mov
ed for reconsideration. The union opposed the motion and urgently moved to cite the re
sponsible CTMI officers in contempt of court.

Meanwhile, the NLRC heard the contempt charge and issued a resolution dismissing th
e charge. It ordered the labor arbiter to proceed hearing the main case on the merits.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the NLRC has contempt powers.

HELD:

Yes. Under Article 218 the Labor Code, the NLRC (and the labor arbiters) may hold any
offending party in contempt, directly or indirectly, and impose appropriate penalties in ac
cordance with law. The penalty for direct contempt consists of either imprisonment or fin
e, the degree or amount depends on whether the contempt is against the Commission o
r the labor arbiter. The Labor Code, however, requires the labor arbiter or the Commissi
on to deal with indirect contempt in the manner prescribed under Rule 71 of the Rules o
f Court. Rule 71 of the Rules of Court does not require the labor arbiter or the NLRC to i
nitiate indirect contempt proceedings before the trial court. This mode is to be observed
only when there is no law granting them contempt powers. As is clear under Article 218
(d) of the Labor Code, the labor arbiter or the Commission is empowered or has jurisdict
ion to hold the offending party or parties in direct or indirect contempt. Robosa, et al., th
erefore, have not improperly brought the indirect contempt charges against the respond
ents before the NLRC.