Corporation v. NLRC. The Supreme Court Says Consolidated Rural Bank v. NLRC, 301 SCRA 223
Corporation v. NLRC. The Supreme Court Says Consolidated Rural Bank v. NLRC, 301 SCRA 223
on the merits of
claims for overtime pay, holiday pay, 13th the case simply on the basis of the position
month pay, sick leave pay, which are all papers filed by the parties?
included in the complaint for illegal dismissal
but not proven because no evidence is given is The answer is yes. It is entirely within the bounds
given for non-payment? of the Labor Arbiter’s authority to decide a case
based on mere position papers and supporting
The answer is in a 1994 case. Seaborne Carriers document, without a formal trial or hearing. It is
Corporation v. NLRC. The Supreme Court says well-settled that the holding of a hearing is
yes. The burden of proving that payment of said discretionary and not a matter of right.
benefits has been made rests upon the party Consolidated Rural Bank v. NLRC, 301 SCRA 223.
who would suffer if no evidence at all is
presented by either party. That is the employer.
It is the employer that is required to maintain May the Labor Arbiter rule upon the merits of
payroll records. And for how long must he the case on the basis of a supplemental position
maintain it? At least three years under the Labor paper and memorandum submitted by one of
Code. Under the NIRC, he must maintain it for at the parties after the parties have filed their
least five years. position papers and agreed to consider the case
submitted for decision?
Since it is the employer who has the payroll
records, he has the evidence to prove payment What if one party submits a supplemental
or non-payment. He just has to produce it. If he position paper and he does not give a copy to the
does not produce it, then what is the assumption other party? And the Labor Arbiter receives and
of law? The party who is the only one that has takes note of the supplemental position paper?
evidence and he does not present that evidence, And on the basis of the additional arguments and
then that evidence must be inimical to his cause. evidence submitted, he decides?
The employee can allege anything, especially That is foul. The other party must have the same
when it comes to salary and benefits. Suppose he ambit of opportunity as the other party. So that
alleges and he was not there. You produce the is not allowed.
payroll. “This payroll is complete. He’s not there
because he’s not employed.”
May the Labor Arbiter rule on an illegal
dismissal complaint filed by a pastor against the
May the Labor Arbiter rule upon claims not Seventh Day Adventist Mission Corporation, in
alleged in the complaint but made in the view of the principle of the separation of church
complainant’s position paper? and State?
The answer is yes, provided the claims are made In Austria v. NLRC, a 1999 decision, the Supreme
in the complainant’s position paper. The claims Court said yes. What is involved here is the
for wage differentials not made either in the relationship of the church as an employer, and
complaint or in the position paper cannot be the minister as an employee, because they have
passed upon. If the employer does not provide a written contract. The minister was not
evidence to refute that claim, the employer excommunicated or expelled from membership
loses. of the church, but was terminated from
employment. The case does not concern an
ecclesiastical or purely religious affair as to bar
the State from taking cognizance of the case.
questioning the amount of the bond is just
dilatory.
Can the Labor Arbiter rule upon a complaint
filed by two union members for illegal and
exorbitant deduction, and illegal expulsion, When is the late filing of the bond allowed?
against their union?
Exceptions to the rule:
The answer of the Supreme Court is no. Clearly, 1. When the appealed decision did not
this is an intra-union dispute, which falls under state the exact amount of the monetary
the original and exclusive jurisdiction of the BLR award.
and the Labor Relations Division of the Regional “Wherefore, respondent is ordered to
Office. That is Ilaw at Buklod ng Manggagawa pay just overtime to the complainant.”
v. NLRC, 219 SCRA 586. Just overtime? Wala may numero
gibutang so how can you put up a bond?
You file a motion to clarify the
When is an appeal to the NLRC from the Labor dispositive portion by specifying the
Arbiter deemed perfected? amount.
It is deemed perfected upon the filing of a cash 2. When the employer perfected his appeal
or surety bond in the amount equivalent to the before the decision of the court fell
monetary award in the judgment appealed from. under RA 6715, or where the employer
So if you cannot perfect the bond, then your only appeals the award for damages and
appeal is deemed incomplete, and the time not the money claims.
lapses for you to appeal, in which case you have
not perfected your appeal on time.
CASE: Nestle v. NLRC, 195 SCRA 340, 1991.
Suppose you appeal but you do not question Nestle found its salespersons of the Infant
the monetary award. What you question is the Formula Division as selling their samples. So they
award for moral damages. Do you have to file a were dismissed. You know very well that
bond? salespersons have car plans – the company buys
the car and puts it in the name of the employee,
No, because moral damages is not a monetary but the employee executes a chattel mortgage
award. to the company, and so he owes the balance of
the loan taken out to purchase that car.
If you have an objection to the magnitude of the After it was announced that they were
bond – you claim that the bond is too much and dismissed, the company also writes them a
your right to appeal is rendered nugatory – letter, saying: “The car in your possession is
what do you do? actually under the car plan. You have two
choices: pay the balance or return the car.”
