PAQUITO V. ANDO VS. ANDRESITO Y. CAMPO ET. AL. G.R. No. 184007, February 16, 2011 Ponente: J.

Nachura FACTS: Campo and co-respondents were hired by Premier Allied Contracting Services, Inc. (PACSI), an independent labor contractor headed by Ando as its president. They filed an illegal dismissal case and some money claims with the NLRC against PACSI. The Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of Campo and his co-respondents. A writ of execution of personal property was issued to answer for the monetary award. Ando filed an action for prohibition and damages with TRO before the RTC claiming that the property belong to him and his wife and not to the corporation. RTC denied the petition holding that it has no jurisdiction to try and decide the case and ruled that the petitioners remedy is to file a third party complaint with the NLRC Sheriff. ISSUE: Did RTC correctly rule that it has no jurisdiction over the case? LAW: NLRC Manual in Execution of Judgment (in relation to Scope of Jurisdiction of Labor Tribunals under the Labor Code) RULING: Yes, RTC correctly ruled that it has no jurisdiction over the case. The regular courts have no jurisdiction to hear and decide questions which arise from and are incidental to the enforcement of decisions, orders and awards rendered in labor cases by appropriate officers and tribunals of DOLE. To hold otherwise is to sanction splitting jurisdiction which is obnoxious to the orderly administration of justice.

It is the NLRC Manual on the Execution of Judgment that governs any question on the execution of judgment of that body. The Rules of Court apply only by analogy of in a suppletory character. OPINION: I concur with the decision of the Supreme Court that the RTC has no jurisdiction over the case as the subject matter of the petition is the execution of judgment of the NLRCs decision. We must take note that, jurisdiction once acquired, continues until the case is finally terminated and there can be no end to a case without the implementation of the decision which decision must be exercised by the body who rendered it and not the courts. Especially in this case, the NLRC Manual specifically provides for the procedures to be followed in the execution of judgment promulgated by NLRC.

RENATO REAL VS. SANGU PHILIPPINES, INC AND/OR KIICHI ABE G.R. No. 168757, January 19, 2011 Ponente: J. Del Castillo FACTS: Real was the manager Sangu Phils. Inc., which is engaged in providing manpower for general services. Petitioner was dismissed from employment due to alleged gross act of misconduct and for his participation in staging strike and barricading the premises of the respondent company. The Labor Arbiter decided in favor of Real and ordered for his reinstatement with full backwages. On appeal, the NLRC dismissed the case holding that Real is a stockholder and corporate officer of the respondent company and therefore it is a intra-corporate dispute over which the Labor Arbiter has no jurisdiction. ISSUE: Does the complaint constitutes an intra-corporate dispute and thus beyond the jurisdiction of the Labor Arbiter? LAW: Art. 217 of the Labor Code on Jurisdiction of Labor Arbiters and the Commission RULING: This case is not intra-corporate dispute but rather is a termination dispute and, consequently falls under jurisdiction of the Labor Arbiter pursuant to Section 217 of the Labor Code.

The better policy to be followed in determining jurisdiction over a case should be to consider concurrent factors such as status or relationship of the parties or the nature of the question that is subject of their controversy. In the absence of these factors RTC will not have jurisdiction OPINION: The case at bar is a termination dispute not an intra-corporate dispute. Not all conflicts between the stockholders and the corporations are classified as intra-corporate dispute. There are factors to consider in determining whether the dispute involves corporate matters as to consider them, intracorporate controversies. The fact that Real is a stockholder does not automatically classifies the case as intra-corporate dispute, therefore Labor arbiter correctly assumed jurisdiction over the case.

