NOVA (Labor Relations)

8/6/2019 NOVA (Labor Relations)

1/7

NOVA vs. Judge Sancho Dames II

Facts: Gregorio Nova filed with theNLRC Reg. Arbitration, Legaspi city, acomplaint for illegal dismissal,underpayment of wages, non-payment

of holipay pay, rest day, overtime pay,13th mo. Pay and other allowances,backwages, separation pay anddamages against the R.A.Broadcasting Corp. Station DZRMrepresented by VP for OperationsVilma Barcelona and Station ManagerDeo Trinidad.

Labor Arbiter rendered a judgmentin favor of Nova. Respondentsappealed the decision to the NLRC in

QC who dismissed the deal, MR waslikewise denied as it was filed out oftime. Aggrieved by the resolution,respondent filed with SC a petition forcertiorari. SC dismissed the petitionand also denied the MR thereafterfiled.

The decision having become final,NLRC issued an alias writ of execution.Sheriff levied on real property belongto Sps. Barcelona and scheduled

auction sale.

Sps. Barcelona filed with RTC, Cam.Norte a civil action for damages with

TRO due to wrongful attachment oftheir property. Respondent Judgeissued TRO restraining Sheriff fromconducting public auction hencecomplainant Nova filed administrativecharge against Judge Sancho Dames IIalleging that issuance of TROconstituted a violation of Art. 254 of

the Labor Code

Issue: W/N RTC has jurisdiction toissue a TRO in labor cases.

Ruling: A regular court has no jurisdiction to hear and decidequestions which arise and areincidental to the enforcement ofdecisions, orders or awards renderedin labor cases by appropriate officersand tribunals of the DOLE. Corollarily,any controversy in the execution ofthe judgment shall be referred to thetribunal which issued the writ ofexecution since it has the inherentpower to control its own processes inorder to enforce its judgments andorders. True, an action for damageslies within the jurisdiction of a RTC.However, RTC has no jurisdiction toissue a TRO in labor cases.

Indeed, respondent Judge restrainedthe execution of a final decision of the

labor arbiter which he cannot lawfullydo.

YUPANGCO Cotton Mills, Inc. vs.CA

Facts: A third-party whose propertyhas been levied upon by a sheriff toenforce a decision against a judgmentdebtor is afforded with severalalternative remedies to protect its

interests. The third party may availhimself of alternative remediescumulatively, and one will notpreclude the third party from availinghimself of the other alternativeremedies in the event he failed in theremedy first availed of.

Thus, a third party may availhimself of the following alternativeremedies:

a) File a third party claim with theSheriff or the labor arbiter; and

b) If the third party claim is denied,the third party may appeal thedenial to the NLRC.

Even if a third party claim wasdenied, a third party may still file aproper action with a competent courtto recover ownership of the propertyillegally seized by the sheriff.

Issue: Whether CA erred in rulingthat petition was guilty of forumshopping 2) whether CA erred indismissing the petitioners accionreivindicatoria on the ground of lack of

jurisdiction of trial court.

Ruling: The filing of a third-partyclaim with the Labor Arbiter and theNLRC did not preclude the petitionerfrom filing a subsequent action forrecovery of property and dates withthe RTC. And, the institution of suchcomplaint will not make petitionerguilty of forum shopping.

The RTC where the reinvindicatoryaction is filed can issue an injunctionor temporary restraining order againstthe execution ordered by a laborarbiter or the NLRC.


2/7

TANONGON vs. SAMSON, et al.

Facts: Cayco Marine Service (CAYCO)is engaged in the business of haulingoi. It is owned and operated byIluminada Cayco Olizon. Fouremployees (respondents) won in theirillegal dismissal case against theiremployer. In due time the LaborArbiter issued a writ of execution.When the sheriff levied upon a tankerpurportedly belonging to theemployer, petitioner Tanongon filed a

third-party claim, alleging that he wasthe owner of the tanker because it hadbeen sold to her.

Issue: Can the execution proceed?

Ruling: The CA correctly ruled thatthe act of Olizon was a cavalierattempt to evade payment of the

judgment debt.

The appellate court ruled furtherthat the disputed contract was notmerely rescissible; it was simulated orfictitious and, thus, void ab initio.

A third party claim on a leviedproperty does not automaticallyprevent execution. When a third-partyclaim is filed, the sheriff is not boundto proceed with the levy of theproperty unless the judgment creditorposts an indemnity bond. Where thebond is filed, the remedy of the third-party claimant is to file anindependent reivindicatory actionagainst the judgment creditor or thepurchaser of the property at publicauction. The NLRC should not haveautomatically lifted the levy andrestrained execution, just because athird-party claim had been filed.

Further, judicial rescission is notnecessary in the case at bar.Petitioners claim of ownership overthe disputed tanker is not supported

by the evidence on record. TheMaritime Industry Authority (Marina)administrator wrote the parties in twoseparate letters, which said that theregistration of the disputed vesselunder petitioners name had not been

effected, and that the Certificates ofOwnership and Vessel Registrycovering the motor tanker M/T Petron7-CI had not been released. Insofar asthird persons like herein respondentswere concerned, the ownership of thedisputed vessel remained with Olizonand CAYCO; thus, the CA correctlyheld that the NLRC could proceed withthe levy and the sale on execution.

VELOSO and Liguaton vs. DOLE,Noahs Ark

Facts: The controversy began whenthe petitioners, along with several co-employees, filed a complaint against

the private respondent for unfair laborpractices, underpayment andnonpayment of overtime, holiday andother benefits. This was decided infavor of the complainants.

Private respondent Noahs Ark filedMR and recomputation of the amountawarded to petitioners. While Motionas pending, Veloso through his wife,signed a Quitclaim and Release forand in consideration of Php25k. Onsame day, his counsel manifested aSatisfaction of Judgment becauseVeloso had received said amount.Liguaton filed also same action forPhp20k. These releases were laterimpugned by petitioners alleging thatthey were constrained to sign thedocument because of extremenecessity which the USEC of Laborrejected hence this petition forcertiorari w/ SC.

Issue: W/N there was a validcompromise and quitclaim?

Ruling: The law looks with disfavorupon quitclaims and releases byemployers who are inveigled orpressured into signing them byunscrupulous employers seeking toevade their legal responsibilities. Onthe other hand, there are legitimatewaivers that represent a voluntarysettlement of a laborers claims that


3/7

should be respected by the courts asthe law between the parties.

The Court has deliberated on theissues and the arguments of theparties and finds that the petition

must fail. The exception and not therule shall be applied in this case.

Dire necessity is not anacceptable ground for annulling thereleases, especially since it has notbeen shown that the employees hadbeen forced to execute them. It hasnot even been proven that theconsiderations for the quitclaims wereunconscionable low and that thepetitioners had been tricked into

accepting them.

Applicable law is Article 227 of theLabor Code. Petitioners cannot renegeon their agreement simply becausethey may now feel they made amistake in not awaiting the resolutionof the private respondents motion forreconsideration and recomputation.

The possibility that the original awardmight have been affirmed does not

justify the invalidation of the perfectly

valid compromise agreements theyhad entered into in good faith and withfull voluntariness.

PROGRESSIVE DEVT. CORP.-PIZZAHUT vs. Laguesma and NLM-KATIPUNAN

Facts: The Union, Nagkakaisang Lakasng Manggagawa (NLM)-Katipunan,filed a petition for certification electionwith the Dept. of Labor in behalf of therank-and-file employees of theProgressive Devt. Corp. (Pizza Hut).

Petitioner employer filed a Motionto Dismiss the petition alleging fraud,falsification and misrepresentation inthe respondent Unions registration,making it void and invalid. The motionspecifically alleged that: a)respondent Unions registration wastainted with false, forged, double ormultiple signatures of those whoallegedly took part in the ratification ofthe respondent Unions constitutionand by-laws and in the election of itsofficers; thus, there were seriousfalsities in the dates of the issuance ofthe charter certification and theorganization meeting of the allegedchapter.

Petitioner also filed a petitionseeking the cancellation of the Unionsregistration on the grounds of fraud

and falsification. Petitioner also filedwith the Med-Arbiter a motionrequesting suspension of proceedingsin the certification election case untilafter the prejudicial question of theUnions legal personality is determined

in the proceedings for cancellation ofregistration.

Med-Arbiter directed the holdingof a certification election amongpetitioners rank and file employees.

An appeal to the office of theSecretary of Labor was denied, aswell as a MR. In DOLE Resolution, thesuggestion is made that once a labororganization has filed the necessary

documents and papers and the samehave been certified under oath andattested to, said organizationnecessarily becomes clothed with thecharacter of a legitimate labororganization. In other words,recognition by the Bureau of LaborRelations becomes merely aministerial function.

Issues: W/N the public respondentcommitted grave abuse of discretion

in affirming the Med-Arbiters order toconduct a certification election amongpetitioners rank and file employees

Ruling: We do not agree.

In the first place, the publicrespondents views as expressed in hisResolution miss the entire pointbehind the nature and purpose ofproceedings leading to the recognitionof unions as legitimate labororganizations under Art. 234 of theLabor Code.

A more than cursory reading of theaforecited provisions clearly indicatesthat the requirements embodiedtherein are intended as preventivemeasures against the commission offraud. After a Labor Organization hadfiled the necessary papers anddocuments for registration, it becomesmandatory for the BLR to check if therequirements under Art. 234 havebeen sedulously complied with. If itsapplication for registration is vitiatedby falsification and seriousirregularities, especially thoseappearing on the face of theapplication and the supportingdocuments, a labor organizationshould be denied recognition as alegitimate labor organization. Amd if acertificate of recognition has beenissued, then propriety of the labororganization registration could be


4/7

assailed directly through cancellationof registration proceedings inaccordance with Arts. 238 and 239 ofthe Labor Code, or indirectly, bychallenging its petition for theissuance of an order for certification

election.

Furthermore, the Labor Codeitself grants the BLR a period of thirty(30) days within which to review allapplications for registration under Art.235.

The thirty day period in theaforecited provision ensures that anyaction taken by the BLR is made inconsonance with the mandate of the

Labor Code; which, it bears emphasis,specifically requires that the basis forthe issuance of a certificate ofregistration should be compliance withthe requirements for recognition underArt. 234. Obviously, recognition of alabor union or labor organization is notmerely a ministerial function.

Liberty Cotton Mills WorkersUnion vs. Liberty Cotton Mills,Inc.

Facts: A CBA was entered into by thecompany and the union representedby PAFLU whereby the local union wasrecognized as the sole bargainingagent. While the CBA was still inforce, 32 out of 36 members of theunion disaffiliated from the motherfederation. PAFLU, alleging thedisaffiliation to be contrary to theunion security clause, requested thecompany to terminate theemployment of the employees, which

the company did, and at the sametime expelled them from membershipin the mother federation.

Issues: W/N the dismissal of thecomplaining employees, was justified

or not?

Ruling: The resolution of this casehinged on the status of the contractbetween the local union and PAFLU,the mother federation. In the CBA, itappeared that PAFLU had beenrecognized as the sole bargainingagent for all the employees of thecompany except the supervisors andsecurity guards. PAFLU, acting for andin behalf of its affiliate, had the status

of an agent while the local unionremained the basic unit of theassociation, free to secure thecommon interest of all its membersincluding the freedom to disaffiliatewhen the circumstances warrant. Thiswas clearly stated in its constitutionand by laws which provided that thelocal union should remain an affiliateas long as 10 or more of the membersevidence their desire to continue theaffiliation. As only 4 did not sign the

resolution for disaffiliation, the intentto disaffiliate was manifest. Hence,the dismissal from employment wasnot justified.

As to the liability of thecompany, it was limited only toreinstatement of the employees, thedismissal having been made at theinstance of the national Union. Thelatter was liable for backwages.

Villar, et al. vs. Inciong, etc.

Facts: Petitioners were members ofthe Amigo Employees Union-PAFLUand the existing bargaining agent ofthe employees in private respondentAmigo Mfg. Inc. The company and the


5/7

union had a collective bargainingagreement governing their laborrelations.

Petitioners insist that theirdisaffiliation from PAFLUY and filing a

petition for certification election arenot acts of disloyalty but an exerciseof their right to self organization.

They contend that these acts weredone within the 60-day period whenthe questions of representation mayfreely be raised.

Issues:

Ruling: PAFLU acted when, afterproper investigation and finding of

guilt, it decided to remove theoppositors from the list of members ofthe Amigo Employees Union-PAFLU,and thereafter, recommended to theAmigo Mfg. Inc. the termination of theemployment of the oppositors.

When a union which is notindependently registered disaffiliatesfrom the federation, it is not entitledto the rights and privileges granted toa legitimate labor organization. It

cannot file a petition for certificationelection.

Kapisanan ng ManggagawangPinagyakap (KMP) vs. Trajano

Facts: On June 30, 1981 a writtenrequest for accounts examination of

the financial status of the KMP LaborUnion, existing labor union at FranklinBaker Co. in San Pablo City was filedby res. Catalino Silvestre and 13 otheremployees who are members of theUnion. Thereafter Union Account

Examiner of Ministry of Labor &Employment conducted the necessaryinvestigation and submitted a reportwith some revelations.

A petition for the expulsion ofthe union officers on the ground thatthey committed gross violation of thelabor code, and the constitution andby-laws of the Union which was deniedby said union officers arguing that thedisallowed expenditures were made in

good faith; that the same conduced tothe benefit of the members and thatthey are willing to reimburse the samefrom their own personal funds

Issues: Whether to expel or suspendthe union officers from their respectivepositions?

Ruling: The court should neverremove a public officer for acts doneprior to his present term of office. To

do otherwise would be to deprive thepeople of their right to elect theirofficers. When the people haveelected a man to office, it must beassumed that they did this withknowledge of his life and character;and that they disregarded or forgavehis faults of misconduct, if he hadbeen guilty of any. It is not for thecourt, by reason of such faults ormisconduct, to practically overrule thewill of the people.


6/7

Litton Mills Employees Asso.-Kapatiran vs. Ferrer Calleja

Facts: on August 14, 1986, withoutthe knowledge and approval of thegeneral membership of LMEA-K, Umali

Affiliated petitioner-union with thefederation of GATCORD (NationalUnion of Garments, Textile Cordageand General Workers of the Phils.

As a consequence, a majority of theunion-members, numbering 725 3 outof a total membership of 1,100, moreor less, opposed the affiliation ofLMEA-K with GATCORD, and expresslymanifested their intention to remainas an independent-union andauthorized petitioner Abong to takeappropriate steps against respondentUmali, including impeachment, shouldthe latter continue the affiliation of thepetitioner-union with GATCORD.

Issues:

Ruling: As to the impeachment of aunion officer, Section 2, Article XV ofthe

petitioner-union's Constitution and By-Laws provides the procedures to befollowed, to wit: (1) Impeachmentshould be initiated by petition signedby at least 30% of all bona fidemembers of the union, and addressedto the Chairman of the ExecutiveBoard; (b) A general membershipmeeting shall be convened by theBoard Chairman to consider theimpeachment of an officer; (c) Beforeany impeachment vote is finally taken,

the union officer against whomimpeachment charges have been filedshall be given ample opportunity todefend himself , and (d) A majority ofall the members of the union shall berequired to impeach or recall unionofficers.

It clearly appears that the above citedprocedure was not followed by thepetitioners when they impeachedUmali. To be sure, there was difficulty

on the part of the petitioners incomplying with the required procedurefor impeachment, considering that thepetition to impeach had to beaddressed to the Chairman of theExecutive Board of the Union, and thatthe majority membership which woulddecide on the impeachment had to beconvened only upon call of theChairman of the Executive Board who,in the case at bar, happened to berespondent Umali himself.

Nevertheless, despite the practicaldifficulties in complying with the saidprocedure, petitioners should haveshown substantial compliance withsaid impeachment procedure, bygiving Umali ample opportunity to

defend himself, as contrasted to anoutright impeachment, right after hefailed to appear before the first andonly investigation.

Alex Ferrer, et al. vs. Natl. LaborRelations Commission, et al.

Facts:On May 6, 1989, petitioner AlexFerrer and companions filed with the

DOLE, a complaint seeking theexpulsion from SAMAHAN of itsofficers headed by president Capitle.

The complaint alleged that officersfailed to attend to the economicdemands of the workers. Later,however, petitioners Diaz and Ferrerwithdrew from the petition complaint.

On September 10, 1989, Ferrer andcompanions conducted a specialelection of officers of the SAMAHAN.

FFW, the federation to whichSMAAHAN was affiliated, questionedthe election. Nonetheless, the electedset of officers tried to dissuade theOFM (employer) from remitting uniondues to the officers led by Capitle.

On Sept. 11, 1989, the unionofficials headed by Capitle expelledFerrer, etal from the union.

Ferrer and his companions turned tothe FEDLU (Federation of DemocraticLabor Unions). They volunterred to beadmitted as members of the FEDLUand requested that they berepresented (katawanin) by saidfederation before the DOLE in thecomplaint which they intended to fileagainst the union (SMAHAN), the FFWand the company for illegal dismissal,reinstatement, and other benefits.

Thereafter, on various dates,

petitioners wrote the Company toprofess innocence of the chargeslevelled against them by theSAMAHAN and the FFW and to pleadthat they be reinstated. Eliciting noresponse, they, through the FEDLUfiled a complaint for illegal dismissaland ULP before the NLRC against OFC,the FFW and the SAMAHAN officers,headed by Capitle. At the time theywere dismissed, they had been regularOFC employees for about ten years.


7/7

Issues:

Ruling: In the first place, the unionhas a specific provision for thepermanent or temporary "expulsion"of its erring members in itsconstitution and by-laws ("saligangbatas at alituntunin").

No hearing ("pandinig") was everconducted by the SAMAHAN to lookinto petitioners' explanation of theirmoves to oust the union leadershipunder Capitle, or their subsequentaffiliation with FEDLU. While it is truethat petitioners' actions might have

precipitated divisiveness and, later,showed disloyalty to the union, still,the SAMAHAN should have observedits own constitution and by-laws bygiving petitioners an opportunity to airtheir side and explain their moves. If,after an investigation the petitionerswere found to have violated unionrules, then and only then should theybe subjected to proper disciplinarymeasures.

Petitioners sought the help of theFEDLU only after they had learned ofthe termination of their employmentupon the recommendation of Capitle.

Their alleged application withfederations other than the FFW canhardly be considered as disloyalty tothe SAMAHAN, nor may the filing ofsuch applications denote thatpetitioners failed to maintain in goodstanding their membership in theSAMAHAN. The SAMAHAN is a different

entity from FFW, the federation towhich it belonged. Neither may it, beinferred that petitioners soughtdisaffiliation from the FFW forpetitioners had not formed a uniondistinct from that of the SAMAHAN.

Hence, while petitioners' act of holdinga special election to oust Capitle, et al.may be considered as an act of sowingdisunity among the SAMAHANmembers, and, perhaps, disloyalty to

the union officials, which could havebeen dealt with by the union as adisciplinary matter, it certainly cannotbe considered as constitutingdisloyalty to the union. Faced with aSAMAHAN leadership which they hadtried to remove as officials, it was buta natural act of self-preservation thatpetitioners fled to the arms of theFEDLU after the union and the OFChad tried to terminate theiremployment. Petitioners should not be

made accountable for such an act.

NOVA (Labor Relations)

Documents

Transcript of NOVA (Labor Relations)