Usual Process in Labor Relations:

1. Workers organize themselves into a union or some other form of association.

2. They may or may not register their organization with the government, but when they do, they and their members acquire certain rights
that are legally demandable, such as the right to bargain as a group.
3. The labor organization, furthermore, should be free from employer's interference.
4. If the employer tries to interfere with the workers' organizational rights, he commits "unfair labor practice" (ULP) which may trigger a strike
or work stoppage. But a union cannot strike over intra or inter-union disputes.
5. The employees should speak as one voice, hence they need to select only one union as their representative. If there is union rivalry, the
rivalry is resolved through an election with or without DOLE intervention.
6. After the question of employee representation is settled, the employer's and employees' representatives meet and talk over proposals
and counter-proposals.
7. A deadlock may or may not occur. Unresolved bargaining deadlock may, again, lead to a work stoppage.
8. The agreement, when reached, is embodied in a labor contract, commonly called collective bargaining agreement (CBA).
9. The CBA must be ratified by the employees and registered with DOLE, but although unregistered, it is valid and binding between the
parties; it is law between them. Its economic provisions are renegotiated not later than three years, while the union representation stays
undisturbed for five years. (NOTE: If there is no employer-employee relationship between the parties, there is no basis for organizing for
purposes of collective bargaining.)
10. Because labor relations are primarily "domestic," third parties, even the Government, shy away from meddling, as much as it can be
helped. This is why an in-house problem-solving structure, called grievance machinery, is a requirement in CBAs.
11. If this machinery fails, the parties themselves are free to select any third party, called voluntary arbitrator, to resolve their differences.
12. The company is a house where the employer and employees are the family members. Although it is the government that sets the legal
boundaries, the real parties-in-interest are the employer and employees. If the parties are observing the legal boundaries, the
government, if not invited in, is an intruder. This, finally, is the reason a restraining order or injunction from government is frowned upon in
labor disputes; if such an order must issue at all, it will have to pass through a strict procedural route.
13. But when the dispute, whether it be a lockout, a strike, a picket, or any form of "concerted activities," violates the rights of others or is
accompanied by violence or other illegal acts — in a word, when the legal boundaries are transgressed — then the injunctive power of
the State may be invoked. In fact, it need not be invoked when the Secretary of Labor, on his own volition, decides to use the state's
restraining power when the dispute puts national interest at stake. In that situation, the Secretary or even the President may either
"assume jurisdiction" or "certify" the case to NLRC. Either action has the effect of compulsory arbitration which maintains the status quo
while the government tries to resolve the dispute.
NOTE: "Every person must, in the exercise of his rights and in the performance of his duties, act with justice, give everyone his due, and
observe honesty and good faith. (Article 19, Civil Code)"
labor or trade union - is a combination of workmen organized for the ultimate purpose of securing through united action the most favorable
conditions as regards wages, hours of labor, conditions of employment, etc., for its members; completely organized body of dues-paying members,
operating through elected officers and constituting a militant, vital and functioning organ; is the recognized instrumentality and mouthpiece of the
laborers. (NOTE: While every labor union is a labor organization, not every labor organization is a labor union. The difference is one of organization,
composition and operation.)
WHY WORKERS ORGANIZE:
1. human drive toward self-advancement
2. increasing the bargaining power of employees
3. eliminate competition among employees in the labor market
4. desire for job security (Ex.: Skilled craftsmen organized in order to secure control over available jobs so as to hold them against the
competition of unskilled immigrants)
5. Employees wished to substitute what we should term "the rule of law" for the arbitrary and often capricious exercise of power by the boss.
6. Unions helped to give employees a sense of participation in the business enterprises of which they are part.
Commission - means the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) or any of the divisions
Bureau - means the Bureau of Labor Relations (BLR) and/or the Labor Relations Divisions in the regional offices
Board - means the National Conciliation and Mediation Board (NCMB)
Council - means the Tripartite Voluntary Arbitration Advisory Council (TVAAC)
Labor Organization - means any union or association of employees which exists in whole or in part for the purpose of collective bargaining or of
dealing with employers concerning terms and conditions of employment
Legitimate Labor Organization - means any labor organization duly registered with the Department of Labor and Employment, and includes any
branch or local thereof
Company Union - means any labor organization whose formation, function or administration has been assisted by any act defined as unfair labor
practice by this Code
Bargaining Representative - means a legitimate labor organization or any officer or agent of such organization whether or not employed by the
employer
Labor Dispute - includes any controversy or matter concerning terms or conditions of employment or the association or representation of persons
in negotiating, fixing, maintaining, changing or arranging the terms and conditions of employment, regardless of whether the disputants stand in the
proximate relation of employer and employee
Managerial Employee - is one who is vested with powers or prerogatives to lay down and execute management policies and/or to hire, transfer,
suspend, lay off, recall, discharge, assign or discipline employees. Supervisory employees are those who, in the interest of the employer,
effectively recommend such managerial actions if the exercise of such authority is not merely routinary or clerical in nature but requires the use of
independent judgment. All employees not falling within any of the above definitions are considered rank-and-file employees for purposes of this
Book.
Voluntary Arbitration - means any person accredited by the Board as such, or any person named or designated in the Collective Bargaining
Agreement by the parties to act as their Voluntary Arbitrator, or one chosen with or without the assistance of the National Conciliation and Mediation
Board, pursuant to a selection procedure agreed upon in the Collective Bargaining Agreement, or any official that may be authorized by the
Secretary of Labor and Employment to act as Voluntary Arbitration upon the written request and agreement of the parties to a labor dispute.
