J.C.T.

Case name:
ROBOSA v NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION
G.R. Number, Case date:

G.R. No. 176085 February 8, 2012

P: FEDERICO S. ROBOSA, ROLANDO E. PANDY, NOEL D. ROXAS, ALEXANDER ANGELES, VERONICA GUTIERREZ, FERNANDO EMBAT, and
NANETTE H. PINTO
R: NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION (First Division),
CHEMOTECHNISCHE MANUFACTURING, INC (CMTI). and its responsible officials led by FRANKLIN R. DE LUZURIAGA, and PROCTER & GAMBLE
PHILIPPINES, INC., (P&GPI)

Ponente:
BRION, J.
Subject:
Consti
Topic:
Delegations of Powers

Rule of Law:
Labor Code Provisions (already explained in the content)
Doctrine:
The Labor Arbiter has original and exclusive jurisdiction over some issues that NLRC can only inquire after the merits
of the case shall have been adjudicated by the arbiter.
Contempt Powers of NLRC and Labor Arbiter: Under Article 218 of the Labor Code, the NLRC (and the labor
arbiters) may hold any offending party in contempt, directly or indirectly, and impose appropriate penalties in
accordance with law.
Facts:
Petitioners were rankandfile employees of respondent CTMI, the manufacturer and distributor of Wella products
and officers and members of the CTMI Employees UnionDFA (union). P&GPI acquired CTMI during the
pendency of the dispute.
First semester of 1991. Union filed a petition for certification election to be the exclusive bargaining agent of the
company. DOLENCR granted the petition but the union failed to garner the votes required to be certified during
then consent election on July 5, 1991
July 15, 1991, CTMI issued 2 memos (see table in holding #3).
The union asked for the withdrawal and deferment of CTMIs directives. CTMI ignored the request. Instead, it
issued on July 23, 1991 a notice of termination of employment to the sales drivers.
August 1, 1991, the union and its affected members filed a complaint for illegal dismissal and unfair labor practice,
with a claim for damages and petition for writ of preliminary injunction and/or TRO
Compulsory Arbitration Proceedings
The labor arbiter the motion for a stay order because the issues raised can best be ventilated through trial.
August 16, 1991. Then union filed with the NLRC, a petition for the issuance of a preliminary mandatory injunction
and/or TRO
August 23, 1991. NLRC issued a TRO (see TRO1 in the table below) and on September 12, 1991, the NLRC
upgraded the TRO to a writ of preliminary injunction.
The moved to cite the CTMI officers in contempt of court (for not obeying NLRC directives).
August 25, 1993. NLRC directed Labor Arbiter Cristeta Tamayo to hear the motion for contempt
October 31, 2000, NLRC issued a resolution dismissing the charge (contempt) and ordered the labor arbiter to
proceed hearing the main case on the merits. Petitioners failed to secure a reconsideration on the contempt
charge
CA Decision
The CA opined that the dismissal of contempt charge is not subject to review by an appellate court.
The CA considered the prayer of P & GPI to be dropped as partyrespondent moot and academic.
The Petition
Petitioners filed a petition for review on certiorari seeking the reversal of the resolutions of the CA.
Issues and Holding:
(1) W/N the NLRC has contempt powers
Yes. They have contempt powers. The petitioners have not improperly brought the indirect contempt charges against the
respondents before the NLRC. Under Article 218 of the Labor Code, the NLRC (and the labor arbiters) may hold any
offending party in contempt, directly or indirectly, and impose appropriate penalties in accordance with law. The penalty for

J.C.T.
direct contempt consists of either imprisonment or fine, the degree or amount depends on whether the contempt is against
the Commission or the labor arbiter. The Labor Code, however, requires the labor arbiter or the Commission to deal with
indirect contempt in the manner prescribed under Rule 71 1 of the Rules of Court. Rule 71 is to be observed only when
there is no law granting them contempt powers. As is clear under Article 218(d) of the Labor Code, the labor arbiter or the
Commission is empowered or has jurisdiction to hold the offending party or parties in direct or indirect contempt.
(2) W/N the dismissal of a contempt charge is appealable
No. The CA ruling is grounded on prevailing jurisprudence. It held that the NLRCs dismissal of the contempt charges
against the respondents amounts to an acquittal in a criminal case and is not subject to appeal.
In Insurance Commissioner v. Globe Assurance Co., Inc., the Court dismissed the appeal from the ruling of the lower court
due to lack of evidence. It provides that the contempt proceeding far from being a civil action is of a criminal nature and
of summary character in which the court exercises but limited jurisdiction and an appeal would not lie from the
order of dismissal of, or an exoneration from, a charge of contempt of court.
Criminal vs Civil Contempt
Santiago v. Anunciacion, Jr.: But whether the first or the second, contempt is still a criminal proceeding in which acquittal, for instance,is
a bar to a second prosecution. The distinction is for the purpose only of determining the character of
punishment to be administered.
Yasay, Jr. v. Recto: criminal contempt. Civil contempt is the failure to do something ordered by a court to be done for the benefit of a
party. A criminal contempt is any conduct directed against the authority or dignity of the court.
Remman Enterprises, Inc. v. Court of Appeals and People v. Godoy: The proceedings are to be regarded as criminal when the purpose
is primarily punishment and civil when the purpose is primarily compensatory or remedial.
NOTE: Im not really sure how they classified it as criminal. The case just enumerated jurisprudence.

