Art. 217.

Jurisdiction of LA
While it is true that under Articles 129 and 217 of the
Labor Code, the Labor Arbiter has jurisdiction to hear
and decide cases where the aggregate money claims of
each employee eceeds !",###$##, said pro%isions of
law do not contemplate nor co%er the %isitorial and
enforcement powers of the &ecretary of Labor or his duly
authori'ed representati%es$ ()*+ataan ,eterans
&ecurity Agency, -nc$ %s$ Laguesma, ".7 &C/A
0"112##723
-t is the /egional 4rial Court 1/4C2, not the Labor Arbiter
or the 5ational Labor /elations Commission 15L/C2,
which has jurisdiction to hear the legality of the
termination of a corporate officer (Locsin %s$ 5issan
Lease !hils$, -nc$, 0.6 &C/A .9212#1#23
-n the labor law setting, a plain, speedy and ade7uate
remedy is still open to the aggrie%ed party when a labor
arbiter denies a motion to dismiss8 4he 5ational Labor
/elations Commission 15L/C2 is clothed with sufficient
authority to correct any claimed 9erroneous assumption
of jurisdiction: by labor arbiters$ (Locsin %s$ 5issan
Lease !hils$, -nc$, 0.6 &C/A .9212#1#23
4he denial of a motion to dismiss by the Labor Arbiter is
unappealable;as a general rule, an aggrie%ed party<s
proper recourse is to file his position paper, interpose the
grounds relied upon in the motion to dismiss before the
labor arbiter, and acti%ely participate in the proceedings$
(Locsin %s$ 5issan Lease !hils$, -nc$, 0.6 &C/A
.9212#1#23
An 9office: is created by the charter of the corporation
and the officer is elected by the directors or
stoc=holders, while an 9employee: usually occupies no
office and generally is employed not by action of the
directors or stoc=holders but by the managing officer of
the corporation who also determines the compensation
to be paid to such employee$ (>=ol %s$ &limmers World
-nternational, +eha%ior ?odifications, -nc$, 0#@ &C/A
9712##923
A corporate officer<s dismissal is always a corporate act,
or an intra*corporate contro%ersy which arises between a
stoc=holder and a corporation$ (>=ol %s$ &limmers World
-nternational, +eha%ior ?odifications, -nc$, 0#@ &C/A
9712##923
4he determination of the rights of a director and
corporate officer dismissed from his employment as well
as the corresponding liability of a corporation, if any, is
an intra*corporate dispute subject to the jurisdiction of
the regular courts$ (>=ol %s$ &limmers World
-nternational, +eha%ior ?odifications, -nc$, 0#@ &C/A
9712##923
Labor Arbiter has jurisdiction o%er respondent<s
complaint$While, indeed, respondent was the Corporate
&ecretary of the /ural +an= of Coron, she was also its
Ainancial Assistant and the !ersonnel >fficer of the two
other petitioner corporations$ ?ainland Construction Co$,
-nc$ %$ ?o%illa instructs that a corporation can engage its
corporate officers to perform ser%ices under a
circumstance which would ma=e them
employees$ 1/ural +an= of Coron %$ Cortes2
An action raising the issue as to whether a pro%ision of
the Collecti%e +argaining Agreement is unlawful and
unconstitutional is beyond the jurisdiction of labor
tribunals8 4he jurisdiction of labor arbiters and the
5ational Labor /elations Commission 15L/C2 under
Article 217 of the Labor Code is limited to disputes
arising from an employer*employee relationship which
can only be resol%ed by reference to the Labor Code,
other labor statutes, or their collecti%e bargaining
agreement$ (BalagueCa %s$ !hilippine Airlines,
-ncorporated, 0#2 &C/A 29712##923
Actions between employees and employer where the
employer*employee relationship is merely incidental and
the cause of action precedes from a different source of
obligation is within the eclusi%e jurisdiction of the
regular court$ Bere, the employer*employee relationship
between the parties is merely incidental and the cause of
action ultimately arose from different sources of
obligation, i$e$, the Constitution and C)DAW$ (BalagueCa
%s$ !hilippine Airlines, -ncorporated, 0#2 &C/A
29712##923
Erie%ance machinery and %oluntary arbitrators do not
ha%e jurisdiction and competence to decide
constitutional issues relati%e to the allegedly
discriminatory compulsory retirement age$ Change in the
terms and conditions of employment, should &ection 166
of the C+A be held in%alid, is but a necessary and
una%oidable conse7uence of the principal relief sought,
i$e$, nullification of the alleged discriminatory pro%ision in
the C+A$ 4hus, it does not necessarily follow that a
resolution of contro%ersy that would bring about a
change in the terms and conditions of employment is a
labor dispute, cogni'able by labor tribunals$ -t is unfair to
preclude petitioners from in%o=ing the trial court<s
jurisdiction merely because it may e%entually result into
a change of the terms and conditions of employment$
Along that line, the trial court is not as=ed to set and fi
the terms and conditions of employment, but is called
upon to determine whether C+A is consistent with the
laws$ (BalagueCa %s$ !hilippine Airlines, -ncorporated,
0#2 &C/A 29712##923
Despite the absence of an employeremployee
relationship between petitioner and respondent, the
Court rules that the 5L/C has jurisdiction o%er
petitioner<s complaint$ 4he jurisdiction of labor arbiters is
not limited to claims arising from employer*employee
relationships$ &ection 1# of /$A$ 5o$ @#62 1?igrant
Wor=ers Act2, pro%ides thatF &ec$1#$?oney Claims$;
5otwithstanding any pro%ision of law to the contrary, the
Labor Arbiters of the 5ational Labor /elations
Commission 15L/C2 shall ha%e the original and
eclusi%e jurisdiction to hear and decide, within ninety
19#2 calendar days after the filing of the complaint, the
claims arising out of an employer*employee relationship
or by %irtue of any law or contract in%ol%ing Ailipino
wor=ers for o%erseas deployment including claims for
actual, moral, eemplary and other forms of damages$
(&antiago %s$ CA &harp Crew ?anagement, -nc$, "27
&C/A 10"12##723
As a conse7uence of their illegal dismissal, pri%ate
respondents are entitled to reinstatement to their former
positions$ +ut since reinstatement is no longer feasible
because petitioner had already closed its shop,
separation pay in lieu of reinstatement shall be awarded$
A terminated employee<s receipt of his separation pay
and other monetary benefits does not preclude
reinstatement or full benefits under the law, should
reinstatement be no longer possible$ (Atlas Aarms, -nc$
%s$ 5ational Labor /elations Commission, .92 &C/A
12@12##223
4here is no e%idence that pri%ate respondents are
members of petitioner !BCC- and e%en if they are, the
dispute is about payment of wages, o%ertime pay, rest
day and termination of employment$ Gnder Art$ 217 of
the Labor Code, these disputes are within the original
and eclusi%e jurisdiction of the Labor Arbiter$ (!erpetual
Belp Credit Cooperati%e, -nc$ %s$ Aaburada, .00 &C/A
09.12##123
Gnder the Labor Code, the pro%ision which go%erns the
dismissal of employees, is comprehensi%e enough to
include religious corporations, such as the &DA, in its
co%erage$ Article 27@ of the Labor Code on post*
employment states that 9the pro%isions of this 4itle shall
apply to all establishments or underta=ings, whether for
profit or not$H >b%iously, the cited article does not ma=e
any eception in fa%or of a religious corporation$ 4his is
made more e%ident by the fact that the /ules
-mplementing the Labor Code, particularly, &ection 1,
/ule 1, +oo= ,- on the 4ermination of )mployment and
/etirement, categorically includes religious institutions in
the co%erage of the law$ (Austria %s$ 5ational Labor
/elations Commission, .12 &C/A 61#1199923
4he abo%e stipulations of both the Charter and
Bead7uarters Agreement should be able, nay well
enough, to establish that, ecept in the specified cases
of borrowing and guarantee operations, as well as the
purchase, sale and underwriting of securities, the AD+
enjoys immunity from legal process of e%ery form$ 4he
+an=<s officers, on their part, enjoy immunity in respect
of all acts performed by them in their official capacity$
4he Charter and the Bead7uarters Agreement granting
these immunities and pri%ileges are treaty co%enants
and commitments %oluntarily assumed by the !hilippine
go%ernment which must be respected$ (Department of
Aoreign Affairs %s$ 5L/C, 202 &C/A .91199023
Labor arbiters ha%e original and eclusi%e jurisdiction
o%er claims arising from employer*employee relations,
including termination disputes in%ol%ing all wor=ers,
among whom are >%erseas Ailipino Wor=ers 1>AW2$;
+ased on the foregoing pro%isions, labor arbiters clearly
ha%e original and eclusi%e jurisdiction o%er claims
arising from employer*employee relations, including
termination disputes in%ol%ing all wor=ers, among whom
are o%erseas Ailipino wor=ers 1>AW2$
&ame8 &ame8 &ame8 /espondent subse7uently became
a contract wor=er or an >AW who was co%ered by
!hilippine labor laws and policies upon certification by
