GROUP 2

 VENUE VS JURISDICTION
 JURISDICTION OF LABOR ARBITERS

Reporters:
CABATINGAN, BRIAN
CABUSAO, RANDOLPH
CENTINA, NESKA
Jurisdiction of Labor
Arbiter
Reporter: Randolph C. Cabusao
 What is a Labor Arbiter?
 A labor arbiter is the NLRC's representative in a RAB (regional arbitration
branch).
 The labor arbiters adjudicate cases in behalf of the NLRC but their
decisions are appealable to the NLRC itself sitting as any of its eight
divisions
 Under the Labor Code, it is the Labor Arbiter who is clothed with the
authority to conduct compulsory arbitration on cases involving termination
disputes and other cases under Article 217
 Labor Arbiters
Jurisdiction(Art. 217)
 Unfair Labor Practices Cases
 Termination Disputes
 If accompanied by Claim for Reinstatement, those cases that workers
may file involving Wages, Rates of Pay, Hours of Work, and other
terms and conditions of employment
 Claims for Actual, Moral, Exemplary and other forms of damages
arising from employer-employee relations
 Cases arising from any violation of Article 264 of this Code, including
questions the legality of strike and lockouts
 Except claims for Employees Compensation, Social Security, Medicare
and maternity benefits, all other claims arising from employer-employee
relations, including those persons in domestic or household service,
involving an amount exceeding (P5,000.00) regardless of whether
accompanied with a claim for reinstatement
b) The Commission shall have exclusive appellate jurisdiction over all cases
decided by Labor Arbiters.
(c) Cases arising from the interpretation of collective bargaining agreements
and those arising from the interpretation or enforcement of company personnel
policies shall be disposed of by the Labor Arbiter by referring the same to the
grievance machinery and voluntary arbitration as may be provided in said
agreements.
 Cases where Article 217 Yields to Articles 261 and
262
 Cases decided with finality by a voluntary arbitrator or panel of voluntary
arbitrators r Article 261, has "original and exclusive "jurisdiction over
disputes concerning CBA implementation or personnel policy enforcement
 Under Article 262, the parties may submit to a voluntary arbitrator (or
panel) "all other disputes including unfair labor practices and bargaining
deadlocks
 VENUE
 All cases which Labor Arbiters have authority to hear and decide may
be filed in the Regional Arbitration Branch having jurisdiction over
the workplace of the complainant or petitioner
 For purposes of venue, workplace shall be understood as the place or
locality where the employee is regularly assigned at the time the cause
of action arose.
 Where two or more Regional Arbitration Branches have jurisdiction over
the workplace of the complainant or petitioner the Branch that first
acquired jurisdiction over the case shall exclude the others
 When venue is not objected to before the filing of position papers, such
issue shall be deemed waived
 The venue of an action may be changed or transferred to a different
Regional Arbitration Branch other than where the complaint was filed by
written agreement of the parties
 Cases involving overseas Filipino workers may be filed before the
Regional Arbitration Branch having jurisdiction over the place where the
complainant resides or where the principal office of any of the respondents
is situated, at the option of the complainant.
 Worker's Option
 Suppose the workplace is in Cebu and the employer's place of
business is also in Cebu. But the laborers, who have
complaints against their employer, reside in Manila. Should
they file their complaint in Cebu? or in Manila?
 In the case of Sulpicio Lines, Inc. vs. NLRC (254 SCRA 506
[1996]) Court held that the question of venue essentially pertains to the
trial and relates more to the convenience of the parties rather than upon the
substance and merits of the case
 It underscored the fact that the permissive rules underlying provisions
on venue are intended to assure convenience for the plaintiff and his
witnesses and to promote the ends of justice.
 The rationale for the rule is obvious. The worker, being the
economically disadvantaged party whether as complainant/petitioner or
as respondent, as the case may be — the nearest governmental
machinery to settle the dispute must be placed at his immediate
disposal
Labor Arbiter’s
Jurisdiction
BYCabatingan
 Unfair Labor Practices (ULP) Cases
It is any act intended or directed to weaken or defeat the workers' right to self-organize or to engage in
lawful concerted activities. In short, unfair labor practice, when committed by an employer, carries the effect of
anti-unionism.
National Union of Bank Employees vs. Judge Alfredo Lazaro, et al, G.R. No. 56431,
January 19, 1988
Facts:
• The CBTC entered into a CBA with the Union representing the rank-and-file employees. The agreement was
to be effective until June 30, 1980, with automatic renewal clause until the parties execute a new agreement.
• On May 30, 1980, the Union submitted to the bank management some proposals for renegotiation of the
CBA. But the next day, the bank suspended negotiations with the union because the bank had entered into a
merger with the Bank of the Philippine Islands, which assumed all assets and liabilities of CBTC.
• The Union filed with the Court of First Instance a complaint for specific performance, damages and
preliminary injunction against the CBTC and the BPI. The Court dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction.

Issue:
Is the dismissal correct?
Ruling:

 Yes. The dismissal order is sustained. The case is an unfair labor practice controversy within
the original and exclusive jurisdiction of the labor arbiters and the exclusive appellate
jurisdiction of the National Labor Relations Commission. The claim against the BPI for allegedly
inducing the CBTC to violate the existing collective bargaining agreement in the process of
renegotiation consists mainly of the civil aspect of the unfair labor practice charge referred to under
Article 247 of the Labor Code.

 Under Article 247 of the Code, "the civil aspects of all cases involving unfair labor practices,
which may include claims for damages and other affirmative relief, shall be under the
jurisdiction of the labor arbiters." The claimed injury as a consequence of tort allegedly committed
by BPI and CBTC under Article 1314 of the Civil Code does not necessarily give the court jurisdiction
to try the damage suit. Jurisdiction is conferred by law and not necessarily by the nature of the
action. Civil controversies are not the exclusive domain of courts.
 When does CBA violation amounts to ULP?

 If the only question is the legality of the expulsion of an employee from the union,
undoubtedly, the question is one cognizable by the Bureau of Labor Relations. But if the
question extended to the dismissal of the employee from employment or steps leading to it, as
when the employer decides the recommended dismissal, its acts would be subject to scrutiny.

 Particularly, it will be asked whether it violates or not the existing collective bargaining agreement.
Certainly, violations of the collective bargaining agreement would be unfair labor practice which
falls under the jurisdiction of the Labor Arbiters and the National Labor Relations Commission.

 The preceding ruling is affected by changes made by R.A. 6715 in 1989. Only gross violations
(by employer) of a collective bargaining agreement are considered unfair labor practice,
hence, within the jurisdiction of a labor arbiter. If not gross, the violation is not ULP.
 Termination Disputes
 Termination disputes or illegal dismissal complaints fall within the jurisdiction of a labor arbiter,
as stated in Article 217, 2nd paragraph. The usual bone of contention is the legality of dismissal. Its
resolution depends on the validity of the cause and the manner of the employee's dismissal.

 A question of overlapping jurisdiction has arisen because of Article 217. It requires a labor arbiter to
refer to the grievance machinery and voluntary arbitration all cases arising from interpretation or
enforcement of collective bargaining agreement or company personnel policies. Is the dismissal of an
employee an enforcement of personnel policy and, therefore, should be brought to a voluntary arbitrator
instead of a labor arbiter? No, not necessarily, thus ruled the Supreme Court in San Miguel Case.

 We subjected the records of this case, particularly the CBA, to meticulous scrutiny and we find no
agreement between SMC and the respondent union that would state in unequivocal language
that petitioners and the respondent union conform to the submission of termination disputes and
unfair labor practices to voluntary arbitration. Section 1, Article V of the CBA, cited by the herein
petitioners, certainly does not provide so. Hence, consistent with the general rule under Article 217(a) of
the Labor Code, the Labor Arbiter properly has jurisdiction over the complaint filed by the respondent
union on February 25, 1991, for illegal dismissal and unfair labor practice (San Miguel Corp. vs. NLRC
G.R. No. 108001, March 15, 1996)
 Does a labor arbiter have jurisdiction over an illegal dismissal complaint filed by
a church minister? Is the principle of separation of church and state applicable?

It does not matter that the employer here is a religious sect and that it was organized not
for profit because the Labor Code applies to all establishments whether for profit or not.
(Article 278, Labor Code.)

