PAL VS NLRC

GR NO. 85985
13 AUGUST 1993
FACTS: PAL completely revised its 1966 Code of Discipline. The Code was circulated among
the employees and was immediately implemented, and some employees were forthwith subjected
to the disciplinary measures embodied therein.
The Philippine Airlines Employees Association (PALEA) filed a complaint before the National
Labor Relations Commission (NLRC). PALEA contended that PAL, by its unilateral
implementation of the Code, was guilty of unfair labor practice, specifically Paragraphs E and G
of Article 249 and Article 253 of the Labor Code. PALEA alleged that copies of the Code
had been circulated in limited numbers; that being penal in nature the Code must conform with
the requirements of sufficient publication, and that the Code was arbitrary, oppressive, and
prejudicial to the rights of the employees.
It prayed that implementation of the Code be held in abeyance; that PAL should discuss the
substance of the Code with PALEA; that employees dismissed under the Code be reinstated and
their cases subjected to further hearing; and that PAL be declared guilty of unfair labor practice
and be ordered to pay damages PAL asserted its prerogative as an employer to prescribe rules
and regulations regarding employees' conduct in carrying out their duties and functions, and
alleging that by implementing the Code, it had not violated the collective bargaining agreement
(CBA) or any provision of the Labor Code. Assailing the complaint as unsupported by evidence,
PAL maintained that Article 253 of the Labor Code cited by PALEA referred to the requirements
for negotiating a CBA which was inapplicable as indeed the current CBA had been negotiated.
ISSUE: W/N the formulation of a Code of Discipline among employees is a shared
responsibility of the employer and the employees
HELD: Petitioner's assertion that it needed the implementation of a new Code of Discipline
considering the nature of its business cannot be overemphasized. In fact, its being a local
monopoly in the business demands the most stringent of measures to attain safe travel for its
patrons. Nonetheless, whatever disciplinary measures are adopted cannot be properly
implemented in the absence of full cooperation of the employees. Such cooperation cannot be
attained if the employees are restive on account, of their being left out in the determination of
cardinal and fundamental matters affecting their employment.

RUBBERWORLD (PHILS.) VS. NLRC

336 SCRA 433
JULY 26, 2000

FACTS: Petitioner Rubberworld, a corporation established in 1965, is engaged in the

manufacture of footwear, bags and garment. Private respondents are employees of the said
corporation. On August 26, 1994, Rubberworld filed with the Department of Labor and
employment a notice of temporary shutdown of operations to take effect on September 26, 1994.
Before the effectivity date, however, Rubberworld was forced to prematurely shutdown its
operations.
On November 11, 1994, private respondents filed with the NLRC a complaint against petitioner
for illegal dismissal and non-payment of separation pay. On November 22, 1994, Rubberworld
filed with the SEC a petition for declaration of suspension of payments with a proposed
rehabilitation plan.
On December 28, 1994, SEC issued an order suspending all actions for claims against
Rubberworld in accordance with P.D. 902-A. Despite this order, however, the Labor Arbiter
ruled against Rubberworld, declaring its shutdown illegal and making the corporation liable for
damages and payment of separation pay. The NLRC affirmed the decision of the Labor Arbiter.

Hence, Rubber world filed with the SC a petition to annul the NLRC resolution.

ISSUE:

Whether or not NLRC acted without or in excess of its jurisdiction?

HELD: P.D. 902-A is clear that all actions for claims against corporations, partnerships, or
associations under management or receivership pending before any court, tribunal, board or body
shall be suspended accordingly. NLRC thus acted without an in excess of its jurisdiction when it
proceeded to decide the case despite the suspension order. As a consequence, any resolution
decisions or order that is rendered without jurisdiction is a nullity.

St. Martin Funeral Home vs. NLRC

ST. MARTIN FUNERAL HOME, petitioner, vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS
COMMISSION and BIENVENIDO ARICAYOS, respondents.
G.R. No. 130866
September 16, 1998
REGALADO, J.:
FACTS:
Private respondent alleges that he started working as Operations Manager of petitioner St. Martin
Funeral Home on February 6, 1995. However, there was no contract of employment executed
between him and petitioner nor was his name included in the semi-monthly payroll. On January
22, 1996, he was dismissed from his employment for allegedly misappropriating P38,000.00.
Petitioner on the other hand claims that private respondent was not its employee but only the
uncle of Amelita Malabed, the owner of petitioner St.Martins Funeral Home and in January
1996, the mother of Amelita passed away, so the latter took over the management of the
business.
Amelita made some changes in the business operation and private respondent and his wife were
no longer allowed to participate in the management thereof. As a consequence, the latter filed a
complaint charging that petitioner had illegally terminated his employment. The labor arbiter
rendered a decision in favor of petitioner declaring that no employer-employee relationship
existed between the parties and therefore his office had no jurisdiction over the case.
ISSUE: WON the decision of the NLRC are appealable to the Court of Appeals.
RULING:
The Court is of the considered opinion that ever since appeals from the NLRC to the SC were
eliminated, the legislative intendment was that the special civil action for certiorari was and still
is the proper vehicle for judicial review of decisions of the NLRC. The use of the
word appeal in relation thereto and in the instances we have noted could have been a lapsus
plumae because appeals by certiorari and the original action for certiorari are both modes of
judicial review addressed to the appellate courts. The important distinction between them,

however, and with which the Court is particularly concerned here is that the special civil action
for certiorari is within the concurrent original jurisdiction of this Court and the Court of Appeals;
whereas to indulge in the assumption that appeals by certiorari to the SC are allowed would not
subserve, but would subvert, the intention of the Congress as expressed in the sponsorship
speech on Senate Bill No. 1495.
Therefore, all references in the amended Section 9 of B.P No. 129 to supposed appeals from the
NLRC to the Supreme Court are interpreted and hereby declared to mean and refer to petitions
for certiorari under Rule65. Consequently, all such petitions should henceforth be initially filed
in the Court of Appeals in strict observance of the doctrine on the hierarchy of courts as the
appropriate forum for the relief desired.