Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
SYNOPSIS
SYLLABUS
D E CI S I O N
MARTINEZ, J : p
". . . that almost two (2) years ago, i.e. on April 15, 1993,
the petitioners were instructed to attend an
investigation by respondent's 'Security and Fraud
Prevention Sub-Department' regarding an April 3,
1993 incident in Hongkong at which Joseph Abaca,
respondent's Avionics Mechanic in Hongkong 'was
intercepted by the Hongkong Airport Police at Gate
05 . . . the ramp area of the Kai Tak International
Airport while . . . about to exit said gate carrying a . . .
bag said to contain some 2.5 million pesos in Philippine
Currencies. That at the Police Station, Mr. Abaca
claimed that he just found said plastic bag at the Skybed
Section of the arrival flight PR300/03 April 93,' where
petitioners served as flight stewards of said flight
PR300; . . . the petitioners sought 'a more detailed
account of what this HKG incident is all about'; but
instead, the petitioners were administratively charged,
'a hearing' on which 'did not push through' until almost
two (2) years after, i.e. 'on January 20, 1995 . . . where
a confrontation between Mr. Abaca and petitioners
herein was compulsorily arranged by the respondent's
disciplinary board' at which hearing, Abaca was made to
identify petitioners as co-conspirators; that despite the
fact that the procedure of identification adopted by
respondent's Disciplinary Board was anomalous 'as there
was no one else in the line-up (which could not be called
one) but petitioners . . . Joseph Abaca still had difficulty
in identifying petitioner Pineda as his co-conspirator,
and as to petitioner Cabling, he was implicated and
pointed by Abaca only after respondent's Atty.
Cabatuando pressed the former to identify petitioner
Cabling as co-conspirator'; that with the hearing reset
to January 25, 1995, 'Mr. Joseph Abaca finally gave
exculpating statements to the board in that he cleared
petitioners from any participation or from being the
owners of the currencies, and at which hearing Mr.
Joseph Abaca volunteered the information that the real
owner of said money was one who frequented his
headquarters in Hongkong to which information, the
Disciplinary Board Chairman, Mr. Ismael Khan,' opined
'for the need for another hearing to go to the bottom of
the incident'; that from said statement, it appeared
'that Mr. Joseph Abaca was the courier, and had another
mechanic in Manila who hid the currency at the plane's
skybed for Abaca to retrieve in Hongkong, which
findings of how the money was found was previously
confirmed by Mr. Joseph Abaca himself when he was
first investigated by the Hongkong authorities'; that just
as petitioners 'thought that they were already fully
cleared of the charges, as they no longer received any
summons/notices on the intended 'additional hearings'
mandated by the Disciplinary Board,' they were
surprised to receive on February 23, 1995 . . . a
Memorandum dated February 22, 1995' terminating
their services for alleged violation of respondent's Code
of Discipline 'effective, immediately'; that sometime . . .
first week of March, 1995, petitioner Pineda received
another Memorandum from respondent Mr. Juan
Paraiso, advising him of his termination effective
February 3, 1995, likewise for violation of respondent's
Code of Discipline; . . . "
In support of the issuance of the writ of temporary injunction,
the NLRC adopted the view that: (1) private respondents cannot
be validly dismissed on the strength of petitioner's Code of
Discipline which was declared illegal by this Court in the case of
PAL, Inc. vs. NLRC, (G.R. No. 85985), promulgated August 13,
1993, for the reason that it was formulated by the petitioner
without the participation of its employees as required in R.A.
6715, amending Article 211 of the Labor Code; (2) the
whimsical, baseless and premature dismissals of private
respondents which "caused them grave and irreparable injury" is
enjoinable as private respondents are left "with no speedy and
adequate remedy at law" except the issuance of a temporary
mandatory injunction; (3) the NLRC is empowered under Article
218 (e) of the Labor Code not only to restrain any actual or
threatened commission of any or all prohibited or unlawful acts
but also to require the performance of a particular act in any
labor dispute, which, if not restrained or performed forthwith,
may cause grave or irreparable damage to any party; and (4)
the temporary mandatory power of the NLRC was recognized by
this Court in the case of Chemo-Technische Mfg., Inc. Employees
Union, DFA, et. al. vs. Chemo-Technische Mfg., Inc. [G.R. No.
107031, January 25, 1993].
SO ORDERED.
SYNOPSIS
SYLLABUS
3. ID.;ID.;ID.;INDIRECT CONTEMPT
OF QUASI-JUDICIAL ENTITIES SHOULD STILL BE DECIDED
BY THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT; VIOLATION IN CASE AT BAR.
Quasi-judicial agencies that have the power to cite persons for
indirect contempt pursuant to Rule 71 of the Rules of Court can
only do so by initiating them in the proper Regional Trial Court.
It is not within their jurisdiction and competence to decide the
indirect contempt cases. These matters are still within the
province of the Regional Trial Courts. In the present case, the
indirect contempt charge was filed, not with the Regional Trial
Court, but with the PARAD, and it was the PARAD that cited Mr.
Lorayes with indirect contempt. Hence, the contempt
proceedings initiated through an unverified "Motion for
Contempt" filed by the respondent with the PARAD were invalid
for the following reasons: First,the Rules of Court clearly require
the filing of a verified petition with the Regional Trial Court,
which was not complied with in this case. The charge was not
initiated by the PARAD motu proprio;rather, it was by a motion
filed by respondent. Second, neither the PARAD nor the DARAB
have jurisdiction to decide the contempt charge filed by the
respondent. The issuance of a warrant of arrest was beyond the
power of the PARAD and the DARAB. Consequently, all the
proceedings that stemmed from respondent's "Motion for
Contempt," specifically the Orders of the PARAD dated August
20, 2000 and January 3, 2001 for the arrest of Alex A. Lorayes,
are null and void.
D E CI S I O N
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J : p
SO ORDERED. 4
SO ORDERED. 7
SO ORDERED. 14
Therefore, there are only two ways a person can be charged with
indirect contempt, namely, (1) through a verified petition; and
(2) by order or formal charge initiated by the court motu
proprio.
The foregoing amended provision puts to rest once and for all the
questions regarding the applicability of these rules to
quasi-judicial bodies, to wit:
SO ORDERED.
||| (Land Bank of the Phils. v. Listana, Sr., G.R. No. 152611,
[August 5, 2003], 455 PHIL 750-761)
DECISION
BRION, J : p
Factual Background
The labor arbiter handling the case denied the union's motion for
a stay order on the ground that the issues raised by the
petitioners can best be ventilated during the trial on the merits
of the case. This prompted the union to file on August 16, 1991
with the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), a
petition for the issuance of a preliminary mandatory injunction
and/or TRO. 7
The CA Decision
The Petition
The petitioners assail the CA's reliance on the Court's ruling that
a contempt charge partakes of a criminal proceeding where an
acquittal is not subject to appeal. They argue that the facts
obtaining in the present case are different from the facts of the
cases where the Court's ruling was made. They further argue
that by the nature of this case, the Labor Code and its
implementing rules and regulations should apply, but in any
event, the appellate court is not prevented from reviewing the
factual basis of the acquittal of the respondents from the
contempt charges.
Franklin K. De Luzuriaga
De Luzuriaga filed a Comment 14 on May 17, 2007 and a
Memorandum on December 4, 2008, 15 praying for a dismissal
of the petition.
P & GPI
Issues
Rule 71 of the Rules of Court does not require the labor arbiter
or the NLRC to initiate indirect contempt proceedings before the
trial court. This mode is to be observed only when there is no law
granting them contempt powers. 24 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. The petitioners, therefore,
have not improperly brought the indirect contempt charges
against the respondents before the NLRC. ESHcTD
(1) setting aside its earlier resolutions and orders, including the
writ of preliminary injunction it issued, with its dismissal of the
petition to cite the respondents in contempt of court;
(2) overturning this Court's resolutions upholding the TRO and
the writ of preliminary injunction;
1.CTMI violated the status quo ante order when it did not
restore to their former work assignments the dismissed sales
drivers. They lament that their being "garaged" deprived them of
benefits, and they were subjected to ridicule and psychological
abuse. They assail the NLRC for considering the payroll
reinstatement of the drivers as compliance with its stay order.
2.It was error for the NLRC to rule that the memorandum,
grounding the sales drivers, could no longer be restrained or
enjoined because all sales vehicles were already sold. 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.
SO ORDERED.
DECISION
BRION, J : p
The Antecedents
On July 27, 2006, barely four months on the job, Gala was
dismissed for alleged complicity in pilferages of Meralco's
electrical supplies, particularly, for the incident which took place
on May 25, 2006. On that day, Gala and other Meralco workers
were instructed to replace a worn-out electrical pole at the
Pacheco Subdivision in Valenzuela City. Gala and the other
linemen were directed to join Truck No. 1891, under the
supervision of Foreman Nemecio Hipolito.