BERNADETH LONDONIO AND JOAN CORCORO VS. BIO RESEARCH, INC AND WILSON Y. ANG G.R. No. 191459, January 17, 2011 Ponente: J. Carpio-Morales FACTS: Londonio and Socorro were hired by Bio Research as graphic/visual artist. Their services were terminated due to alleged redundancy and to prevent losses. They filed a complaint for illegal dismissal and claimed that the company was tainted with malice and bad faith as the retrenchment was a retaliatory in nature following the filing of Londonio of a sexual harassment case against the manager of the company. Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of complainants and ordered their reinstatement with full backwages which was later on upheld by NLRC. The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of NLRC but deleted the award of moral damages and absolved Wilson Ang, CEO of Bioresearch from any liability. Complainants questioned the decision of the Court of Appeals by filing a petition for certiorari. ISSUE: Did the Court of Appeals gravely abuse its discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction in modifying the decision of the NLRC? LAW: Citing the case of Wyeth-Suico Laboratories, Inc. vs. NLRC (on finality of findings of fact of labor tribunals), GR No. 100658, March 2, 1993, 219 SCRA 356 RULING: No, the Court of appeals did not gravely abuse its discretion in deciding the case. Absent any showing that the appellate court ignored, misconstrued and misapplied the facts and circumstances of substance, its affirmance of the NLRC decision holding that complainants were illegally dismissed stands.

The Labor Arbiter and the NLRC being the most equipped and having acquired expertise in the specific matters entrusted to their jurisdiction, their findings of fact are accorded not only respect but even finality if they are supported by substantial evidence. OPINION: I concur with the ruling of the Supreme Court that the Court of Appeals correctly decided the case and that the findings of fact of Labor Arbiter and NLRC when supported with substantial evidence are valid, binding and accorded with great respect because if their findings, if done with regularity in the performance of their duties, will not be upheld by courts the purpose for their creation and the delegation of quasi-judicial functions to them will be held nugatory.

PHIMCO INDUSTRIES, INC. VS. PHIMCO INDUSTRIES LABOR ASSOCIATION (PILA) G.R. No. 170830, August 11, 2010 Ponente: J. Brion FACTS: PHIMCO Industries is engaged in production of matches while PILA is the ABU of daily paid workers. There ensued a bargaining deadlock between the company and union due to disagreements on salary increases and benefits. The union staged a strike which prompted the Secretary of Labor to assume jurisdiction over the case and later on issued a return to work order. The company after accepting its employees, terminated the services of 36 union members. Company also filed a complaint for illegal strike and claimed that strikers prevented egress and ingress from Phimco compound thereby paralyzing its operations. The Labor arbiter declared the strike illegal. The illegal dismissal case and illegal strike case were consolidated before the NLRC. The NLRC ruled in favor of the union which was later on upheld by the CA. The company assailed the decision of CA by way of petition for certiorari. The Union submitted that issues before the SC are factual in nature that cannot be touch in a petition for review. ISSUE: What is the basic approach that should be followed in the review of decisions of Court of Appeals in labor cases? LAW: Rule 45 of the Rules of Court Rule 65 of the Rules of Court Citing the case of Montoya vs. Transmed Manila Corp. 597 SCA 334 (2009) RULING: The Supreme Court has to view the decision of the Court of Appeals in the same context that the petition for certiorari it ruled upon was presented to it. The SC have to examine the CA decision from the prism of whether it correctly determined the presence or absence of grave abuse of discretion in the NLRC decision before it, not on the basis of whether the NLRC decision on the merits of the case was correct. In this case the decision of Labor Arbiter in declaring the strike is illegal was upheld by the SC but they were awarded with nominal damages in pursuant to Agabon Doctrine because they were not accorder with due process.

OPINION: I adhere to the approach laid down by the Supreme Court in reviewing decisions of the Court of Appeals in reviewing of labor cases. I agree that petition for review on certiorari before the CA, as governed by Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, is different from review on appeal and therefore the correct question to be answered by the CA is that Did the NLRC gravely abuse its discretion in deciding the case?. On appeal, the case is subject to review in the perspective that as if there is no decision previously rendered while if it is on review by Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, the decision will be premised on the findings on whether the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion in deciding the case.