The case at bench is only one of dismissal of an employee in the exercise by the
employer-church of its management prerogatives and therefore does not concern any
ecclesiastical matter. While the case relates to the church and its minister, it does NOT
ipso facto give it a religious significance, what is involved is only the relationship of the
church as an EMPLOYER and the minister as an employee which is purely
SECULAR in character and has no relation whatsoever to practice of faith, worship or
doctrines of the Seventh Day Adventist Church. (Austria vs. NLRC & Cebu City Central
Philippines Union Mission Corporation of the Seventh Day Adventists, G.R No.
124382, August 16, 1999.)
 Termination of Corporate Officer & Jurisdiction Over Intra-Corporate
Disputes Transferred From SEC to RTC
An "intra-corporate controversy" is one which arises between a stockholder and the
corporation. There is no distinction, qualification, nor any exemption whatsoever. The
provision is broad and covers all kinds of controversies between stockholders and
corporations (Tabang vs. NLRC).

Under Section 5 of Presidential Decree (PD) No. 902-A, the SEC had original and
exclusive jurisdiction over cases involving:
a.) Devices or schemes employed by, or any acts of, the board of directors,
business associates, its officers or partnership, amounting to fraud and
misrepresentation which may be detrimental to the interest of the public and / or of the
stockholder, partners, members of associations or organizations registered with the
commission;

b) Controversies arising out of intra-corporate or partnership relations, between

and among stockholders, members or associates; between any or all of them and
the corporation, partnership or association of which they are stockholders,
 Mainland Construction Co., etc. vs. Movilla, et al.,
G.R. No. 118088, November 23, 1995

Facts:

 Movilla was hired as accountant by Mainland Construction in 1977.

 In 1987, the board of directors elected Movilla as board member and Administrative Manager.
 DOLE had conducted a routine inspection on the corporation and found several labor law violations. It
ordered the corporation to pay its thirteen employees, including Movilla, the unpaid holiday pay, service
incentive leave, etc. The employer paid all the employees listed in the DOLE'S order, but not Movilla;
hence, he filed a complaint with the NLRC Regional Arbitration Branch XI, Davao City.
 The Labor Arbiter rendered judgment on June 26, 1992, dismissing the complaint on the ground of lack of
jurisdiction.
 The heirs appealed to the NLRC which ruled that the issue was a labor dispute between an employee and
petitioner corporation and, thus, the NLRC had jurisdiction over the case.
Issue:

Is it the NLRC or the SEC (now RTC) that has jurisdiction over the controversy?

Ruling:

 In the case at bench, the claim for unpaid wages and separation pay filed by the complainant
against petitioner corporation involves a labor dispute. It does not involve an intra-corporate
matter, even when it is between a stockholder and a corporation. It relates to an employer-
employee relationship which is distinct from the corporate relationship of one with the
other. Moreover, there was no showing of any change in the duties being performed by
complainant as an Administrative Officer and as an Administrative Manager after his election by the
Board of Directors.

 What comes to the fore is whether there was a change in the nature of his functions and not merely
the nomenclature or tide given to this job. Since Movilla's complaint involves a labor dispute, it is
the NLRC, under Article 217 of the Labor Code of the Philippines, which has jurisdiction over the
case.
 Money Claims
A money claim arising from employer-employee relations, except SSS, ECC and Medicare claims, is
within the jurisdiction of a labor arbiter -

1. if the claim, regardless of amount, is accompanied with a claim for reinstatement; or

2. if the claim, whether or not accompanied with a claim for reinstatement, exceeds five thousand pesos
(P5,000) per claimant.

The claim under No. 1, above, is practically a termination dispute which falls within the labor arbiter's
jurisdiction, according to Article 217.

Furthermore, the claims under either No. 1 or No. 2, above, are beyond the jurisdiction of a DOLE
regional director under Article 129 which removes from the regional director's hands any claim for
reinstatement or any money claim exceeding five thousand pesos. Those claims should instead
be filed with the NLRC.
Only Money Claims Not Arising from CBA

The original and exclusive jurisdiction of the Labor Arbiter under Article 217 (c ) for money claims is limited only
to those arising from statutes or contracts other than a Collective Bargaining Agreement.

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 from the interpretation or enforcement of company personnel policies," under Article 261.

Money Claims Must Have Arisen From Employment

Money claims of workers which do not arise out of or in connection with their employer-employee relationship
fall within the general jurisdiction of regular courts of justice. Hence, "money claims of workers" referred to in
paragraph 3 of Article 217 embraces money claims which arise out of or in connection with the
employer-employee relationship, or some aspect or incident of such relationship.