(3) W/N the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion (GAD) in dismissing the contempt charge against the
respondents.
No. It did not commit GAD. It correctly dismissed the contempt charges. The CA committed no GAD in not
disturbing the NLRC resolution
In view of GAD for NLRCs dismissal of charge in this case, we deem it necessary to look into the respondents alleged
noncompliance with the NLRC directives
Date of
Issuance
July 15,
1991
Memos

CMTIs Issuance
(1) all sales territories were
demobilized
(2) all vehicles assigned to
sales representatives
should be returned and
sold
(3) sales representatives
would continue their
through public
transportation (allowance
provided)
(4) Deliveries of orders
would be undertaken by
the warehouses and
(5) revolving funds for extruck selling held
by sales representatives
should be surrendered to
the cashier or to the
supervisor and truck stocks

NLRC Issuance and Findings of

NLRC (F)
TRO1: (1) Cease and desist from
grounding the sales personnel
F: All sales vehicles were already
sold. It would be hard to undo the
valid and binding sales transactions.
Then memo still allow sales rep to
continue their service through public
transportation
(2) Restore the status quo ante 2prior
to the formation of the union and the
conduct of the consent election.
F: Records reveal that WELLA
AG of Germany terminated its
Licensing Agreement (LA) with
CMTI effective December 31,
1991. This event resulted to
the closure3 of the respondent

Petitioners Arguments (P) and NLRC

Answers (NLRC)
P: On sold sales trucks, no substantial
evidence was presented by the
respondents to prove their allegation, but
even if there was a valid sale of the
vehicles, it did not relieve the
respondents of responsibility under the
stay order.
P: The alleged termination of the LA
occurred after the NLRCs issuance of
the injunctive reliefs. CTMI failed to
present substantial evidence to support
its contention that it folded up its
operations when the licensing agreement
was terminated. Even assuming that
there was a valid closure, they should
have been paid their lost wages,
allowances, incentives, sales
commissions, per diems and other
benefits from August 23, 1991 up to the

1 Rule 71 of the Rules of Court does not require the labor arbiter or the NLRC to initiate direct
contempt proceedings before the trial court. This mode is to be observed only when there is no
law granting them contempt powers.
2 The norm, the usual and normal state of things.

J.C.T.
should be surrendered

company (manufacturing and

marketing operations ceased).
And by January 31, 1992,
employees were terminated.
.

date of the alleged termination of LA.

NLRC: Matters best left to the Labor
Arbiter

TRO1: cease and desist from

dismissals and reinstate
F: Per perusal of the records,
respondents reinstated back to work
the sales drivers.
F: As for petitioners Real, Sedano
and Manalo, they have resigned from
their
jobs and were paid their separation
pay.

P: Sales drivers lament that their being

garaged (no actual work) deprived them of
benefits, and they were subjected to ridicule
and psychological abuse.

F: Desquitado during the pendency of the

case executed an affidavit of desistance
asking that he be dropped as party
complainant in as much as he has
already accepted separation benefits

P: NLRC should not recognize of the

resignation compelled by economic necessity
to resign The quitclaims were contrary to
public
Policy and they were unduly deprived of his
right to collect attorneys fees.

-informs the companys

sales representatives and
drivers of the new system
in the Salon Business
Groups selling operations.

July 23,
1991
Notice

Notice of termination of
employment to the sales
drivers, due to the abolition
of the sales driver
positions.

NLRC: Only payroll reinstatement (w/o

actual work) does not make the
respondents guilty of contempt of court.
What is important is that they were
reinstated and receiving their salaries.

NLRC: The issue of whether those

resigned petitioners were illegally
dismissed should be
threshed out before the Labor Arbiter

An act of a court or tribunal may only be considered as committed in GAD when it was performed in a capricious or
whimsical exercise of judgment which is equivalent to lack of jurisdiction. It must be so patent and gross as to amount to
an evasion of a positive duty enjoined by law.
NLRC explained that the status quo ante or the employeremployee situation before the formation of the union and the
conduct of the consent election cannot be maintained because of the termination of LA with Wella 4. For the individual
petitioners, terminations of the employees are now pending litigation with the Arbitration Branch of the Commission. To
resolve the incident now regarding the closure of the respondent company and the matters alleged by petitioners such as
the creations of three (3) new corporations xxx as successorcorporations are matters best left to the Labor Arbiter hearing
the merits of the unfair labor practice and illegal dismissal cases.

3 A letter was likewise sent to the Department of Labor and Employment (Exh. 12, Ibid) in compliance with Article 283
of the Labor Code,

Note that when the injunction order was issued, WELLA AG of Germany was still under licensing agreement with respondent
company. However, the situation has changed when WELLA AG of Germany terminated its licensing agreement.

J.C.T.
Based on the foregoing, the court finds no grave abuse of discretion in the assailed NLRC ruling. It rightly
avoided delving into issues which would clearly be in excess of its jurisdiction for they are issues (payroll
reinstatement, resignation and quit claims contrary to law or public policy) involving the merits of the case
which are by law within the original and exclusive jurisdiction of the labor arbiter. NLRC can inquire into them
only on appeal after the merits of the case shall have been adjudicated by the labor arbiter.
Ruling:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, we hereby DENY the petition for lack of merit and AFFIRM the assailed
resolutions of the Court of Appeals.