Labor Law II Digest

7/24/2019 Labor Law II Digest

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/labor-law-ii-digest 1/4

PAL VS NLRC

GR NO. 85985

13 AUGUST 1993

FACTS: PAL completely revised its 1966 Code of Discipline. The Code was circulated amon

the employees and was immediately implemented! and some employees were forthwith su"#ected

to the disciplinary measures em"odied therein.

The Philippine Airlines $mployees Association %PAL$A& filed a complaint "efore the 'ational

La"or (elations Commission %'L(C&. PAL$A contended that PAL! "y its unilateral

implementation of the Code! was uilty of unfair la"or practice! specifically Pararaphs $ and )

of Article *+9 and Article *,- of the La"or Code. PAL$A alleed that copies of the Code

had "een circulated in limited num"ers that "ein penal in nature the Code must conform with

the re/uirements of sufficient pu"lication! and that the Code was ar"itrary! oppressive! and

pre#udicial to the rihts of the employees.

0t prayed that implementation of the Code "e held in a"eyance that PAL should discuss the

su"stance of the Code with PAL$A that employees dismissed under the Code "e reinstated and

their cases su"#ected to further hearin and that PAL "e declared uilty of unfair la"or practice

and "e ordered to pay damaes PAL asserted its preroative as an employer to prescri"e rules

and reulations reardin employees2 conduct in carryin out their duties and functions! and

allein that "y implementin the Code! it had not violated the collective "arainin areement

%C3A& or any provision of the La"or Code. Assailin the complaint as unsupported "y evidence!

PAL maintained that Article *,- of the La"or Code cited "y PAL$A referred to the re/uirements

for neotiatin a C3A which was inapplica"le as indeed the current C3A had "een neotiated.

ISSUE: 45' the formulation of a Code of Discipline amon employees is a shared

responsi"ility of the employer and the employees

HELD: Petitioner2s assertion that it needed the implementation of a new Code of Discipline

considerin the nature of its "usiness cannot "e overemphasied. 0n fact! its "ein a local

monopoly in the "usiness demands the most strinent of measures to attain safe travel for its

patrons. 'onetheless! whatever disciplinary measures are adopted cannot "e properly

implemented in the a"sence of full cooperation of the employees. 7uch cooperation cannot "e

attained if the employees are restive on account! of their "ein left out in the determination of

cardinal and fundamental matters affectin their employment.



RUBBERWORLD (PHILS.) VS. NLRC

336 SCRA 433

UL! "6# "$$$

FACTS: Petitioner (u""erworld! a corporation esta"lished in 196,! is enaed in themanufacture of footwear! "as and arment. Private respondents are employees of the said

corporation. 8n Auust *6! 199+! (u""erworld filed with the Department of La"or and

employment a notice of temporary shutdown of operations to tae effect on 7eptem"er *6! 199+.3efore the effectivity date! however! (u""erworld was forced to prematurely shutdown its

operations.

8n 'ovem"er 11! 199+! private respondents filed with the 'L(C a complaint aainst petitioner for illeal dismissal and nonpayment of separation pay. 8n 'ovem"er **! 199+! (u""erworld

filed with the 7$C a petition for declaration of suspension of payments with a proposed

reha"ilitation plan.

8n Decem"er *;! 199+! 7$C issued an order suspendin all actions for claims aainst

(u""erworld in accordance with P.D. 9<*A. Despite this order! however! the La"or Ar"iter

ruled aainst (u""erworld! declarin its shutdown illeal and main the corporation lia"le for damaes and payment of separation pay. The 'L(C affirmed the decision of the La"or Ar"iter.

=ence! (u""er world filed with the 7C a petition to annul the 'L(C resolution.

ISSUE: 4hether or not 'L(C acted without or in e>cess of its #urisdiction?

HELD: P.D. 9<*A is clear that @all actions for claims aainst corporations! partnerships! or associations under manaement or receivership pendin "efore any court! tri"unal! "oard or "ody

shall "e suspended accordinly. 'L(C thus acted without an in e>cess of its #urisdiction when it

proceeded to decide the case despite the suspension order. As a conse/uence! any resolution

decisions or order that is rendered without #urisdiction is a nullity.



7t. Bartin uneral =ome vs. 'L(C

7T. BA(T0' '$(AL =8B$! petitioner! vs. 'AT08'AL LA38( ($LAT08'7

C8BB07708' and 30$'E$'0D8 A(0CAF87! respondents.

).(. 'o. 1-<;66

7eptem"er 16! 199;

($)ALAD8! G.:

FACTS:

Private respondent allees that he started worin as 8perations Banaer of petitioner 7t. Bartin

uneral =ome on e"ruary 6! 199,. =owever! there was no contract of employment e>ecuted

"etween him and petitioner nor was his name included in the semimonthly payroll. 8n Ganuary**! 1996! he was dismissed from his employment for alleedly misappropriatin P-;!<<<.<<.

Petitioner on the other hand claims that private respondent was not its employee "ut only the

uncle of Amelita Bala"ed! the owner of petitioner 7t.Bartins uneral =ome and in Ganuary1996! the mother of Amelita passed away! so the latter too over the manaement of the

"usiness.

Amelita made some chanes in the "usiness operation and private respondent and his wife wereno loner allowed to participate in the manaement thereof. As a conse/uence! the latter filed a

complaint charin that petitioner had illeally terminated his employment. The la"or ar"iter

rendered a decision in favor of petitioner declarin that no employeremployee relationshipe>isted "etween the parties and therefore his office had no #urisdiction over the case.

ISSUE: 48' the decision of the 'L(C are appeala"le to the Court of Appeals.

RULING:

The Court is of the considered opinion that ever since appeals from the 'L(C to the 7C wereeliminated! the leislative intendment was that the special civil action for certiorari was and still

is the proper vehicle for #udicial review of decisions of the 'L(C. The use of the

wordappeal in relation thereto and in the instances we have noted could have "een a lapsus plumae "ecause appeals "y certiorari and the oriinal action for certiorari are "oth modes of

#udicial review addressed to the appellate courts. The important distinction "etween them!



however! and with which the Court is particularly concerned here is that the special civil action

for certiorari is within the concurrent oriinal #urisdiction of this Court and the Court of Appeals

whereas to indule in the assumption that appeals "y certiorari to the 7C are allowed would notsu"serve! "ut would su"vert! the intention of the Conress as e>pressed in the sponsorship

speech on 7enate 3ill 'o. 1+9,.

Therefore! all references in the amended 7ection 9 of 3.P 'o. 1*9 to supposed appeals from the

'L(C to the 7upreme Court are interpreted and here"y declared to mean and refer to petitions

for certiorari under (ule6,. Conse/uently! all such petitions should henceforth "e initially filedin the Court of Appeals in strict o"servance of the doctrine on the hierarchy of courts as the

appropriate forum for the relief desired.

Documents

Labor Law II Digest