The Inequitable Appeal by

Management in Labor
Proceedings: Does it Violate the
Equal Protection Clause of the
Constitution?
By: Atty. Antonio A. Ligon, CPA, LLM
Professor, De La Salle University
RVR- COB

Outline

I
Labor Proceeding as compared to other
judicial proceeding ( jurisdiction)
II
Appeal
III Equal protection of the laws / Unjust enrichment
IV Conclusion & Recommendation

Application : Jurisdiction of Labor Arbiters & the

Commission:
original and exclusive jurisdiction to hear and decide,
involving all workers.
Unfair labor practice cases;
2. Termination disputes;
3. Claim for reinstatement, claim involving wages, rates of pay, hours of
work and
other terms and conditions of employment;
4. Claims for actual, moral, exemplary and other forms of damages arising
from the employer-employee relations;
1.

5. Cases involving the legality of strikes and lockouts; and

6. all other claims arising from employer-employee relations, including
those of
persons in domestic or household service, involving an
amount exceeding five thousand pesos (P5,000.00)
Except : Employees Compensation,
Social Security, Medicare and maternity benefits,
7. Cases arising from the interpretation or implementation of CBAs /
interpretation or enforcement of company personnel policies

NLRC - Philippine Labor Court

It has two levels:
Labor Arbiter, similar in
status to a Judge of the
Regional Trial Courts (RTC)

Appellate body composed of

the Commissioners, with
same authority as Justices of
the Court of Appeals (CoA)

Appeal Procedure: Labor Arbiter

NLRC
1

Filing of
Complai
nt

Arbitratio
n

1
Submission of

Memorand
um of
Parties

Submissi
on of
Position
Papers

2
Decision of the
NLRC

Hearin
g

Memorandu
m

3
Motion for
Reconsideratio
n of the NLRC

Decisio
n

4
Final Decision of
the NLRC

Appeal from NLRC

Petition for
Review on
Certiorari
with
Temporary
Restraining
Order (TRO)

Comment /
Memorandu
m of the
other party

Appeal to the
Supreme Court
on pure
questions of law

CA

Decision

Decision of the
SC

SC

Motion for
Reconsiderati
on

Motion for
Reconsideratio
n

Final Decision
of the CA

Final
Decision

Dates to Remember:
Labor Arbiter

Mandatory Conference
must be terminated within 30 days from first conference

Filing of Position Papers

10 days from notice of termination of mandatory conference

Decision of the labor arbiter

within 30 calendar days from submission for decision
No Motion for Reconsideration of Arbiters decision is allowed.
If MR is filed, it will be treated as an appeal to NLRC

Labor Arbiter

NLRC

10 calendar days from receipt of decision*

Monetary award perfection of appeal

posting of cash or surety bond
Reinstatementexecution even pending appeal
reinstate or payroll reinstatement
Memorandum of appeal to be answered within 10
calendar days from receipt
Decision of the NLRC 20 calendar days
Final and executory 10 days from receipt of
the parties

* No motion or request for extension of the period to

appeal

NLRCs decision

Motion for Reconsideration under oath

10 calendar days from receipt of
decision

Appeal to Court of Appeals

(Special Civil Action by Certiorari
under Rule 65)
60 days from notice of judgment /
or denial of the motion for reconsideration
A petition for certiorari shall not stay the
execution of the assailed decision of the NLRC unless a
TRO is
issued by CA

Petition
for certiorari
should be preceded by exhaustion of
Grounds
for certiorari:
administrative remedies
NLRC has acted without or in excess of its jurisdiction or
Certificate
non-forum
shopping is a requirement
with graveofabuse
of discretion

Article 223 of the Labor Code:

Appeal.
xxxx
In any event, the decision of the Labor Arbiter reinstating a dismissed or separated employee,
insofar as the reinstatement aspect is concerned, shall immediately be executory, even
pending appeal. The employee shall either be admitted back to work under the same terms
and conditions prevailing prior to his dismissal or separation, or at the option of the employer,
merely reinstated in the payroll. The posting of a bond by the employer shall not stay the
execution for reinstatement provided herein.
xxxx
RULE IX. SEC. 6. EXECUTION OF REINSTATEMENT PENDING APPEAL.

xxxx
The Sheriff shall serve the writ of execution upon the employer or any other person required by
law to obey the same. If he disobeys the writ, such employer or person may be cited for
contempt x x x

 Moreover, and equally worth emphasizing, is that

an order of reinstatement issued by the LA is selfexecutory, i.e., the dismissed employee need not
even apply for and the LA need not even issue a
writ of execution to trigger the employers duty to
reinstate the dismissed employee.
BERGONIO v. SOUTHEAST ASIAN AIRLINES, G.R. No. 195227, April 21,
2014

Equal Protection of laws under

Section 1, Article III, 1987 Philippine Constitution:

"

No Person shall be deprived of life, liberty or

property nor shall any person be denied equal
protection of laws".

All persons or things similarly situated should be treated

alike, both as to rights conferred and responsibilities
imposed.
Law enforced and applied equally
Available to all persons- natural and juridical
Equality among equals

Nature of appeal :
Although appeal is an essential part of judicial
system, it has been held time and again, that the
right or part thereto is not constitutional , natural
inherent right or part of due process.
( Land Bank of the Philippines vs.CA, G.R. No. 190660,April 11, 2011)

One who avail himself of it is required to strictly

comply with the statues or rules, which should
remain inviolable, in the absence of highly
exceptional circumstances warranting their
relaxation.
( Lebin vs. Mirasl, G.R.No. 164255,September 7, 2011)

 Then, by and pursuant to the same power (police

power), the State may authorize an immediate
implementation, pending appeal, of a decision
reinstating a dismissed or separated employee
since that saving act is designed to stop,
although temporarily since the appeal may be
decided in favor of the appellant, a continuing
threat or danger to the survival or even the life of
the dismissed or separated employee and his
family.
Roquero v. Philippine Airlines,, G.R. No. 195227, April 21,
2014citing Aris (Phil.) Inc. v.
NLRC, 200 SCRA 246 (1991).

On the issue of unjust enrichment :

Clearly, the principle of unjust enrichment does not apply. First,
the provision on reinstatement pending appeal is in accord with
the social justice philosophy of our Constitution. It is meant
to afford full protection to labor as it aims to stop (albeit
temporarily, since the appeal may be decided in favor of the
employer) a continuing threat or danger to the survival or even
the life of the dismissed employee and his family.
Second, the provision on reinstatement pending appeal partakes
of a special law that must govern the instant case. The provision
of the Civil Code on unjust enrichment, being of general
application, must give way.
(Aris (Phil.) Inc. v. NLRCG.R. No. 90501, August 5, 1991, 200

SCRA 246 )

Labor :
Doubt as to the
interpretation of labor
laws and regulations in
favor of labor
(Art.4, Labor Code)
This is not limited to
interpretation of legal
provisions. It extends to
doubts as to evidence of
disputants.
well-settled doctrine
Nicario vs.
NLRC

Management:
Not automatically in favor of
labor
The law is protecting the rights of
the laborer authorizes neither
oppression nor self-destruction of
the employer.
More importantly while the
Constitution is committed to the
policy of social justice and the
protection of the working class, it
should not be supposed that every
labor dispute will automatically be
decided in favor of labor.
(Meralco vs. NLRC G.R. No.78763
July 12, 1989)

Thank you