When they arrived at the worksite, Gala and the other workers
saw that Truck No. 1837, supervised by Zuiga, was already
there. The linemen of Truck No. 1837 were already at work.
Gala and the other members of the crew of Truck No. 1891 were
instructed to help in the digging of a hole for the pole to be
installed.
While the Meralco crew was at work, one Noberto "Bing" Llanes,
a non-Meralco employee, arrived. He appeared to be known to
the Meralco foremen as they were seen conversing with him.
Llanes boarded the trucks, without being stopped, and took out
what were later found as electrical supplies. Aside from Gala, the
foremen and the other linemen who were at the worksite when
the pilferage happened were later charged with misconduct and
dishonesty for their involvement in the incident. CITDES
Unknown to Gala and the rest of the crew, a Meralco surveillance
task force was monitoring their activities and recording
everything with a Sony video camera. The task force was
composed of Joseph Aguilar, Ariel Dola and Frederick Riano.
The CA Decision
Gala's Case
SO ORDERED.
||| (Manila Electric Co. v. Gala, G.R. Nos. 191288 & 191304,
[February 29, 2012], 683 PHIL 356-368)
DECISION
BRION, J : p
The CA pointed out that the petitioners failed to prove overt acts
showing Llamas' clear intention to abandon his job. On the
contrary, the petitioners placed Llamas in a situation where he
was forced to quit as his continued employment has been
rendered impossible, unreasonable or unlikely, i.e., making him
sign a resignation letter as a precondition for giving him the key
to his assigned taxi cab. To the CA, the petitioners' act amounted
to constructive dismissal. The CA additionally noted
that Llamasimmediately filed the illegal dismissal case that
proved his desire to return to work and negates the charge of
abandonment.
The Petition
Moreover, the petitioners point out that the NLRC did not
gravely abuse its discretion when it rejected Llamas' appeal.
They argue that the NLRC's action conformed with its rules and
with this Court's decisions that upheld the dismissal of an appeal
for failure to file a certificate of non-forum shopping.
Preliminary considerations:
factual-issue-bar-rule
For raising mixed questions of fact and law, we deny the petition
outright. Even if this error were to be disregarded, however, we
would still deny the petition as we find the CA legally correct in
reversing the NLRC's resolution on the ground of grave abuse of
discretion.
Article 223 (now Article 229) 19 of the Labor Code states that
decisions (or awards or orders) of the LA shall become final and
executory unless appealed to the NLRC within ten (10) calendar
days from receipt of the decision. Consistent with Article 223,
Section 1, Rule VI of the 2005 NLRC Rules also provides for a
ten (10)-day period for appealing the LA's decision. Under
Section 4 (a), Rule VI 20 of the 2005 NLRC Rules, the appeal
shall be in the form of a verified memorandum of appeal and
accompanied by proof of payment of the appeal fee, posting of
cash or surety bond (when necessary), certificate of non-forum
shopping, and proof of service upon the other parties. Failure of
the appealing party to comply with any or all of these requisites
within the reglementary period will render the LA's decision
final and executory.
SO ORDERED.
||| (Diamond Taxi v. Llamas, Jr., G.R. No. 190724, [March 12,
2014])
RESOLUTION
PEREZ, J : p
While the case was pending before the appellate court, the NLRC
prematurely issued an order setting aside the decision of the
Labor Arbiter for being procedurally infirmed.
We elucidate.
CONFESSION OF JUDGMENT
In our Decision, the appeal bond was set at P725 Million after
taking into consideration the interests of all parties. To reiterate,
the underlying purpose of the appeal bond is to ensure that the
employer has properties on which he or she can execute upon in
the event of a final, providential award. Thus, non-payment or
woefully insufficient payment of the appeal bond by the
employer frustrates these ends. 17 As a matter of fact, the appeal
bond is valid and effective from the date of posting until the case
is terminated or the award is satisfied. 18 Our Decision highlights
the importance of an appeal bond such that said amount should
be the base amount for negotiation between the parties. As it is,
the P342,284,800.00 compromise is still measly compared to
the P725 Million bond we set in this case, as it only accounts to
approximately 50% of the reduced appeal bond.
SO ORDERED.
||| (Sara Lee Phils., Inc. v. Macatlang, G.R. Nos. 180147, 180148,
180149 , 180150, 180319 & 180685 (Resolution), [January
14, 2015])
DECISION
BRION, J : p
The Antecedents
The CA Decision
The Petition
SO ORDERED.
||| (Dela Rosa Liner, Inc. v. Borela, G.R. No. 207286, [July 29,
2015])