You file a motion for reduction of the bond. But
what is the rule now in remedial law when you The salespersons filed an illegal dismissal
file a motion for reduction of the bond? The rule complaint. The moment they filled the illegal
is when you question, you must make a counter- dismissal complaint, they were able to resist the
proposal, and you must at least deposit 10% of civil case filed by the employer Nestle. Nestle
the counter-proposal. Otherwise, your filed a separate civil case of replevin to recover
the vehicles because the salespersons did not is the right of possession in the plaintiff. The
turn over the vehicles or pay the balance. question of whether or not a party has a right of
possession over the property involved, and if so,
Their defense in the replevin: (1) It is not yet whether or not adverse party has wrongfully
settled that they have to return it because the taken and detain said property as to require its
illegal dismissal case that is filed is a prejudicial return to the plaintiff, is outside the pale of
question; and (2) the regular courts have no competence of a labor tribunal and beyond the
jurisdiction over the replevin because this car is field of specialization of Labor Arbiters.
given to us by virtue of our employment.
The labor dispute involved is not intertwined
According to the Supreme Court, the NLRC with the issue in the replevin case. The
gravely abused its discretion and exceeded its respective issues raised in each forum can be
jurisdiction by issuing the writ of injunction to resolved independently from the other. The
stop the company from enforcing the civil determination of the question of who has the
obligation of the private respondents under the better right to take possession is addressed to
car loan agreements, and from protecting its the competence of the civil courts, not the Labor
interest in the cars which, by the terms of those Arbiter.
agreements, belong to the company until their
purchase price shall have been fully paid by the So whether or not there is chattel mortgage, it
employee. The terms of the car loan agreements does not matter. Rightful possession of personal
are not in issue in the labor case. The rights and property is a civil law question, and therefore,
obligations of the parties under those contracts replevin is still proper.
may be enforced by a separate civil action in the
regular courts, not the NLRC.
CASE: A personal loan from a company president
Chattel mortgage, nominate contract – Civil to an employee is not within the ambit of the
Code man na. That’s a sign that the Labor Arbiter jurisdiction of the Labor Arbiter. Moreover, the
has no jurisdiction. NLRC cannot have appellate jurisdiction over the
case.
CASE: Smart Communications v. Astorga, 542 The Supreme Court said that the personal loan
SCRA 434 to the manager is mutuum – that is Civil Code,
that is not covered and not arising from
Same issue. This one is a supervisor of Smart. She employer-employee relationship.
was separated from service after ample
opportunity to be heard. She had a car under car
plan. Then the letter of Smart: “Return the car or CASE: Here is a manager that is given privileges
pay the balance.” in the place where he works. He works in a body
repair shop and vehicle motor services. He is
The only difference between this and the Nestle allowed to have his own car repaired on loan.
case is that there is no chattel mortgage because After he had his car repaired, he resigned. The
she was an executive. There was just a simple employer files a money claims complaint against
memorandum. The defense of the supervisor is this former manager to recover the amount of
that the precedent of the Nestle case does not the repair on his vehicle.
apply. Is she correct?
The Supreme Court says that is not a labor
The Supreme Court said that Nestle still applies. question. That is a civil law question. That is
Replevin is a possessory action, the gist of which mutuum.
another place of work “betrays the real intent of
management” and could be a “punitive move.”
CASE: Claim for notarial fees of a lawyer Her posture unwittingly concedes that the issue
employed by a company is within the jurisdiction is labor-related, and not related to her right to
of the Labor Arbiter, where the engagement of privacy.
the lawyer as in-house legal counsel includes the
stipulation of “not counting notarial fees.”
CASE: Marino Jr. and UST Faculty Union v.
In-house counsel so he is an employee of the Gamilla et al., January 31, 2005
company. He receives a regular salary. Over and
above that, the engagement says he is also paid Third Division. Penned by Justice Tinga.
notarial fees. So he can claim notarial fees upon
his severance from the company. Two sets of officers of the union fought each
other. Ang gibuhat sa incumbent, gi-trangkahan
nila ang office sa union. Dili makasulod ang new
CASE: Manila Electric Co. v. Rosario Gopez Lim, set of officers. Kautang-utang sila ug kwarta to
October 5, 2010 run the union’s activities. So they filed a case
against the former set of officers before the BLR
En banc decision. Ponente is Justice Carpio- because that is intra-union dispute. In the
Morales. complaint, they have a prayer for damages
because of the money, the trouble, etc. The BLR
She is a manager of Meralco in one district, and ordered the payment of damages.
she has been receiving threats according to
management. So the management, after Kasab-an sila sa Supreme Court. There is nothing
investigating, said “It is better for you to be in the Labor Code which says that you can award
transferred.” When she was transferred, it was damages.
much farther than where she lived. So she was
forced to resign. She filed a case of constructive That’s why it needs amendment. Before, the
dismissal against the employer. Together with Labor Arbiter could not award damages. That’s
her complaint, she files with the courts a petition why if you were asking damages because of your
for habeas data – that she should be informed of illegal dismissal, you had to file another case with
what these threats are. the civil courts. That was ended when RA 6715
amended the Labor Code. Now, the Labor
The Supreme Court that she is not entitled to Arbiter can award damages. So far, though, the
habeas data. There is no showing from the facts BLR is not given powers to award damages.
presented that petitioners committed any
unjustifiable or unlawful violation of
respondent’s right to privacy vis-à-vis the right to
life, liberty, or security. To argue that petitioners’
refusal to disclose the contents of reports
allegedly received on the threats to respondent’s
safety amounts to a violation of her privacy is, at
best, speculative. Respondent in fact trivializes
these threats and accusations from unknown
individuals in her earlier-quoted portion of her
July 10, 2008 letter as “highly suspicious,
doubtful or are just mere jokes if they existed at
all.” And she even suspects that her transfer to