Strike - means any temporary stoppage of work by the concerted action of employees as a result of an industrial or labor dispute
Lockout - means the temporary refusal of an employer to furnish work as a result of an industrial or labor dispute
Internal Union Dispute - includes all disputes or grievances arising from any violation of or disagreement over any provision of the constitution and
by-laws of a union, including any violation of the rights and conditions of union membership provided for in this Code
Strike-breaker - means any person who obstructs, impedes, or interferes with by force, violence, coercion, threats or intimidation any peaceful
picketing by employees during any labor controversy affecting wages, hours or conditions of work or in the exercise of the right of self-organization
or collective bargaining
Strike area - means the establishment, warehouses, depots, plants or offices, including the sites or premises used as runaway shops, of the
employer struck against, as well as the immediate vicinity actually used by picketing strikers in moving to and fro before all points of entrance to and
exit from said establishment
Employee - refers to any person working for an employer. It includes one whose work has ceased in connection with any current labor dispute or
because of any unfair labor practice and one who has been dismissed from work but the legality of the dismissal is being contested in a forum of
appropriate jurisdiction.
Employer - refers to any person or entity who employs the services of others, one for whom employees work and who pays their wages or salaries.
An employer includes any person directly or indirectly acting in the interest of an employer. It shall also refer to the enterprise where a labor
organization operates or seeks to operate.
Arbitration - the reference of a dispute to an impartial third person, chosen by the parties or appointed by statutory authority to hear and decide the
case in controversy
Compulsory Arbitration - the proceeding where the consent of one of the parties is enforced by statutory provisions; in labor cases, it is the
process of settlement of labor disputes by a government agency which has the authority to investigate and to make an award which is binding on all
the parties (Note: The law forbids a compulsory arbitrator from entertaining a dispute properly belonging to the jurisdiction of a voluntary arbitrator.)
Labor Arbiter - can hear and decide employment-related cases; the NLRC's representative in a RAB (regional arbitration branch); numbering about
200, they adjudicate cases in behalf of the NLRC but their decisions are appealable to the NLRC itself sitting as any of its eight divisions; under the
Labor Code, they are clothed with the authority to conduct compulsory arbitration on cases involving termination disputes and other cases under
Article 217. When the Labor Arbiter renders his decision, compulsory arbitration is deemed terminated because by then the hearing and
determination of the controversy has ended. Any appeal raised by an aggrieved party from the Labor Arbiter's decision is already beyond the scope
of arbitration since in the appeal stage, the National Labor Relations Commission en banc merely reviews the Labor Arbiter's decision for errors of
fact or law and no longer duplicates the proceedings before the Labor Arbiter. Thus, the clause "pending final resolution of the case by arbitration"
should be understood to be limited only to the proceedings before the Labor Arbiter, such that when the latter rendered his decision, the case was
finally resolved by arbitration.
- the proceedings before a Labor Arbiter is non-litigious (the technicalities of law and procedure in the regular courts do not apply
in NLRC/labor arbiter proceedings); The arbiter may avail himself of all reasonable means, including ocular inspection, to ascertain the facts
speedily; he shall personally conduct the conferences or hearings and take full control of the proceedings.
Voluntary Arbitrator - under Article 261, has "original and exclusive "jurisdiction over disputes concerning CBA implementation or personnel policy
enforcement; under Article 262, the parties may submit to a voluntary arbitrator (or panel) "all other disputes including unfair labor practices and
bargaining deadlocks."
Unfair Labor Practice - any act intended or directed to weaken or defeat the workers' right to self-organize or to engage in lawful concerted
activities (carries the effect of anti-unionism); Only gross violations of a collective bargaining agreement are considered unfair labor practice
Intra-Corporate Disputes - revolves around the election of directors, officers or managers of the bank, the relation between and among
stockholders, and between them and the corporation. These matters fall within the jurisdiction of the Securities and Exchange Commission.
EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE RELATIONSHIP ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS:
(a) selection and engagement of the employee;
(b) payment of wages;
(c) power to dismiss; and
(d) power to control the employee's conduct.
WHO ARE EMPLOYEES:
a) shall include any employee, and
b) shall not be limited to the employee of any particular employer, unless the Act explicitly states otherwise, and
c) shall include any individual
 whose work has ceased as a consequence of, or in connection with, any current labor dispute, and
 who has not obtained any substantially equivalent and regular employment.
LABOR ORGANIZATION AS EMPLOYER - a labor organization may be deemed an "employer" when it is acting as such in relation to persons
rendering services under hire, particularly in connection with its activities for profit or gain. Thus, a labor organization which operates a stevedoring
and arrastre business under contracts with various shipping firms, with an organizational structure, operational systems and facilities similar to
those
of independent contractors engaged in the same line of business, is already a business entity, hence, an "employer" of laborers under its hire.
(Allied Free Workers Union vs. Cia. Maritima)
LABOR DISPUTE – the test depends on whether it involves or concerns terms, conditions of employment or representation; (e.g. a strike to compel
dismissal of an antagonistic supervisor; or a controversy over seniority rights; or a dispute over an asserted duty to work on legal holidays, fall within
the category of labor disputes) Any bona fide controversy concerning wage, hours or conditions of work or representation constitutes a labor dispute
within the meaning of the Act. Even the question of employer-employee relationship can be considered a "labor dispute."
LABOR DISPUTES AND REMEDIES: A SUMMARY
Tests or Criteria of "Labor Dispute"
A. Nature: Dispute arises from employer-employee relationship, although disputants need not be proximately "employee" or "employer" of the other.
B. Subject matter: Dispute concerns (1) terms or conditions of employment; or (2) association or representation of persons in negotiating, fixing,
maintaining, or changing terms or conditions of employment.
Kinds of Labor Disputes
A. Labor Standards Disputes: (as defined in DOLE Guidelines, 16 September 1987).
(1) Compensation — Examples: Underpayment of minimum wage; stringent output quota; illegal pay deductions
(2) Benefits — Examples: nonpayment of holiday pay, overtime pay, or other benefits
(3) Working conditions — Example: unrectified work hazards
B. Labor Relations Disputes:
(1) Organizational Right Dispute/ULP
Examples: coercion, restraint or interference in unionization efforts; reprisal or discrimination due to union activities; company unionism; ULP strike
or lockout; union members' complaint against union officers
(2) Representation Disputes
Examples: Uncertainty as to which is the majority union; determination of appropriate collective bargaining unit; contest for recognition by different
sets of officers of same union;
(3) Bargaining Disputes
Examples: Refusal to bargain (ULP); bargaining in bad faith; bargaining deadlock; economic strike or lockout
(4) Contract Administration or Personnel Policy Disputes
Examples: Noncompliance with CBA provision (ULP if gross noncompliance with economic provisions); disregard of grievance machinery;
nonobservance or unwarranted use of union security clause; illegal or unreasonable personnel management policies; violation of no-strike/no-
lockout agreement.
(5) Employment Tenure Disputes
Examples: Nonregularization of employees; nonabsorption of labor-only contracting staff; illegal termination; non-issuance of employment contract.
Remedies in Labor Disputes
A. Grievance Procedure— in-house adjustment of complaint, problem, or dispute following the steps prescribed in CBA or company policy.
B. Conciliation (literally means "to draw together") — a process where a disinterested third party meets with management and labor, at their
request or otherwise, during a labor dispute or in collective bargaining conferences, and, by cooling tempers, aids in reaching an agreement.
C. Mediation (literally means "to be in the middle") — a third party studies each side of the dispute then makes proposal for the disputants to
consider.
But a mediator, like a conciliator, cannot render an award or render a decision; they do not adjudicate. Conciliation and mediation, usually
combined, are done primarily by "Conciliators-Mediators" of the National Conciliation and Mediation Board.
D. Enforcement or compliance order — an act of the Secretary of Labor (through Regional Director or other representatives) in the exercise of
his
visitorial or administrative authority to enforce labor laws, policies, plans, or programs, or rules and regulations.
E. Certification of bargaining representatives — determination of which contending unions shall represent employees in collective bargaining.
This
is handled by "Med-Arbiters" of DOLE Regional Offices after certification or consent elections.
F. Arbitration — the submission of a dispute to an impartial person for determination on the basis of evidence and arguments of the parties.
Arbitration,
unlike conciliation or mediation, is adjudication and the arbitrator's decision or award is enforcible upon the disputants. A dispute pending in
arbitration cannot be a ground for strike or lockout; to do so will be a sabotage of the arbitration process.
"Voluntary" — if submission of the dispute is by agreement of the parties and the arbitrators or panel of arbitrators is chosen by them. Voluntary
Arbitration is done, of course, by "voluntary arbitrators."
"Compulsory" — if submission of the dispute is by directive of law. Unlike a conciliator or a mediator, an arbitrator is a judge; he makes decisions
and
awards that the parties must accept. Compulsory Arbitration is done primarily by "Labor Arbiters" of the NLRC.
In voluntary arbitration (VA), the award is final and unappealable, except through certiorari.
In compulsory arbitration (CA), the decision is appealable to NLRC, then to the Court of Appeals, thru special civil action of certiorari.
G. Assumption of jurisdiction — an authority vested by law to the Secretary of Labor or the President to decide a dispute causing or likely to
cause a strike or lockout in an industry indispensable to national interest.
H. Certification to NLRC — an action of the Secretary of Labor empowering NLRC to compulsorily arbitrate a dispute causing or likely to cause a
strike or lockout in an industry indispensable to the national interest.
Either "assumption" or "certification" automatically enjoins an ongoing or impending strike/lockout. A return-to-work order is issued to strikers; at the
same time the employer is ordered to immediately resume operations and readmit all workers under the same terms and conditions prevailing
before the strike or lockout.
I. Injunction — is an extraordinary remedy which is not favored in labor law. A writ of injunction is issued to stop or restrain an actual or threatened
commission of prohibited or unlawful acts or to require the performance of an act, which if not restrained or performed forthwith, may cause grave or
irreparable damage to any party or render ineffectual any decision in favor of such party. In short, an injunction makes a negative or a positive
command.
As a rule, an injunction or an order to prevent or stop an act is avoided in resolving a labor dispute. The state policy, rather, is to encourage the
parties
to use the nonjudicial processes of negotiation and compromise, mediation-conciliation and arbitration.
The requirements or conditions to secure injunction are provided for in Article 218(e) of the Labor Code.
J. Judicial Action — complaint filed with regular court in cases falling under its jurisdiction.
Examples: Offense against persons or property; criminal case of ULP; illegal recruitment
K. Appeal—the process by which an order, decision, or award is elevated to a higher authority, on specified grounds, so that the order, decision or
award may be modified or set aside and a new one issued. In instances where appeal is allowed, the administrative remedies should be availed of,
as a rule, before the aggrieved party may go to court. This is the legal rule known as exhaustion of administrative remedies.
Examples of appeal: an enforcement order of a Regional Director in labor standard cases is appealable to the Secretary of Labor; a denial of union
registration in the Regional Office is appealable to the Bureau of Labor Relations; a decision of a Labor Arbiter is appealable to the appropriate
NLRC
division (but not to the Secretary of Labor)
L. Review by court — No law allows appeal from a decision of the Secretary of Labor, or of the NLRC, or of a Voluntary Arbitrator. In these cases
the petition for certiorari, prohibition, or mandamus (Rule 65, Rules of Court) may be lodged with the Supreme Court or the Court of Appeals. The
grounds for petition for certiorari and/or prohibition are abuse of discretion, or lack or excess of jurisdiction.
M. Compromise agreement — in any stage of any of these settlement processes, the labor dispute may be resolved by the parties through a
compromise agreement, provided that the agreement is freely entered into and is not contrary to law, moral, or public policy. A compromise
agreement is also subject to approval of the authority before whom the case is pending. Even a labor standards case can be settled through a
compromise.

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION - attached to the DOLE solely for program and policy coordination only
- composed of a Chairman and twenty-three (23) members
- The Commission may sit en banc or in eight (8) divisions, each composed of three (3) members.
- The Commission shall sit en banc only for purposes of promulgating rules and regulations governing the hearing and
disposition of cases before any of its divisions and regional branches and formulating policies affecting its administration
and operations.
- Of the eight (8) divisions, the first, second, third, fourth, fifth and sixth divisions shall handle cases coming from the
National Capital Region and other parts of Luzon: and the seventh and eighth divisions, cases from the Visayas and
Mindanao, respectively.
- The concurrence of two (2) Commissioners of a division shall be necessary for the pronouncement of a judgment or
resolution. Whenever the required membership in a division is not complete and the concurrence of two (2)
Commissioners to arrive at a judgment or resolution cannot be obtained, the Chairman shall designate such number of
additional Commissioners from the other divisions as may be necessary.
- The Commission and its eight (8) divisions shall be assisted by the Commission Attorneys in its Appellate and adjudicatory
functions whose terms shall be coterminous with the Commissioners with whom they are assigned.
- No Labor Arbiter shall be assigned to perform the functions of the Commission Attorney nor detailed to the office of any
commissioner.
- The Chairman, the Division Presiding Commissioners and other Commissioners shall all be appointed by the President.
- The Labor Arbiters shall also be appointed by the President upon recommendation of the Commission en banc to a
specific arbitration branch preferably in the region where they are residents, and shall be subject to Civil Service Law,
rules and regulations: Provided, That the Labor Arbiters who are presently holding office in the region where they are
residents shall be deemed appointed thereat.
- The Chairman of the Commission shall appoint the staff and employees of the Commission and its regional branches as
the needs of the service may require, subject to the Civil Service Law, rules and regulations, and upgrade their current
salaries, benefits and other emoluments in accordance with law. (As amended by RA . No. 9347, effective August 26,
2006.)
- The NLRC "shall exercise its adjudicatory and all other powers, functions and duties through its divisions." The " division"
is a legal entity, not the persons who sit in it. Hence, an individual commissioner has no adjudicatory power, although, of
course, he can concur or dissent in deciding a case. The law lodges the adjudicatory power on each of the eight divisions,
not on the individual commissioners nor on the whole commission. A resolution on a motion for reconsideration is valid
even if the commissioners that passed the resolution are not the same commissioners who made the decision sought to
be reconsidered. What matters is that the commissioners voting on the motion are duly assigned to the division.
- APPOINTMENT AND QUALIFICATIONS:
1. Chairman and other Commissioners
 shall be members of the Philippine Bar;
 engaged in the practice of law in the Philippines for at least fifteen (15) years;
  with at least five (5) years experience or exposure in the field of labor-management relations, and
 preferably residents of the region where they shall hold office.
2. Labor Arbiters
 members of the Philippine Bar; and
 engaged in the practice of law in the Philippines for at least ten (10) years;
 with at least five (5) years experience or exposure in the field of labor-management relations
Note: The Chairman, the other Commissioners and the Labor Arbiters shall hold office during good behavior until they reach the age
of sixty-five (65) years, unless sooner removed for cause as provided by law or become incapacitated to discharge the duties of their
office: Provided, however, That the President of the Republic of the Philippines may extend the services of the Commissioners and
Labor Arbiters up to the maximum age of seventy (70) years upon the recommendation of the Commission en banc.
3. Commission Attorneys
 members of the Philippine Bar;
 with at least one (1) year experience or exposure in the field of labor-management relations

- CREATION AND AUTONOMY:

o September 1972 PD No. 21 (October 14,1972) - martial law was declared which abolished the Court of Industrial Relations and
replaced it with an ad hoc National Labor Relations Commission
o 1974 - This NLRC was short-lived as it gave way to the NLRC which the Labor Code created
o Republic Act No. 6715 (March 21, 1989) - introduced a number of amendments, one of which declared that, "There shall be a
National Labor Relations Commission which shall be attached to the Department of Labor and Employment for program coordination
only...";
the National Labor Relations Commission continues to act collegially, whether it performs administrative or rule-making functions or
exercises appellate jurisdiction to review decisions and final orders of the Labor Arbiters.
- Restored the tripartite representation in the Commission; The same Article 213, as
amended, provides that the Chairman and fourteen, now twenty-three, members
composing the National Labor Relations Commission shall be chosen from the workers,
employers and the public sectors. However, once they assume office "the members
nominated by the workers and employers organization shall divest themselves of any
affiliation with or interest in the federation or association to which they belong."
o Executive Order No. 204, dated May 5, 2005 - by President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo; delegated to the Secretary of Labor
"administrative supervision over the NLRC, its regional branches and all its personnel." The Order cited two objectives: (1) to further
improve the rate of disposition of cases and (2) to enhance existing measures for the prevention of graft and corruption in the NLRC.
o Republic Act No. 9347 - without presidential signature, lapsed into law on July 27, 2006 because of the constitutional provision that
a bill "shall become a law" if not vetoed by the President within 30 days from receipt. It was published, according to NLRC, on
August 11, 2006.; is incorporated in Articles 213 through 216 as here worded. It reiterates that the NLRC is attached to DOLE
"solely" (repeated in the word "only") for program and policy coordination. It likewise elevates to the Court-of-Appeals level the
qualifications, pay, perquisites, and rank of the NLRC commissioners whose number is increased from 15 to 24 in eight divisions
instead of five.
- Strengthened the tripartite representation in the Commission by requiring that an appointee to a vacancy
should be a nominee of the sector that nominated the predecessor.
JURISDICTION OF LABOR ARBITERS AND THE COMMISSION:
I. Labor Arbiters shall have original and exclusive jurisdiction to hear and decide, within thirty (30) calendar days after the submission of
the case by the parties for decision without extension, even in the absence of stenographic notes, the following cases involving all
workers, whether agricultural or non-agricultural: (Article 217)
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 the employer-employee relations;
5. Cases arising from any violation of Article 264 of this Code, including questions involving the legality of strikes and lockouts;
6. Except claims for Employees Compensation, 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 thousand pesos
(P5,000.00) regardless of whether accompanied with a claim for reinstatement.
Note: Any or all of these cases under Article 217 can, by agreement of the parties, be presented to and decided with finality by a voluntary
arbitrator or panel of voluntary arbitrators.
ADDITIONAL CASES: To the six (6) kinds of cases mentioned in Article 217, the following should be added:
1. 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 well as employment termination of OFWs;
2. Wage distortion disputes in unorganized establishments not voluntarily settled by the parties pursuant to Republic Act No. 6727, as
reflected in Article 124;
3. Enforcement of compromise agreements when there is noncompliance by any of the parties pursuant to Article 227 of the Labor
Code, as amended; and
4. Other cases as may be provided by law.
II. The Commission shall have exclusive appellate jurisdiction over all cases decided by Labor Arbiters.
III. Cases arising from the interpretation of collective bargaining agreements and those arising from the interpretation or enforcement of
company personnel policies shall be disposed of by the Labor Arbiter by referring the same to the grievance machinery and voluntary
arbitration as may be provided in said agreements.
It is well settled in law and jurisprudence that where no employee-employer relationship exists between the parties and no issue is involved which
may be resolved by reference to the Labor Code, other labor statutes, or any collective bargaining agreement, it is the Regional Trial Court that
has jurisdiction.
VENUE
The NLRC Rules of Procedure provides:
Section 1. Venue. — (a) All cases which Labor Arbiters have authority to hear and decide may be filed in the Regional Arbitration Branch having
jurisdiction over the workplace of the complainant or petitioner.
For purposes of venue, workplace shall be understood as the place or locality where the employee is regularly assigned at the time the cause of
action arose. It shall include the place where the employee is supposed to report back after a temporary detail, assignment or travel. In the case of
field employees, as well as ambulant or itinerant workers, their workplace is where they are regularly assigned or where they are supposed to
regularly
receive their salaries and wages or work instructions from, and report the results of their assignment to their employers.
(b) Where two or more Regional Arbitration Branches have jurisdiction over the workplace of the complainant or petitioner the Branch that first
acquired jurisdiction over the case shall exclude the others.
(c) When venue is not objected to before the filing of position papers, such issue shall be deemed waived.
(d) The venue of an action may be changed or transferred to a different Regional Arbitration Branch other than where the complaint was filed by
written agreement of the parties or when the Commission or Labor Arbiter before whom the case is pending so orders, upon motion by the
proper party in meritorious cases.
(e) Cases involving overseas Filipino workers may be filed before the Regional Arbitration Branch having jurisdiction over the place where the
complainant resides or where the principal office of any of the respondents is situated, at the option of the complainant. (See also: Philippine
National
Bank vs. Cabansag, G.R No. 157010, June 21, 2005.)

The State shall afford full protection to labor. = The worker, being the economically-disadvantaged party — whether as complainant/petitioner or as
respondent, as the case may be — the nearest governmental machinery to settle the dispute must be placed at his immediate disposal. The other
party is not to be given the choice of another competent agency sitting in another place as this will unduly burden the worker. Even in cases where
venue has been stipulated by the parties, the Court has not hesitated to set aside the same if it would lead to a situation so grossly inconvenient
to one party as to virtually negate his claim. (See Suplicio Lines, Inc. vs. NRC, 254 SCRA 506 [1996].)

Under Article 247 of the Code, "the civil aspects of all cases involving unfair labor practices, which may include claims for damages and other
affirmative relief, shall be under the jurisdiction of the labor arbiters." Xxx Jurisdiction is conferred by law and not necessarily by the nature of the
action. Civil controversies are not the exclusive domain of courts. (National Union of Bank Employees vs. Judge Alfredo Lazaro, et al, G.R. No.
56431,
January 19, 1988)

TERMINATION DISPUTES - Its resolution depends on the validity of the cause and the manner of the employee's dismissal
Is the dismissal of an employee an enforcement of personnel policy and, therefore, should be brought to a voluntary arbitrator instead of a
labor arbiter? No, not necessarily, thus ruled the Supreme Court in San Miguel Corp. vs. NLRC (G.R. No. 108001, March 15, 1996).
Company personnel policies - guiding principles stated in broad, long-range terms that express the philosophy or beliefs of an organization's top
authority regarding personnel matters. They deal with matters affecting efficiency and well-being of employees and include, among others, the
procedure in the administration of wages, benefits, promotions, transfer and other personnel movements which are usually not spelled out in the
collective agreement. The usual source of grievances, however, is the rules and regulations governing disciplinary actions.
Still on termination disputes, does a labor arbiter have jurisdiction over an illegal dismissal complaint filed by a church minister? Is the
principle of separation of church and state applicable? The Court answers: It does not matter that the employer here is a religious sect and that it
was organized not for profit because the Labor Code applies to all establishments whether for profit or not. (Article 278, Labor Code.) The principle
of separation of Church and State finds no application in the case at bench. For the rationale of the principle is to delineate or demarcate the
boundaries between the two (2) institutions (church and state) to avoid encroachments by one against the other. The demarcation line calls on the
two entities to "render unto Ceasar the things that are Ceasar's and unto God the things that are God's." This means that the State is prohibited
from interfering in purely ecclesiastical affairs, and the Church likewise is barred from meddling in purely secular matter. The case at bench is
only one of dismissal of an employee in the exercise by the employer-church of its management prerogatives and therefore does not concern any
ecclesiastical matter. While the case relates to the church and its minister, it does NOT ipso facto give it a religious significance, what is involved is
only the relationship of the church as an EMPLOYER and the minister as an employee which is purely SECULAR in character and has no relation
whatsoever to practice of faith, worship or doctrines of the Seventh Day Adventist Church. The minister was not excommunicated nor expelled
from membership of the SDA church but only dismissed from employment. Terminating one from his employment is totally different from the
ecclesiastical act of expelling a member from the religious congregation. (Austria vs. NLRC & Cebu City Central Philippines Union Mission
Corporation of the Seventh Day Adventists, G.R No. 124382, August 16, 1999.)
Termination of Corporate Officer; Jurisdiction Over Intra-Corporate Disputes Transferred From SEC to RTC
The dismissal of a corporate officer by a corporate board is a corporate dispute that should be brought to the regular courts. The jurisdiction of the
Securities and Exchange Commission over such case has been transferred to the courts by the Securities Regulation Code (R.A. No. 8799),
passed on July 19, 2000.
The election, appointment or removal of an executive vice-president is a prerogative vested upon a corporate board. And it must be, not only
because it is a practice observed in the company but more so, because of an express mandate of law.
A corporate officer's dismissal is always a corporate act, or an extra-corporate controversy and the nature is not altered by the reason or wisdom
with which the Board of Directors may have in taking such action. (Section 5 of Presidential Decree No. 902-A)
Effect of Claim for Backwages, Benefits, or Damages
Where its occupant is not reelected by the Board of Directors, the officer's complaint should be lodged with the SEC, [now regular court]
not the NLRC, even if the complainant/petitioner has claims for backwages, employment benefits, and damages. Xxx While the affirmative reliefs
and monetary claims sought by petitioner in his complaint may, at first glance, mislead one into placing the case under the jurisdiction of the Labor
Arbiter, a closer examination reveals that they are actually part of the perquisites of his elective position; hence, intimately linked with his relations
with the corporation (1994 case involving Philippine Airlines' Executive Vice-President-Chief Executive Officer).
RULING BEFORE: MAINLAND V. MOVILLA 1995: “In intra-corporate matters, such as those affecting the corporation, its directors,
trustees, officers and shareholders, the issue of consequential damages may just as well be resolved and adjudicated by the SEC. It is still within
the competence and expertise of the SEC to resolve all matters arising from or closely connected with all intra-corporate disputes. Such jurisdiction
of the SEC [now the RTC] is not negated by the complainant's claims for vacation and sick leaves, 13th-month pay, Christmas bonus, medical
expenses, car expenses, and other benefits, as well as for moral and exemplary damages and attorney's fees(Andaya vs. Abadia).
In order that the SEC can take cognizance of a case, the controversy must pertain to any of the following relationships:
a) between the corporation, partnership or association and the public;
b) between the corporation, partnership or association and its stockholders, partners, members or officers;
c) between the corporation, partnership or association and the State as far as its franchise, permit or license to operate is concerned; and
d) among the stockholders, partners or associates themselves.
The fact that the parties involved in the controversy are all stockholders or that the parties involved are the stockholders and the
corporation does not necessarily place the dispute -within the ambit of the jurisdiction of SEC. The better policy to be followed in determining
jurisdiction over a case should be to consider concurrent factors such as the status or relationship of the parties or the nature of the question that is
the subject of their controversy. In the absence of any one of these factors, the SEC will not have jurisdiction. Furthermore, it does not necessarily
follow that every conflict between the corporation and its stockholders would involve such corporate matters as only the SEC can resolve in the
exercise of its adjudicatory or quasi-judicial powers.
In the case at bench, the claim for unpaid wages and separation pay filed by the complainant against petitioner corporation involves a
labor dispute. It does not involve an intra-corporate matter, even when it is between a stockholder and a corporation. It relates to an employer-
employee relationship which is distinct from the corporate relationship of one with the other. Moreover, there was no showing of any change in the
duties being performed by complainant as an Administrative Officer and as an Administrative Manager after his election by the Board of Directors.
What comes to the fore is whether there was a change in the nature of his functions and not merely the nomenclature or tide given to this job.
Since Movilla's complaint involves a labor dispute, it is the NLRC, under Article 217 of the Labor Code of the Philippines, which has
jurisdiction over the case.”
RULING NOW: Tabang vs. NLRC: SEC Jurisdiction Reaffirmed; Corporate Officer and Intra-corporate Controversy Defined
“The "better policy" enunciated in Mainland vs. Movilla (1995), however, did not influence and was not mentioned at all in the 1997
decision in Tabang vs. NLRC, penned by Mr. Justice Regalado. The Court ruled, again, that all kinds of controversies between stockholders and
corporations fall under SEC's jurisdiction [RTC, per R.A. No. 8799]. It also clarified the term "corporate officers."
 The president, vice-president, secretary and treasurer are commonly regarded as the principal or executive officers of a corporation, and
modern corporation statutes usually designate them as the officers of the corporation. However, other officers are sometimes created by the charter
or by-laws of a corporation, or the board of directors may be empowered under the by-laws of a corporation to create additional offices as may be
necessary.
Under Section 25 of the Corporation Code, the president, secretary and treasurer are specifically mentioned as officers of the corporation.
The same section also provides that the board of directors may elect "such other officers as may be provided for in the by-laws."
Jurisprudence leads to this definition: a "corporate officer" is the president, secretary, or treasurer of the corporation or any other officer
whose office is created by the board of directors as authorized or required by the corporate charter or by-laws.
It has been held that an "office" is created by the charter of the corporation and the officer is elected by the directors or stockholders.
On the other hand, an "employee" usually occupies no office and generally is employed not by action of the directors or stockholders but by the
managing officer of the corporation who also determines the compensation to be paid to such employee. A further distinction may thus be drawn
between an officer and an employee of a private corporation in that the latter is subordinate to the officers and under their control and direction... It
is clear that the two terms officers and agents are by no means interchangeable...
An "intra-corporate controversy" is one which arises between a stockholder and the corporation. There is no distinction, qualification,
nor any exemption whatsoever. The provision is broad and covers all kinds of controversies between stockholders and corporations. (Tabang vs.
NLRC, above) [Italics supplied — CAA] “
In Mainland, the complainant is a stockholder-employee while in Tabang he is a stockholder-corporate officer. Both in Mainland and
Tabang the complaints include claims for unpaid wages and 13th month pay. In Mainland the Court views it as a labor dispute, hence under
NLRC jurisdiction. But in Tabang the Court calls it an intra-corporate controversy, hence under SEC [now RTC] jurisdiction; then the Court
concludes: "The provision is broad and covers all kinds of controversies between stockholders and corporation. "

Nacpil vs. International Broadcasting Corp., G.R. No. 144767, March 21, 2002:
The Court has consistently held that there are two elements to be considered in determining whether the SEC has jurisdiction over the
controversy, to wit: (1) the status or relationship of the parties; and (2) the nature of the question that is the subject of their controversy.
Even assuming that the petitioner was in fact appointed by the General Manager, such appointment was subsequently approved by the
Board of Director of the IBC. That the position of Comptroller is not expressly mentioned among the officers of the IBC in the By-Laws is of no
moment, because the IBC's Board of Directors is empowered under Section 25 of the Corporation Code and under the corporation's By-Laws to
appoint such other officers as it may deem necessary.
The Court has held that in most cases the "by-laws may and usually do provide for such other officers,'' and that where a corporate office
is not specifically indicated in the roster of corporate officers in the by-laws of a corporation, the board of director may also be empowered under the
by-laws to create additional officers as may be necessary.
As petitioner's appointment as comptroller required the approval and formal action of the IBC's Board of Directors to become valid, it is
clear therefore that petitioner is a corporate officer whose dismissal may be the subject of a controversy cognizable by the SEC [now RTC]
under Section 5(c) of P.D. 902-A which includes controversies involving both election and appointment of corporate directors, trustees, officers, and
managers. Had petitioner been an ordinary employee, such board action would not have been required.
(NOTE: 1. "business judgment doctrine" - encompasses the removal from office of a corporate officer at the discretion of the board of directors.
2. Such latitude of discretion, he (petitioner) argues, runs counter to the guarantee of security of tenure of "all workers" under the
Constitution and the Labor Code. He sees an open constitutional issue.)

When Bank Officer May be a Regular Employee

Treating the assistant vice-president (AVP) as an employee, the Court held:
It has been stated that "the primary standard of determining regular employment is the reasonable connection between the particular activity
performed by the employee in relation to the usual trade or business of the employer." Additionally, "an employee is regular because of the nature of
work and the length of service, not because of the mode or even the reason for hiring them." As assistant vice-president of the foreign department
of the bank she performs tasks integral to the operations of the bank and her length of service with the bank totaling 28 years speaks volumes of
her status as a regular employee of the bank. In fine, as a regular employee, she is entitled to security of tenure; that is, her services may be
terminated only for a just or authorized cause. This being in truth a case of illegal dismissal, it is no wonder then that the bank endeavored to the
very end to establish loss of trust and confidence and serious misconduct on the part of private respondent but to no avail. The NLRC's jurisdiction
over the case is upheld.)

LABOR ARBITER'S JURISDICTION: MONEY CLAIMS

A money claim arising from employer-employee relations, excepting SSS / ECC/Medicare claims, is within the jurisdiction of a labor arbiter —
1. if the claim, regardless of amount, is accompanied with a claim for reinstatement; or
2. if the claim, whether or not accompanied with a claim for reinstatement, exceeds five thousand pesos (P5,000) per claimant.
(NOTE: The claims under either No. 1 or No. 2, above, are beyond the jurisdiction of a DOLE regional director under Article 129 which
removes from the regional director's hands any claim for reinstatement or any money claim exceeding five thousand pesos. Those claims
should instead be filed with the NLRC.)

The original and exclusive jurisdiction of the Labor Arbiter under Article 217(c ) for money claims is limited only to those arising from statutes or
contracts other than a Collective Bargaining Agreement. The Voluntary Arbitrator or Panel of Voluntary Arbitrators will have original and
exclusive jurisdiction over money claims "arising from the interpretation or implementation of the Collective Bargaining Agreement, and those
arising from the interpretation or enforcement of company personnel policies," under Article 261.

