Sie sind auf Seite 1von 4

JOHN PAUL T.

ROMERO
LABOR LAW II
JD 3-2

COURT OBSERVATION REPORT


Submitted to: Dean Felipe Fragante

CASE TITLE: Leonardo dela Torre et al. versus- Performance Buiders


Development Corporation et al.
DATE OF OBSERVATION: January 24, 2017
PLACE OF OBSERVATION: Court of Labor Arbiter Julio O. Gayaman
CASE OBSERVED: Illegal Dismisal with money claims and reinstatement

FACTS OF THE CASE

The plaintiffs in this case are workers in a building construction under the

contractor respondent. The plaintiffs are alleged to be illegally dismissed because

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

non-payment of salary and back to work order.

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

was granted by the labor arbiter for the plaintiffs.


OBSERVATION DURING THE PROCEEDINGS

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

identification of each person.

After that, the clerk provided for the cause of the hearing where the

respondent voluntarily presented to pay the money claims amounting to 79,000

pesos in an aggregate amounts to the four plaintiffs and that the back to work order

was being granted by the Labor Arbiter.

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

whose name was written in the check.

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

involved regarding illegal dismissal it is deemed close and terminated since

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

respected by the respondent contractor and owner.

PERSONAL END NOTES

An arbitration proceeding is not as technical as that of the regular courts.

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.

Amicable Settlement or reconciliation between the parties is the ultimate

goal of the arbitration proceedings before any judgment. And if there is no

settlement, position paper or pleading of both parties must be presented for

judgment or resolution by the NLRC.

The Labor Arbiter also provided as lectures on how they acquire

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

SEnA (Single Entry Approach) to provide speedy, impartial, inexpensive and


accessible procedure of all labor issues of conflicts to prevent them from ripening

into full blown disputes.

In the SEnA proceedings, parties shall be notified to give an answer. The

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

based from the merits of the labor dispute.

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen