Republic of the Philippines

Department of Labor and Employment

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISION

Quezon City

National Capital Region

Codie Manlolo NLRC NCR Case

-versus- For: Illegal Dismissal, Non-payment of

Salary Wages, Underpayment,

Catch U, Mini Stop
Thirteen Month Pay

x---------------------------- x

Honorable Irene Castro De Quiroz

Labor Arbitrer

COURT OBSERVATION REPORT

Labor Law I

SY: 1st Semester 2017 2018

 2

I. National Labor Relation Commission

The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) is a quasi-judicial body tasked to

promote and maintain industrial peace by resolving labor and management disputes

involving both local and overseas workers through compulsory arbitration and

alternative modes of dispute resolution. It is attached to the Department of Labor

and Employment for program and policy coordination. The NLRC has jurisdiction over

the following cases:

1. Unfair labor practice cases;

2. Termination disputes;

3. If accompanied with a claim for reinstatement, those cases that workers may

file involving wages, rates of pay, hours of work and other terms and

conditions of employment;

4. Claims for actual, moral, exemplary and other forms of damages arising from

employer-employee relations;

5. Cases arising from any violation of Article 264 of the Labor Code, as amended,

including questions involving the legality of strikes and lockouts;

6. Except claims for employees compensation not included in the next

succeeding paragraph, social security, medicare, and maternity benefits, all

other claims arising from employer-employee relations, including those of

persons in domestic or household service, involving an amount exceeding Five

 3

Thousand Pesos (P5,000.00), whether or not accompanied with a claim for

reinstatement;

7. Wage distortion disputes in unorganized establishments not voluntarily

settled by the parties pursuant to Republic Act No. 6727;

8. Enforcement of compromise agreements when there is non-compliance by

any of the parties pursuant to Article 227 of the Labor Code, as amended;

9. Money claims arising out of employer-employee relationship or by virtue of

any law or contract, involving Filipino workers for overseas deployment,

including claims for actual, moral, exemplary and other forms of damages as

provided by Section 10 of Republic Act No. 8042, as amended by Republic Act

No. 10022; and

10. Other cases as may be provided by law.

II. Facts of the Case

Both parties in the case did not have a counsel as representative. The complainant

and his previous officer-in-charge made an appearance before Honorable Irene De

Quiroz.

Complainants contention:
 4

Mr. Codie Manlolo, Mini Stop crew, filed a complaint against his employer, Catch U a

marketing franchise for Mini Stop, for illegal dismissal, underpayment, and cost of

living allowance (COLA) and thirteen month pay claims.

The complainant contended that he was illegally dismiss by his employer, because

when he went to the store where he works he already does not have a schedule for

the day. He then returned the day after and on third attempt returned on the third

day, still he does not have work schedule. He confirmed his schedule from his co-

workers, who is also a crew in the store, that he did not have a schedule for work for

one whole week. This leads suspicion to the complainant as to the reason why he was

not given a work scheduled. And this leads the complainant to file the present case

and demand claims against his employer. The complainant demanded PHP35,000.00

for the salary payment, under payment and thirteen month pay for amicable

settlement.

The complainant worked with Mini Stop under Catch U from October 2015 until his

constructive dismissal on June 2017.

Defendants contention:

Catch U, a marketing franchise of Mini Stop, is owned by Manny Maraeg, is the

defendant in the case at bar for the illegal dismissal and money claims of his

employee. Catch U is represented by Mr. Ray, the officer-in-charge of the

 5

complainant. Mr. Ray is granted a special power of attorney to appear on behalf of

the owner.

The defendant contends that the complainant was not illegally dismissed. The

complainant suspended from work by the owner. The owner did not agree with the

PHP35,000.00 demand and made a previous counter-offer of PHP20,000. It was also

contended that he was already paid in the amount of PHP5,000.00. And ask to lower

the PHP20,000.00. The owner also offers to the complainant to continue working

with them.

Labor Arbiters Ruling:

There was a constructive dismissal on the part of the employee, the fact that he was

not given a schedule for one whole week, results to an illegal dismissal. The employer

on the other hand, who claims that he was not terminated, did not suspect that there

is one employee who is missing for that one week. The Honorable De De Quiroz said

that the PHP20,000.00 is enough to compensate Mr. Manlolo, and that the consent

of the owner to agree on the said amount is needed. The PHP5,000.00 payment is

only partial of the total claims of the complainant. The case is reset for September 19,

2017 to finalized the amicable settlement of PHP20,000.00 and to pay the remaining

balance of PHP15,000.00.
 6

II. Experience

It was September 11, 2017; I opted to visit the NLRC NCR Branch at PPSTA Bldg., No.

5, Banawe cor. P. Florentino Sts., Quezon City. I submitted the letter to request to

conduct an actual court observation to the Administration Office located at the third

floor of the building. The Administration Staff is accommodating and she helped in

looking for an available court for the actual observation. It was already 10:00 in the

morning, most of the Labor Arbiters sala had already started and about to end. The

first Labor Arbiter that I tried to conduct an observation was the sala of Honorable La

Augusto Villanueva. His hearing starts at 9:30 in the morning and he did not allow

court observation for latecomers. That is why I went back to the Administrative Staff

to look for another available sala. Thankfully, the hearing for the sala of Honorable

Irene Castro De Quiroz starts at 10:00 in the morning on that day.

Honorable De Quiroz, the labor arbiter, is very accommodating. She allows court

observation for law students and she even give tips for the bar examinations. There

are ten (10) cases for hearing on that day. But only seven (7) cases had a complete

attendee, both complainant and defendant. When I entered the courtroom, both

parties for the second case were already inside the court, ready for their hearing.
 7

The hearing starts when the presiding labor arbiter reads the name of the case, i.e

Codie Manlolo versus Catch U (Mini Stop), and followed by the reading of the

violation or the issue of the case, i.e for illegal dismissal, underpayment, cola, etc. The

labor arbiter will ask for the appearances of the parties and they introduced their

selves as the complainant, representative of the complainant, defendant, or

representative of the defendant. Whenever the parties present is in the capacity of

representative, the labor arbiter will require them to submit a document indicating

their special power of attorney (SPA).

I noticed that, not all parties had a lawyer as their counsel. Since the NLRC aims that

the parties enters into an amicable settlement as much as possible for a speedy and

inexpensive hearing related to Labor Standards as well as Labor Relations. Two out of

six of the cases that I had observed are accompanied and represented by their

counsel during the hearing. Also, there are counsels that got nervous in presenting

their case and there are also counsels that are very confident. One of the counsels

that I met in the courtroom was a previous labor arbiter.

The labor arbiter recommends that the parties enter into amicable settlement for an

expeditious and inexpensive court procedure. She is doing her best so that the

parties could enter a settlement that would not be unjust to each other. She always
 8

had a basis for the calculation of the settlement price, which makes it fair for both

parties.

One of the case was already recommended to file a position paper, the defendant in

this case refused to received the notice of hearing despite the efforts made by the

baylift. Other than that no final decision was made.