Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
ROMERO
LABOR LAW II
JD 3-2
The plaintiffs in this case are workers in a building construction under the
they were not allowed to enter the premises of the site due to complaints from the
owner of the building being constructed. The owner of the building tasked the
contractors not to enter the construction site that led to the alleged illegal dismissal
of the plaintiffs.
The plaintiffs then filed for this case before the Labor Arbiter for Illegal
Dismissal and Money claims because of the said prohibition of the owner of the
building being constructed for the plaintiffs not to enter the premises for them to
work. The plaintiffs also asked for monetary claims for the work rendered and the
The plaintiffs and the contractor entered into a settlement and quitclaim was
then awarded for the money claims sought by the plaintiffs and a back to work order
The proceeding observed was settlement of judgment award for the illegal
dismissal with money claims and reinstatement or back to work order for the
plaintiffs. The Labor Arbiter Clerk called for the plaintiff and respondent inside the
labor arbiters sala. The Clerk then read the minutes of the meeting from the
previous hearing and properly identified the parties in the case by checking on the
After that, the clerk provided for the cause of the hearing where the
pesos in an aggregate amounts to the four plaintiffs and that the back to work order
Quit claim forms was then passed around for the signature of the parties in
the case. After that, the check was then awarded to the plaintiffs. The identity of each
plaintiff was scrutinized and asked them to present a valid identification card upon
award of the checks. One of the plaintiffs do not have a valid ID which the Labor
Arbiter asked the respondent and the other plaintiffs if he was really the name which
was on the check before awarding the money claim. The respondent concurred that
the plaintiff who did not present an identification card was indeed the same person
Upon the award of the money claims, the plaintiffs provided for some
contentions that the owner of the building being constructed will still not allow them
to go back to work. They alleged that the owners wife and daughter is filing a case
of harassment against them that is why they will not be allowed to enter the premises
still to work. The Labor Arbiter then interrupted the heated argument regarding the
back to work order, he said that such harassment case is no longer within the ambit
of the Labor Arbiter and shall be dealt with in another court. Thus, with the case
settlement of judgment has been awarded. And he added that since the plaintiffs did
not appeal the voluntary settlement of judgment, the case decision will now become
final and executor. Ergo, the decision of back to work order or reinstatement shall be
The language used maybe the vernacular language used by the parties. The
representation of the parties must be ascertained as well and that each parties must
be represented by a lawyer or any duly authorized person as the case may be.
jurisdiction before their courts. First is that a complaint for illegal dismissal or any
cause must be filed before DOLE by an administrative proceeding which was called
2-notice rule shall be observed for hearing. If parties answered and voluntarily settle
the dispute in the SEnA proceedings it will no longer elevate before the Labor Arbiter
but if any of the parties most of the times the respondent shall not give its answer
within the 2-notice rule period provided that all formalities are met and no
appearance be made, the said party shall be in default and such case will be
elevated for Labor Arbitration. Same 2-notice rule for hearing is observed in the
Labor Arbitration proceedings, if any of the party shall not answer within the period
allowed, they shall be held in default and the Labor Arbiter shall render a decision