the !>)A$;5oteworthy is the fact that respondent
li=ewise applied for and secured an >%erseas
)mployment Certificate from the !>)A through the
!hilippine )mbassy in &ingapore$ 4he Certificate, issued
on ?arch @, 1999, declared her a bona fide contract
wor=er for &ingapore$ Gnder !hilippine law, this
document authori'ed her wor=ing status in a foreign
country and entitled her to all benefits and processes
under our statutes$ 4hus, e%en assuming arguendo that
she was considered at the start of her employment as a
9direct hire: go%erned by and subject to the laws,
common practices and customs pre%ailing in &ingapore
she subse7uently became a contract wor=er or an >AW
who was co%ered by !hilippine labor laws and policies
upon certification by the !>)A$ At the time her
employment was illegally terminated, she already
possessed the !>)A employment Certificate$ (!hilippine
5ational +an= %s$ Cabansag, 60# &C/A "1612##"23
-t will be recalled that years prior to /$A$ 071",
jurisdiction o%er all money claims of wor=ers, including
claims for damages, was originally lodged with the Labor
Arbiters and the 5L/C by Article 217 of the Labor Code$
>n ?ay 1, 1979, howe%er, !residential Decree 19!$D$:2
5o$ 1.07 amended said Article 217 to the effect that
9/egional Directors shall not indorse and Labor Arbiters
shall not entertain claims for moral or other forms of
damages$: 4his limitation in jurisdiction, howe%er, lasted
only briefly since on ?ay 1, 19@#, !$D$ 5o$ 1091 nullified
!$D$ 5o$ 1.07 and restored Article 217 of the Labor
Code almost to its original form$ !resently, and as
amended by /$A$ 071", the jurisdiction of Labor Arbiters
and the 5L/C in Article 217 is comprehensi%e enough to
include claims for all forms of damages 9arising from the
employer*employee relations$: (+aCe' %s$ ,alde%illa, ..1
&C/A "@612###23
Contrary to the Labor Arbiter and 5L/C<s conclusions,
petitioner<s claim for illegal deduction falls within the
tribunal<s jurisdiction$ -t is noteworthy that petitioner
demanded the completion of her retirement benefits,
including the amount withheld by respondent for taation
purposes$ 4he issue of deduction for ta purposes is
intertwined with the main issue of whether or not
petitioner<s benefits ha%e been fully gi%en her$ -t is,
therefore, a money claim arising from the employer*
employee relationship, which clearly falls within the
jurisdiction of the Labor Arbiter and the 5L/C$ (&antos
%s$ &er%ier !hilippines, -nc$, "72 &C/A 6@712##@23
ln ?ola%e ?otor &ales, -nc$ %$ Laron, the same Iustice
held for the Court that the claim of the plaintiff against its
sales manager for payment of certain accounts
pertaining to his purchase of %ehicles and automoti%e
parts, repairs of such %ehicles, and cash ad%ances from
the corporation was properly cogni'able by the /egional
4rial Court of Dagupan City and not the labor arbiter,
because 9although a contro%ersy is between an
employer and an employee, the Labor Arbiters ha%e no
jurisdiction if the Labor Code is not in%ol%ed$: (!epsi
Cola Distributors of the !hils$, -nc$ %s$ Eal*lang, 2#1
&C/A 09"1199123
4he case now before the Court in%ol%es a complaint for
damages for malicious prosecution which was filed with
the /egional 4rial Court of Leyte by the employees of
the defendant company$ -t does not appear that there is
a 9reasonable causal connection: between the complaint
and the relations of the parties as employer and
employees$ 4he complaint did not arise from such
relations and in fact could ha%e arisen independently of
an employment relationship between the parties$ 5o
such relationship or any unfair labor practice is asserted$
What the employees are alleging is that the petitioners
acted with bad faith when they filed the criminal
complaint which the ?unicipal 4rial Court said was
intended 9to harass the poor employees: and the
dismissal of which was affirmed by the !ro%incial
!rosecutor 9for< lac= of e%idence to establish e%en a
slightest probability that all the respondents herein ha%e
committed the crime imputed against them$: 4his is a
matter which the labor arbiter has no competence to
resol%e as the applicable law is not the Labor Code but
the /e%ised !enal Code$ (!epsi Cola Distributors of the
!hils$, -nc$ %s$ Eal*lang, 2#1 &C/A 09"1199123
Article 2171a2 of the Labor Code, as amended, clearly
bestows upon the Labor Arbiter original and eclusi%e
jurisdiction o%er claims for damages arising from
employer*employee relations;in other words, the Labor
Arbiter has jurisdiction to award not only the reliefs
pro%ided by labor laws, but also damages go%erned by
the Ci%il Code$ (Jawachi %s$ Del Kuero, "19 &C/A
1#212##723
the 9reasonable causal connection rule$: Gnder this rule,
if there is a reasonable causal connection between the
claim asserted and the employer*employee relations,
then the case is within the jurisdiction of our labor courts$
-n the absence of such neus, it is the regular courts that
ha%e jurisdiction$ (Jawachi %s$ Del Kuero, "19 &C/A
1#212##723
Where the employer*employee relationship is merely
incidental and the cause of action proceeds from a
different source of obligation, the Court has not hesitated
to uphold the jurisdiction of the regular courts$ Where the
damages claimed for were based on tort, malicious
prosecution, or breach of contract, as when the claimant
see=s to reco%er a debt from a former employee or
see=s li7uidated damages in the enforcement of a prior
employment contract, the jurisdiction of regular courts
was upheld$ 4he scenario that obtains in this case is
ob%iously different$ 4he allegations in pri%ate
respondent<s complaint unmista=ably relate to the
manner of her alleged illegal dismissal$ (Jawachi %s$ Del
Kuero, "19 &C/A 1#212##723
Art. 218. Powers of NLRC
the 5L/C shall ha%e eclusi%e appellate jurisdiction o%er
all cases decided by labor arbiters as pro%ided in Article
2171b2 of the Labor Code$ -n short, the jurisdiction of the
5L/C in illegal dismissal cases is appellate in nature
and, therefore, it cannot entertain the pri%ate
respondents< petition for injunction which challenges the
dismissal orders of petitioner$ Article 21@1e2 of the Labor
Code does not pro%ide blan=et authority to the 5L/C or
any of its di%isions to issue writs of injunction,
considering that &ection 1 of /ule L- of the 5ew /ules of
!rocedure of the 5L/C ma=es injunction only an
ancillary remedy in ordinary labor disputes$: 4hus, the
5L/C eceeded its jurisdiction when it issued the
assailed >rder granting pri%ate respondents< petition for
injunction and ordering the petitioner to reinstate pri%ate
respondents$ (!hilippine Airlines, -nc$ %s$ 5L/C, 2@7
&C/A 0721199@23
4he power of the 5ational Labor /elations Commission
to issue an injunction writ originates from 9any labor
dispute: upon application by a party thereof, which
application if not granted 9may cause gra%e or
irreparable damage to any party or render ineffectual
any decision in fa%or of such party: (!hilippine Airlines,
-nc$ %s$ 5L/C, 2@7 &C/A 0721199@23
When an injury is considered irreparable$;An injury is
considered irreparable if it is of such constant and
fre7uent recurrence that no fair and reasonable redress
can be had therefor in a court of law, or where there is
no standard by which their amount can be measured
with reasonable accuracy, that is, it is not susceptible of
mathematical computation$ -t is considered irreparable
injury when it cannot be ade7uately compensated in
damages due to the nature of the injury itself or the
nature of the right or property injured or when there
eists no certain pecuniary standard for the
measurement of damages$ (!hilippine Airlines, -nc$ %s$
5L/C, 2@7 &C/A 0721199@23
)%idently, 7uasi*judicial agencies that ha%e the power to
cite persons for indirect contempt pursuant to /ule 71 of
the /ules of Court can only do so by initiating them in
the proper /egional 4rial Court$ -t is not within their
jurisdiction and competence to decide the indirect
contempt cases$ 4hese matters are still within the
pro%ince of the /egional 4rial Courts$ (Land +an= of the
!hilippines %s$ Listana, &r$, 6#@ &C/A .2@12##.23
Gnder Article 21@ of the Labor Code, the 5L/C 1and the
labor arbiters2 may hold any offending party in contempt,
directly or indirectly, and impose appropriate penalties in
accordance with law$ 4he penalty for 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$ 4he Labor Code,
howe%er, re7uires the labor arbiter or the Commission to
deal with indirect contempt in the manner prescribed
under /ule 71 of the /ules of Court$ /ule 71 of the
/ules of Court does not re7uire the labor arbiter or the
5L/C to initiate indirect contempt proceedings before
the trial court$ 4his mode is to be obser%ed only when
there is no law granting them contempt powers$ As is
clear under Article 21@1d2 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$ 4he petitioners, therefore, ha%e not
improperly brought the indirect contempt charges
against the respondents before the 5L/C$
&ame8 &ame8 &ection 11, /ule 71 of the /ules of Court
states that the judgment or final order of a court in a
case of indirect contempt may be appealed to the proper
court as in a criminal case$;&ection 11, /ule 71 of the
/ules of Court states that the judgment or final order of a
court in a case of indirect contempt may be appealed to
the proper court as in a criminal case$ 4his is not the
point at issue, howe%er, in this petition$ -t is rather the
7uestion of whether the dismissal of a contempt charge,
as in the present case, is appealable$ 4he CA held that
the 5L/C<s dismissal of the contempt charges against
the respondents amounts to an ac7uittal in a criminal
case and is not subject to appeal$ 4he CA ruling is
grounded on pre%ailing jurisprudence$ -n Masay, Ir$ %$
/ecto, .1. &C/A 7.9 119992, the Court declaredF A
distinction is made between a ci%il and (a3 criminal
contempt$ Ci%il 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$ (/obosa %s$ 5ational
Labor /elations Commission 1Airst Di%ision2, 00" &C/A
6.612#1223
Art. 221. Technical Rules not Binding
We stress at this point that it is the spirit and intention of
labor legislation that the 5L/C and the labor arbiters
shall use e%ery reasonable means to ascertain the facts
in each case speedily and objecti%ely, without regard to
technicalities of law or procedure, pro%ided due process
is duly obser%ed$ -n =eeping with this policy and in the
interest of substantial justice, we deem it proper to gi%e
due course to the petition, especially in %iew of the
conflict between the findings of the labor arbiter, on the
one hand, and the 5L/C and the CA, on the other$ As
we said in &$&$ ,entures -nternational, -nc$ %$ &$&$
,entures Labor Gnion, ""9 &C/A 6." 12##@2, 9the
application of technical rules of procedure in labor cases
may be relaed to ser%e the demands of substantial
justice$: (?anila )lectric Company %s$ Eala, 007 &C/A
.7"12#1223
4he right to appeal is a statutory right and one who
see=s to a%ail of the right must comply with the statute or
the rules8 4he rules, particularly the re7uirements for
perfecting an appeal within the reglementary period
specified in the law, must be strictly followed as they are
considered indispensable interdictions against needless
delays and for the orderly discharge of judicial business$
(5ationwide &ecurity and Allied &er%ices, -nc$ %s$ Court
of Appeals, ""@ &C/A 16@12##@23
Art. 22. A!!eal
Wages8 )%en if the order of reinstatement of the Labor
Arbiter is re%ersed on appeal, it is obligatory on the part
of the employer to reinstate and pay the wages of the
dismissed employee during the period of appeal until
re%ersal by the higher court or tribunal$ (-slri' 4rading %s$
Capada, 061 &C/A 912#1123
4he filing of a motion to reduce bond and compliance
with the two conditions stop the running of the period to
perfect an appeal$;4he /ules of !rocedure of the
5L/C allows the filing of a motion to reduce bond
subject to two conditionsF 112 there is meritorious ground,
and 122 a bond in a reasonable amount is posted$
&ection 0 of Article ,- statesF 5o motion to reduce bond
shall be entertained ecept on meritorious grounds and
upon the posting of a bond in a reasonable amount in
relation to the monetary award$ 4he mere filing of the
motion to reduce bond without compliance with the
re7uisites in the preceding paragraph shall not stop the
running of the period to perfect an appeal$ 4he filing of a
motion to reduce bond and compliance with the two
conditions stop the running of the period to perfect an
appeal$ -n ?c+urnie %$ Ean'on, 0## &C/A 0"@ 12##92,
the Court heldF (43he bond may be reduced upon
motion by the employer, this is subject to the conditions
that 112 the motion to reduce the bond shall be based on
meritorious grounds8 and 122 a reasonable amount in
relation to the monetary award is posted by the
appellant, otherwise the filing of the motion to reduce
bond shall not stop the running of the period to perfect
an appeal$ (Earcia %s$ JI Commercial, 007 &C/A
.9012#1223
While the bond re7uirement on appeals in%ol%ing
monetary awards has been relaed in certain cases, this
can only be done where there was substantial
compliance of the /ules or where the appellants, at the
%ery least, ehibited willingness to pay by posting a
partial bond (Earcia %s$ JI Commercial, 007 &C/A
.9012#1223