Exception, see San Miguel vs NLRC case

 San Miguel Corp. vs. NLRC
G.R. No. 80774, May 31, 1988
Facts:

• SMC sponsored an innovation program granting cash awards to employees who would
submit ideas and suggestions beneficial to the corporation.
• Rustico submitted a proposal which, he alleged, was accepted and implemented by SMC;
hence, he demanded the cash award of P 60,000. But SMC refused to pay, prompting
Rustico to file with the NLRC a complaint claiming entitlement to the cash award.
• The labor arbiter ruled that Rustico's money claim was not an incident of his employment
and that the money claim was not among those enumerated in Article 217 of the Labor
Code. He dismissed the complaint.
• On appeal, the NLRC reversed the labor arbiter and ordered SMC to pay Rustico P
60,000.
Issue:
Which has the jurisdiction to resolve Rustico’s complaint?

Ruling:

It’s the RTC. Rustico's money claim arose out of or in connection with his employment with SMC is not enough to bring
such money claim within the original and exclusive jurisdiction of labor arbiters.

In this case, SMC's Innovation Program is an employee incentive scheme offered and open only to employees of SMC
below the rank of manager. Such undertaking, though unilateral in origin, could nonetheless ripen into an
enforceable contractual (facio ut des) obligation on the part of SMC under certain circumstances.

Where the claim to the principal relief sought is to be resolved not by reference to the Labor Code or other
labor relations statute or a collective bargaining agreement but by the general civil law, the jurisdiction over
the dispute belongs to the regular courts of justice and not to the labor arbiter and the National Labor
Relations Commission.

Thus, whether or not an enforceable contract, albeit implied and innonimate, had arisen between SMC and Rustico in
this case, and if so, whether or not it had been reached, are preeminently legal questions, questions not to be
resolved by referring to labor legislation and having nothing to do with wages or their terms and conditions of
employment, but rather by having recourse to our law on contracts.
 Splitting of Actions Not Allowed
An employee who has been illegally dismissed so as to cause him moral damages has a cause
of action for reinstatement, backwages and damages.

When he institutes proceedings before the Labor Arbiter, he should make a claim for all said
relief. He cannot prosecute his claim piecemeal, separately and contemporaneously, in a court of
justice upon the same cause of action or a part thereof.

He cannot sue in two forums: one, before the Labor Arbiter for reinstatement and recovery of
backwages upon the theory that his dismissal was illegal; and two, before a court of justice for
recovery of moral damages upon the theory that his dismissal was injurious or tortious.

The Court reiterates the doctrine that the grant of jurisdiction to the Labor Arbiter by Article
217 of the Labor Code is sufficiently comprehensive to include claims for moral and exemplary
damages sought to be recovered from an employer by an employee upon the theory of his
illegal dismissal. A contrary rule would result in the splitting of actions and the consequent
multiplication of suits.
JURISDICTION OF LABOR
ARBITER

