RIZAL EMPIRE INSURANCE GROUP AND/OR SERGIO CORPUS V.

NLRC, TEODORICO RUIZ,

AND ROGELIO CORIA

GR NO 73140; MAY 29, 1987

FACTS: Private respondent, Rogelio Coria was dismissed from work, allegedly, on the grounds of
tardiness and unexcused absences. Accordingly, he filed a complaint for illegal dismissal. Labor
Arbiter Ruiz reinstated him to his position with backwages. Petitioner appealed to the NLRC, but
such was dismissed on the ground that it was filed out of time.

ISSUE: WON NLRC erred in dismissing petitioners appeal

RULING: NO, The record shows that the employer (petitioner herein) received a copy of the
decision of the Labor Arbiter on April 1, 1985. It filed a Motion for Extension of Time to File
Memorandum of Appeal on April 11, 1985 and filed the Memorandum of Appeal on April 22,
1985. Pursuant to the "no extension policy" of the National Labor Relations Commission,
aforesaid motion for extension of time was denied in its resolution dated November 15, 1985 and
the appeal was dismissed for having been filed out of time.
 HONGKONG AND SHANGHAI BANKING CORPORATION EMPLOYES UNION V. NLRC AND
HSBC LIMITED

GR NO. 113541; NOVEMBER 22, 2001

FACTS: Respondent corporation filed an injunction against petitioner from unlawfully

barricading and/or obstructing the free ingress to and egress from the respondent bank's offices
in Makati City and Ortigas Center, Pasig City.

ISSUE: WHETHER OR NOT RESPONDENT NLRC ACTED WITH GRAVE ABUSE OF

DISCRETION IN DENYING ITS MOTION TO DISMISS AND GRANTING RESPONDENT BANK'S
PRAYER FOR THE ISSUANCE OF A WRIT OF PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION.

RULING: No, we see no grave abuse of discretion on the part of respondent NLRC in giving due
course to the petition for injunction filed by respondent bank. As aptly observed by the Solicitor
General, it is not necessary for the respondent bank to allege in verbatim the requisites for the
issuance of the temporary restraining order and/or writ of preliminary injunction under Article
218 (e) of the Labor Code.

Respondent bank made sufficient allegations that members of petitioner union were
unlawfully preventing or obstructing the free ingress to and egress from the respondent bank
premises; and disrupting operations, causing great and continuing damage to the bank in terms
of lost revenues. These allegations, as found by respondent NLRC, were proven by respondent
bank during the proceedings for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction.
 ILAW AT BUKLOD NG MANGGAGAWA V. NLRC, HON. CARMEN TALUSAN AND SMC

GR NO. 91980; JUNE 27, 1991

FACTS:

ISSUE:

RULING: