Scribd Logo
Încărcați

Bine ați venit la Scribd!

  • Labor Review Notes 2

    Încărcat de

    Ming
    21 vizualizări21 pagini
    Labor

    Drepturi de autor

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Formate disponibile

    PDF sau citiți online pe Scribd

    Vi se pare util acest document?

    Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

    Raportați acest document
    Labor

    Drepturi de autor:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Descărcați ca PDF sau citiți online pe Scribd
    Indicator pentru conținut neadecvat
    21 vizualizări21 pagini

    Labor Review Notes 2

    Încărcat de

    Ming
    Labor

    Drepturi de autor:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Descărcați ca PDF sau citiți online pe Scribd
    Indicator pentru conținut neadecvat
    din 21
    er: uestion 21: tion 1: to dismiss? Explain. jer 21: In the CONCORDE HOTEL case (GR 144089, 09 August 2001), the SC clarified that: Petitioner is correct insofar as It considered the nature of private respondent's position as assistant cook as a position trust and confidence. As assistant cook, private respondent is charged with the care of food preparation in the hotel's coffee shop. He Is also responsible for the custody of food supplies and must see to it that there is sufficient stock in the hotel kitchen. He should not permit food or other materials to be taken out from the kitchen without the necessary order slip or authorization as these are properties of the hotel. Thus, the nature of private respondent's position as assistant cook places upon him the duty of care and custody of Concorde’s property. QUESTIONS ON REMEDIES IN ILLEGAL DISMISSAL What are the remedies for illegal dismissal? 1. In the abovecited case of Al RODRIGUEZ (GR153947, 05 December 2002), it was reiterated that: Under Art. 279 of the Labor Code, an employee who is unjustly dismissed is entitled to reinstatement, without loss of seniority rights and other privileges, and to the payment of his full backwages, inclusive of allowances, and other benefits or their monetary equivalent, computed from the time his compensation was withheld from him (which, as a rule, Is from the time of his illegal dismissal) up to the time of his actual reinstatement. “(Citing the following cases): Bustamante v. National Labor Relations Commission, 265 SCRA 61 (19960, cited in Prudential Bank and Trust Company v. Reyes, 352 SCRA 316 (2001), Jardin v, National Labor Relations Commission, 326 SCRA 299 (2000), Phillppine Industrial Security Agency Corporation v. Dapiton, 320 SCRA 124 (1999), Rutaqulo v. National Labor Relations Commission, 317 SCRA 1 (1999), Pepsi Cola Products Philippines, Inc. v, NLRC, 315 SCRA 587 (1999), Jardine Davies, Inc. v. NLRC, 311 SCRA 289 (1999), Times Transit Credit Cooperative, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission, 304 SCRA 11 (1999), Highway Capra Traders v, National Labor Relations Commission, 293 SCRA 350 (1998) Is a Hotel Assistant Cook occupying a position of trust for purposes of the doctrine of loss of confidence as a just cause 2. In ANFLO MGT. AND INVESTMENT Corp, v: : . VS, BOLANDO 3 141608, 04 October 2002), it was held: : SS Under Article 279 of the Labor Code, as amended, an Employee who Is unjustly dismissed frorn work shall be Entitled to reinstatement without loss of seniority rights and 3. In NATIONAL BOOKSTORE Vs, CA (GR 146741, 27 February 2002), the Court held: Private respondents have been illegally dismissed. Consequently, they are entitled to reinstatement to their former positions without loss of seniority rights and payment Of back wages. (De Guzman vs. NLRC, 312 SCRA 266, 11 August 1999), Consequently private respondents, for having been illegally dismissed after 21 March 1989, conformably with established jurisprudence, (PCPPI v, NLRC, 315 SCRA 587, 30). 125 ’ UEST) Pi RES IN GENE! What is the main purpose of technical rules of procedure in. labor, cases? In the case of AGAPITO CRUZ vs. KRIS SECURITY SYSTEM INC. (GR 155875, 03 April 2003), the Court held: Once again, we must stress that the technical rules of procedure should be used to promote, not frustrate, the cause of justice. While the swift unclogging of court dockets 1s a laudable aim, the just resolution of cases, Oe thelr wants, however, cannot be sacrificed merely in order to achieve that objective (BA Savings vs. Sla, 336 SCRA 484) Rules of procedure, 9 tools designed not to thwart but to facilitate the attainment of justice; thus, their strict ‘and rigld application may,.for good and deserving reasons, have to ave Wey to, ar re subordinated by, the need to aptly dispense substantial justice In the aaa e caret, (hen Neviggtion ww. CA 2 SCRA FE; Cadaver es CUR, 324 SCRA 619) What are the vital importance of the rules of procedures to @ labor litigations? Explain. IN SEA POWER SHIPPING ENTERPRISES INC. VS. CA. (GR136270, 28 June 2001), the Court emphasized: . It is true that a litigation is not a game of technicalities and that the rules of procedure should not be strictly enforced at the cost of substantial justice. However, It does not mean that the Rules of Court may be ignored at will and at random to the prejudice of the orderly presentation and assessment of the issues ‘and their just resolution (Limpot vs. CA, 170 SCRA 367, 1989) It must be Emphasized that procedural rules shou7ld not be bellttled or dismissed simply because their non-observance may have resulted In prejudice to a party's substantial rights. Like all rules, they are required to be followed except only for the most persuasive of reasons. (Galang vs. CA, 199 SCRA 687) Thus in Tam vs. Court of Appeals (295 SCRA 755 1998) we have held that: “Liberal construction of this rule has been allowed by this Court in the following cases: (1) where a rigid application will result In manifest fallure or miscarriage of justice, especially If a party successfully shows that the alleged defect In the questioned final and executory judgment Is not apparent on Its face or from the recitals contained therein; (2) where the Interest of substantial justice will be served; (3) where the resolution of the motion Is addressed solely to the sound and judicious discretion of the court; and (4) where the Injustice to the adverse party is not commensurate with the degree of his thoughtlessness In not complying with the procedure prescribed.” The reason cited by petitioners’ counsel, to wit, that she failed to attach the required documents to the petition considering that It was her first time to ON such petition before the Col i yurt of Al Hification to forego established rules of peel at ile As a member he Lal contenant itis incumbent upon counsel to familiarize herself R oversies In an ee on to settle pending legal disputes and Basal to comply with ee ies co eee ies even a further step ot 5 not loosely Invoke the same are not clearly applicable in the particular case uae ae! iat is the role of TECHNICAL RULES in labor proceedings? Explain. y the case of CECILIO P. DELOS SANTOS v5 . 5. NLRC (GR 121327, 20 pec 2002), it was stressed by the High Tribunal that: A fortior, administrative tribunals exercising quasi-judicial powers are gttered by the rigidity of certain procedural requirements subject to the ance of fundamental and essential requirements of due process. Mable cases presented before them. In \abor cases, 2 punctlious adherence ringent technical rules may Be velaxed in the interest of the workingman. A re of fie psa, Wes He LAL ets ne uid. compel petitioner, 2 towhy Fvxer, to tread once again the calvary Sf a protracted litigation and flagellate im into submission with the lash of technicality. Fynat are the roles of technicalities in labor cases? Explain. 4, The High Court held in A. ROQUERO vs PAL (GR 152329, 22 April that technicalities Nave. no room in abor cases ry manner and only applied only in a suppleto ‘ot to defeat them. “e Labor Arbiter is reversed cin the part of the employer tO reinstate and Pay Guring the period of appeal until nd, if the employee has been Nc reinstatement order Is reimburse whatever so if he actually We reiterate the rule where the Rules of Court are Splary he received for hy sendered services during the period.” 65 VS. MAXIM'S TEA HOUSE (GR 140853, 27 Feb- 2003), it >, in ARIEL TRES REY! : W8S held by the Supreme Court that: yp tabor cases, rules of procedures should not De applied in 2 very 227 SCRA 571, 1993) They sense, (Kunting v5. NLRC, te the attainment rather 2) rigid and technical gre merely tools “resigned to facilitate the emotion _of substantial justice, _technicalltes must be avoided. Wied to stand In the way of equitably Kies should not be perm Ing the rights: and obligations: of the parties. (Lopez justice shall be better served, the technical rules of procedure may DE relaxed. (Samahan 19 VS. 324 SCRA 242, 2000) pS: Does the Labor Arbiter of the NLRC have jurisdiction over disputes involving the wages and terms and conditions of employment of COOPERATIVE employees? Explain. YES. In the case of PERPETUAL HELP CREDIT COOP INC. VS. Hobe FABURADA (GR 121948, 08 Oct 2001) It was clarified that while: “Article 121 of Republic Act No. 6938 (Cooperative Code of the Philippines) provides the procedure how cooperative disputes are to be resolved, thus: “ART. 121. Settlement of Disputes. ~ Disputes among members, officers, directors, and committee members, and intra-cooperative Gisputes shall, as far as practicable, be settled amicably accordance wwith the condliation or mediation mechanism embodied In the bylaws of the cooperative, and in applicable laws. Should such a concillation/mediation proceeding fall, the matter shall be settled in a court of competent jurisdiction.” “Complementing this Articie 1s Section 8 of R.A. No. 6939 (Cooperative Development Authority Law) which reads: SEC. 8 Mediation and Conciliation: — Upon request of either or both parties, the Authority shall mediate and conciliate disputes within: Pooperative or between cooperatives: Provided, That If no mediation of conutation succeeds within three (3) months from request thereof, @ cortifcate of nor-resolution shall be Issued by the Commission prior to the filing of appropriate action before the proper court. “The above provisions apply to members, officers and directors of the cooperative involved in disputes within a cooperative or between cooperatives. There is no evidence that private respondents are members of petitioner PHCCI and even if they are, the dispute Is about payment of wages, overtime pay, rest day and termination of employment. Under Art. 217 of the Labor ode, these disputes are within the original and exclusive jurisdiction of the Labor Arbiter. Are all damages suffered by employees cognizable by the Labor arbiters and NLRC? Explain. NO. In TOLOSA VS. NLRC (GR 149578, 10 April 2003), the Court held: “Claims for damages under paragraph 4 of Article 217 must have a reasonable causal connection with any of the claims provided for in the article In order to be cognizable by the labor arbiter. Only if there Is such a connection with the other claims can the claim for damages be considered as arising from ‘employer-employee relations. (Daich! vs. Villarama, 238 SCRA 267, 21 Nov. 1994) In the present case, petitioner's claim for damages Is not related to any other clalm ur _ inder Article 217, oth statues, or collective bargaining agreements. other ler Petitioner cann®t anchor her claim for damages to Article 161 of the Labor Code, which does not grant or specify a claim or relief. This provisions Is only a safety and health standard under Book IV of the same Code, The enforcement of this labor standard rests with the labor secretary. Thus, claims for an employer's violation thereof are beyond the jurisdiction of the labor arbiter. In other words, petitioner cannot enforce tthe labor standard provided for in Article 161 by suing for damages before the labor arbiter. ular courts that have jurisdiction over actions for damages, in which the employer-employee relation Is merely incidental, and in which the cause ‘of action proceeds from a different source of obligation such as a tort. Since petitioner's claim for damages is predicated on a quasi delict or tort that has ne reasonable causal connection with any of the claims provided for in Article 217, ‘other labor Statutes, or collective bargaining agreements, jurisdiction over the action Pees, the regular courts — not with the NLRC or the labor arbiters, It is not the NLRC but the regl ‘Are all dispute between employers and employees under the jurisdiction of the Labor Tribunal? Why? NO. In TOLOSA VS. NLRC (GR 149578, 10 April 2003), the Court stressed: ' We stress that the case does not involve the adjudication oF 8 labor dispute, but the recovery of damages based on a quasi delict. The jurisdiction of labor tribunals Is limited to disputes arising from employer-employce. relations, 2s labor ied in Georg Grotiahn GMBH & Co. v. Ismant: (235 SCRA 216, 10 August 1994): ‘Not every dispute between an employer and employee Involves matters that only labor arbiters and the NLRC can resolve in the exe's se Oe thelr adjudicatory or quasi-judicial powers. The jurisdiction of labor Stbiters and the NLRC under Article 217 of the Labor Code 1s {imited to isputes arising from an employer-employee relationship which can only be resolved by reference to the Labor Code, other labor statutes, or thelr collective bargaining agreement.” ‘The plvotal question Is whether the Labor Code has any relevance to the rellef sought by petitioner. From her paper, it is evident that the primary reliefs She seeks are as follows: (a) loss of earning capacity denominated therein as actual damages” or “lost Income" and (b) blacklisting, The loss she claims does rat refer to the actual earning of the deceased, but to his earning capaclty based pata life expectancy of 65 years. This emount Is recoverable if the action Is based on a quasi delict as provided for In Article 2206 of the Civil Code, (Art. 2202 Civil Code) but not In the Labor Code. While It is true that labor arbiters and the NLRC have jurisdiction to award not only reliefs provided by Code, (Bafiez vs. Valderila, labor laws, but also damages governed by the Civil 331 SCRA ‘584, 9 May 2000) these rellefs must stil Ni fl bet! 199 be based on an action that has a reasonable causal connection with Code, other labor statutes, or collective bargaining agreements. (Ibid) the lator When a worker's claim is based on QUASI-DELICT I TORT under Art. 2176 of the Civil Code, have a‘ juris Bo cease? the Labor Arbiter and NLRC jurisdiction NO. The Court held in EVELYN TOLOSA VS. NI Gi il M003), thats LRC (GR 149578, 10 April Petitioner also alleges that the "reasonable causal connection: rule should be applied in her favor. Citing San Miguel Corporation v. Etcuban (349 SCRA 704, 3 Dec. 1999). She Insists that 2 reasonable causal connection between the claim asserted and the employer-employee relation ‘confers jurisdiction upon labor tribunals. She adds that she has satisfied the required conditions: 1) the dispute arose from an employer-employee relation, Considering that the claim was for damages based on the fallure of private respondents to comply with thelr obligation under Article 161 of the Labor Code; and 2) the dispute car be aescived by reference to the Labor Code, because the material issue Is whether private respondents complied with ‘hair legal obligation to_ provide timely, adequate and competent medical services to guarantee Captain “Tolosa’s occupational safety’. We disagree. We affirm the CA's ruling that the NLRC and the labor arbiter had no jurisdiction over petitioner's claim for gamages, because the ruling was par an 2 cpanel dec or oat pa Artic 2178 the Civil Code. ‘rime and time agaln, we have held that the allegations {n the complaint determine the nature of the action and, consequently, the jurisdiction of the courts. After carefully examining the

    S-ar putea să vă placă și