 Reporter: Neska Centina

 Jurisdiction Over Claims for Damages
 P.D. No. 1691 nullified P.D. No. 1367 which restored to
the Labor Arbiters and the National Labor Relations
Commission their jurisdiction to award all kinds of
damages in cases arising from employer-employee
relations.
 Moral damages would be recoverable, for example, where
the dismissal of the employee was not only effected
without authorized cause or due process for which relief is
granted by the Labor Code — but was attended by bad
faith or fraud or constituted an act oppressive to labor or
was done in a manner contrary to morals, good customs or
public policy — for which the obtainable relief is
determined by the Civil Code.
 Splitting of Actions Not Allowed
 When an employee who has been illegally dismissed
institutes proceedings before the Labor Arbiter, he should
make a claim for all said relief. He cannot prosecute his
claim piecemeal, separately and contemporaneously, in a
court of justice upon the same cause of action or a part
thereof. He cannot sue in two forums: one, before the
Labor Arbiter for reinstatement and recovery of
backwages; and two, before a court of justice for recovery
of moral damages.
 Employer's Complaint for Damages
 An employer's claim for damages against an employee
may be filed as counterclaim in the illegal dismissal case
filed by the employee. Such claim for damages, arising
from employment relationship, is outside the jurisdiction
of the regular court.
 Strikes and Lockouts
 Questions relating to strikes or lockouts or any
form of work stoppage including incidents thereof
fall within the labor arbiter's jurisdiction. Whether
the alleged reason for the strike is "strikeable,"
whether the required strike procedure is followed,
or whether the strikers committed prohibited acts
during a strike, are some of the issues a labor
arbiter may be called upon to decide.
 Power to issue injunction- lodged with an NLRC
division, not a labor arbiter
 National Interest- DOLE Secretary or the
President of the Republic has to assume
jurisdiction; or may refer the case to the NLRC if
the labor dispute involves an industry
indispensable to national interest.
 Limit to the Arbiter’s jurisdiction
 -filed by third parties being affected by a strike of
people who are not the employees (regular courts)
 If a crime is committed, whether in relation to a
strike or not, the prosecution of the crime has to be
done not before a labor arbiter but a regular court,
because in such case the laws to be administered
are primarily the penal laws of the land.
 Wage Distortion
 A salary distortion case, referred to in Article 124,
is resolved either through the CBA mechanism or,
in unorganized establishments, through the
NCMB. If the NCMB fails to resolve the dispute
in ten days of conciliation conferences, it shall be
referred to the appropriate branch of the NLRC.
 Disputes over Compromise Agreements
 Compromise settlements are ordinarily final and
binding upon the parties. But a compromise
settlement may itself become the subject of a
dispute. If there is noncompliance with the
compromise agreement or if there is prima facie
evidence that the settlement was obtained through
fraud misrepresentation, or coercion, then, the
NLRC through the labor arbiter may assume
jurisdiction over such dispute.
 Submission to Jurisdiction
 A party cannot invoke the jurisdiction of a court to secure
affirmative relief against his opponent and, after obtaining
or failing to obtain such relief, repudiate or question that
same jurisdiction.
 The question whether the court had jurisdiction either over
the subject matter of the action or over the parties is barred
from such conduct not because the judgment or order of
the court is valid and conclusive as an adjudication but for
the reason that such a practice cannot be tolerated —
obviously for reasons of public policy.
 Soco vs Mercantile Corp
 Facts:
 When the complaint for underpayment of minimum wage was pending
before the Regional Director, the employer did not raise the issue of
jurisdiction but instead actively participated in the hearings. Neither
did it do so in elevating the case to the Secretary of Labor, nor in the
two motions for reconsideration of the DOLE'S decision.
 But when the case reached the Supreme Court, the employer objected
to the jurisdiction of the Secretary of Labor and the Regional Director
to award the money claims of the employees. It contended that all
money claims of workers arising from an employer-employee
relationship were within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Labor Arbiter
not the Regional Director.
 Ruling: This contention, which is being raised for the first
time in this petition, can no longer be considered by the
Court at this stage.
 After voluntarily submitting a cause and encountering an
adverse decision on the merits, it is too late for the loser to
question the jurisdiction or power of die court. It is not
right for a party, who has affirmed and invoked the
jurisdiction of a court in a particular matter to secure an
affirmative relief, to afterwards deny that same jurisdiction
to escape a penalty.
 The active participation of the party against whom the
action was brought coupled with his failure to object to the
jurisdiction of die Court or quasi-judicial body where the
action is pending, is tantamount to an invocation of that
jurisdiction, and a willingness to abide by the resolution of
the case will bar said party from later on impugning the
court or body's jurisdiction.
 The Supreme Court frowns upon the undesirable
practice of a party submitting his case for decision
and then accepting the judgment only if favorable,
and attacking it for lack of jurisdiction when
adverse.
 However, in another line of court decisions, : it is the law
that determines the jurisdiction of an adjudicating body
and not the initiative or acquiescence of the disputants.
 Lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter of the suit is
yet another matter. Whenever it appears that the court has
no jurisdiction over the subject matter, the action shall be
dismissed. This defense may be interposed at any time,
during appeal or even after final judgment.
 5. Immunity of Foreign Governments
 Recognizes and adopts the generally accepted principles of
international law as part of the law of the land.
 Immunity of State from suit is one of these universally
recognized principles.
 This is anchored on the principle of the sovereign equality of
states under which one state cannot assert jurisdiction over
another in violation of the maxim par in parem non habet
imperium (an equal has no power over an equal).
Immunity of the UN and Its Specialized Agencies

 Being a member of the United Nations and a party

to the Convention on the Privileges and
Immunities of the Specialized Agencies of the
United Nations, the Philippine Government
adheres to the doctrine of immunity granted to the
United Nations and its specialized agencies.
 Therefore, it enjoys diplomatic immunity and is
beyond the jurisdiction of a labor arbiter.
 4e. Executing Money Claims Against the
Government
 Even when a government agency enters into a
business contract with a private entity, it is not the
Labor Code but C.A. No. 327, as amended by P.D.
1445 that applies in pursuing a money claim
(against the Government) arising from such
contract.