YSS EMPLOYEES UNION PHILIPPINE TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS ASSOCATION VS. YSS LABORATORIES, INC. G.R. No. 155125, December 4, 2009 Ponente: J. Chico-Nazario FACTS: YSS Laboratories, Inc is a domestic pharmaceutical company and the YSSEU is the SEBA of the rankand-file employees. The company in the implementation of its retrenchment program, dismissed some of its employees and 9 of which are union officers and members of YSSEU. Union claimed that the company was guilty of discrimination and union-busting and later on decided to stage a strike. The Secretary of Labor assumed jurisdiction over the case and certified it to NLRC for compulsory arbitration and issued a return to work order. The company refused to comply with the directive of the Secretary of Labor and sought for annulment of the certification and return to work order issued by the said secretary ISSUE: Did the Secretary of Labor gravely abuse its discretion in certifying the labor dispute to NLRC for compulsory arbitration? LAW: Art. 263 of the Labor Code on Power of Secretary of Labor in cases on Strike, Picketing and Lockout RULING: No, the Secretary of Labor properly exercised the power vested to him under Art. 263 of the Labor Code. The Secretary of Labor is afforded plenary and broad powers and is granted great breadth of discretion to adopt the most reasonable and expeditious way of terminating labor dispute. The labor secretarys certification for compulsory arbitration is not intended to interfere with the managements

rights but is to obtain a speedy settlement of the dispute. OPINION: I concur that the Secretary of Labor correctly assumed jurisdiction over the case ad properly acted within its authority in certifying the case for compulsory arbitration. The grant of plenary powers under Art. 263 of the Labor Code to the Secretary of Labor makes it incumbent upon him to bring about fair and just solution to the differences between employer and employees. In this case there was no showing that the Secretary of Labor abused his discretion or acted whimsically or capriciously as would invalidate his orders, therefore the unjustified refusal of the company to comply with theses orders is untenable.

PATRICIA HALAGUEA ET. AL. VS. PHILIPPINE AIRLINES, INC. G.R. No. 172013, October 2, 2009 Ponente: J. Peralta FACTS: Halaguea and co-petitioners were employed as female flight attendants of PAL and were members of FASAP. They filed a petition for nullification of a PAL-FASAP CBA provision, specifically Sec. 144 thereof. This provision provides for compulsory retirement age of flight attendants, which is 60 years old for male and 55 years old for female employees. Petitioners assailed the constitutionality and legality of said provision which according to them is in violation of their constitutional right to fundamental equality with men under Sec. 14, Art. II, 1987 Constitution and is contrary to Convention on the Elimination of all forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW Law). PAL questioned the jurisdiction of RTC over the case. ISSUE: Does RTC has jurisdiction over a case involving nullification of a CBA provision? LAW: Batas Pambansa Blg. 129 Jurisdiction of RTC Art. 217 Jurisdiction of the Labor Arbiters and the Commission RULING: Yes. Actions between employers and employees where the employer-employee relationship is merely incidental and the cause of actions precedes from a different source of obligation, which in this case is the nullification of a CBA provision, is within the jurisdiction of regular courts. An action raising the issue as to whether a provision of a CBA is unlawful and unconstitutional is

beyond the jurisdiction of labor tribunals. The jurisdiction of labor tribunals and NLRC under Art. 217 of the Labor Code is limited to disputes arising from employer-employee relationship. Neither the grievance machinery nor the voluntary arbitrators have jurisdiction and competence to decide constitutional issues raised in this case. OPINION: It is undisputed that this case was for nullification of a provision of a CBA provision due to its unconstitutionality and illegality, this case did not call for interpretation of the CBA as the same is clear and free from ambiguity, it asked for fixing the terms and conditions of employment but rather this case is called for the determination of whether the assailed CBA provision is consistent with the Constitution and the CEDAW Law, therefore, the RTC correctly acquired jurisdiction over the case because the labor tribunals have no jurisdiction and competence to decide constitutional issues relative to the questioned compulsory retirement age.

JETHRO INTELLIGENCE & SECUIRTY CORPORATION AND YAKULT PHILIPPINES, INC. VS. SECRETARY OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT ET. AL. G.R. No. 172537, AUGUST 14, 2009 Ponente: J. Carpio-Morales FACTS: Jethro Corporation is a security agency contracted by Yakult Phils, Inc. Respondent Garcia, one of the security guards deployed by Jethro Corporation filed a complaint for underpayment of wages and nonpayment of benefits before the DOLE. The Regional Director of DOLE ruled in favor of Garcia and was later on upheld by respondent Secretary of Labor. Petitioners filed a petition for certiorari assailing jurisdiction of Secretary of Labor over the case on the ground that the money claims exceeded PHP5000. ISSUE: Did respondent Secretary of Labor correctly assume jurisdiction over the case? OPINION: The Secretary of Labor correctly assumed jurisdiction over the case. The applicable provision in this case is Art. 128 of the Labor Code because the complaint is for underpayment of wages and nonpayment of benefits which are violations of labor standard laws, the amount of money claims although it exceeded PHP5,000 is immaterial and it does not divest the Secretary of Labor of jurisdiction over the case. The case does not fall under the exception provided in Art. 128 although Jethro Corporation appealed in the inspection results, it later on failed to submit competent proof that it was paying its

employees and benefits as mandated by law.

BAY HAVEN, INC, JOHNNY T. CO AND VIVIAN TE-FERNANDEZ VS. FLORENTINO ABUAN ET. AL. G.R. No. 160859, July 30, 2008 Ponente: J. Austria-Martinez FACTS: Abuan and his co-respondents were employees of New Bay Haven, Inc. who filed a complaint of underpayment of wages and holiday pays and non-payment of night shift differential before the Regional Director of DOLE-NCR. The Regional Director in the exercise of its visitorial, inspection and enforcement powers issued an order corresponding to the claims of underpayment. The Company assailed the decision for lack of due process and lack jurisdiction of Regional Director over the dispute due to the amount involved. ISSUE: Did Regional Director correctly assume jurisdiction over the case? LAW: Art, 128 of the Labor Code on Visitorial and Enforcement Powers RULING: Yes, the Regional Director correctly assumed jurisdiction over the case. The Secretary of Labor and his authorized representatives have jurisdiction to enforce compliance with labor standard laws under the broad visitorial and enforcement powers conferred by Art. 128 of the Labor Code as amended by RA 7730. The visitorial and enforcement powers of the Secretary, exercised through his representatives, encompass compliance with all labor standard laws and other legislation, regardless of the amount of the claims involved.

NESTOR J. BALLADARES, ET. AL. VS. PEAK VENTURES CORPORATION AND YANGCO MARKET OWNERS ASSOCIATION G.R. No. 161794, June 16, 2009 Ponente: J. Nachura

FACTS: Balladares and co-petitioners were hired as security guards by Peak Ventures and were assigned at the premises of Yangco Market. They filed a complaint for underpayment of wages against Peak Ventures with the DOLE. The Regional Director of DOLE rendered judgment in favor of petitioners and ruled that Peak Ventures and Yangco Market are solidarily liable to petitioners, said decision was upheld by Secretary of Labor. On certiorari, the Court of Appeals, ruled that Regional Director has no jurisdiction over the case because the claims of each petitioners exceeded PHP5,000, therefore power to adjudicate such claims belong to the Labor Arbiter. ISSUE: Did the Regional Director correctly assume jurisdiction over the case? LAW: Art. 128 of the Labor Code on Visitorial and Enforcement Powers RULING: Yes, the Regional Director correctly assume jurisdiction over the case. The complaint involved underpayment of wages. In order to verify the allegations in the complaint, DOLE conducted an inspection which yielded proof of violations of labor standards. By nature of the complaint and from the result of the inspection the authority of the DOLE under Art. 128 of Labor Code came into play regardless of monetary value of claims involved.

The Secretary of Labor or his duly authorized representatives is now empowered to hear and decide in summary proceeding, any matter involving the recovery of amount of wages and other monetary claims arising out of employer-employee relationship at the time of inspections, even if the amount of money claims exceed PHP5000. OPINION: The Regional Director correctly assumed jurisdiction over the money claims of petitioners even if the claims exceeded PHP5,000. Said jurisdiction was in accordance with Art. 128(b) of the Labor Code and the case does not fall under the exception clause. We must take note that the doctrine in the Servando case is no longer controlling upon the amendment of Art. 128 by RA 7730, Secretary of Labor or his duly authorized representative is now empowered to hear and decide money claims arising out of employeremployee relationship at the time of inspection.

In this case, Peak Ventures did not contest the findings of Regional Director, it even admitted before the Court of Appeals that petitioners were not paid correct wages and as a defense tried to pass the buck to Yangco Market, therefore the case does not fall under the exceptions provided in Art. 128 (b) of

the Labor Code which would have divested Regional Director of jurisdiction over the case.