Money Claims Must Have Arisen From Employment

2 RULINGS ARE INVOLVED. The difference lies in what law will be applied to resolve the hey questions raised.
I. Pepsi-cola Bottling Co. vs. Martinez, G.R. No. Lr58877, March 15, 1982
The claim for said prize (house and lot since he was declared winner of the "Lapu-Lapu Award" for his performance as top salesman of the year)
unquestionably arose from an employer-employee relation and, therefore, falls within the coverage of Article 217 of the Labor Code, as amended by
PD 1691 which speaks of "all the claims arising from employer-employee relations, unless expressly excluded by this Code."
Indeed, Tumala would not have qualified for the contest, much less won the prize, if he was not an employee of the company at the time of the
holding of the contest. Besides, the cause advanced by petitioners to justify their refusal to deliver the prize — the alleged fraudulent manipulations
committed by Tumala in connection with his duties as salesman of the company — involves an inquiry into his actuations as an employee.
To hold that Tumala's claim for the prize should be passed upon by the regular courts of justice, independently and separately from his claim for
back
salaries, retirement benefits and damages, would be to sanction split jurisdiction. (In this case, the complaint should have been file with the NLRC
who has jurisdiction, instead of what the petitioner did in which he filed the complaint in the Court of First Instance (now Regional Trial Court) of
Davao.
II. San Miguel Corp. vs. NLRC, G.R. No. 80774, May 31, 1988
The Supreme Court set aside the decision of the NLRC and dismissed Rustico's complaint, without prejudice to his right to file a suit before the
proper court, if he so desires.
Ruling: Money claims of workers which now fall within the original and exclusive jurisdiction of the labor arbiter are those money claims which have
some reasonable causal connection with the employer-employee relationship. In this case, SMC's Innovation Program is an employee incentive
scheme offered and open only to employees of SMC below the rank of manager. Without the existing employer-employee relationship between the
parties here, there would have been no occasion to consider SMC's Innovation Program or the submission by Rustico of his proposal concerning
beer grande. Without that relationship, Rustico's suit against SMC would never have arisen. The money claim of Rustico, therefore, arose out of or
in connection with his employment relationship with SMC.
However, the fact that Rustico's money claim arose out of or in connection with his employment with SMC is not enough to bring such money claim
within the original and exclusive jurisdiction of labor arbiters. Where the claim to the principal relief sought is to be resolved not by reference to the
Labor Code or other labor relations statute or a collective bargaining agreement but by the general civil law , the jurisdiction over the dispute belongs
to the regular courts of justice and not to the labor arbiter and the National Labor Relations Commission. (Italics supplied)
Here, SMC's innovation program was an invitation from SMC to its employees to submit innovation proposals, and the SMC undertook to grant
awards to employees who accept such invitation and whose suggestions satisfied SMC's standards and requirements of the Innovation Program,
and which therefore could be translated into substantial benefit to the corporation. Such undertaking, though unilateral in origin, could nonetheless
ripen into an enforceable contractual (facio ut des) obligation on the part of SMC under certain circumstances.
Thus, whether or not an enforceable contract, albeit implied and innonimate, had arisen between SMC and Rustico in this case, and if so, whether
or not it had been reached, are preeminently legal questions, questions not to be resolved by referring to labor legislation and having nothing to do
with wages or their terms and conditions of employment, but rather by having recourse to our law on contracts.

Xxxxxxxx

Jurisdiction Over Claims for Damages

May 1,1980, Presidential Decree No. 1691 (which substantially reenacted Article 217 in its original form) - nullified Presidential Decree No. 1367
and restored to the Labor Arbiters and the National Labor Relations Commission their jurisdiction to award all kinds of damages in cases arising
from employer-employee relations. The Labor Arbiter has jurisdiction to award to the dismissed employee not only the reliefs specifically provided
by labor laws, but also moral and other forms of damages governed by the Civil Code.

Splitting of Actions Not Allowed - An employee who has been illegally dismissed so as to cause him moral damages has a cause of action for
reinstatement, backwages and damages. However, he cannot sue in two forums: one, before the Labor Arbiter for reinstatement and recovery of
backwages upon the theory that his dismissal was illegal; and two, before a court of justice for recovery of moral damages upon the theory that his
dismissal was injurious or tortious.

The judgment of the Labor Arbiter granting separation pay operated as a bar to his subsequent action for the recovery of damages before the Court
of First Instance under the doctrine of res judicata.

Employer's Complaint for Damages - An employer's claim for damages against an employee may be filed as counterclaim in the illegal dismissal
case filed by the employee. Such claim for damages, arising from employment relationship, is outside the jurisdiction of the regular court.

LABOR ARBITER'S JURISDICTION: STRIKES AND LOCKOUTS - The power to issue injunction is lodged with an NLRC division, not a labor
arbiter. Moreover, "national interest" cases are handled differently. Article 263(g) empowers the DOLE Secretary or the President of the Republic
to assume jurisdiction or refer the case to the NLRC if the labor dispute or impending strike or lockout involves an industry indispensable to national
interest.
regular courts – has the jurisdiction to hear and decide actions filed by third parties being affected by a strike of people who are not their
employees. Finally, if a crime is committed, whether in relation to a strike or not, the prosecution of the crime has to be done not before a labor
arbiter but a regular court, because in such case the laws to be administered are primarily the penal laws of the land.

LABOR ARBITER'S JURISDICTION: OFW'S MONEY CLAIMS OR DISMISSAL

Section 10 of R.A. 8042, approved on June 7,1995, known as the Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995 - transfers from the POEA to
Labor Arbiters the original and exclusive jurisdiction to hear and decide claims arising out of an 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. (See
related discussion in Volume I of this work in the chapter on POEA jurisdiction.)
Section 3 [a] of RA 8042 defines migrant workers as "a person who is to be engaged, is engaged or has been engaged in a remunerated activity in
a state in which he or she is a not legal resident; to be used interchangeably with overseas Filipino worker."

SUBMISSION TO JURISDICTION - A party cannot invoke the jurisdiction of a court to secure affirmative relief against his opponent and, after
obtaining or failing to obtain such relief, repudiate or question that same jurisdiction.
The Supreme Court frowns upon the undesirable practice of a party submitting his case for decision and then accepting the judgment only if
favorable, and attacking it for lack of jurisdiction when adverse. (see Tijam v. Sibonghanoy)

IMMUNITY OF FOREIGN GOVERNMENTS

"immunity" - is commonly understood as the exemption of the state and its organs from the judicial jurisdiction of another state. This is anchored on
the principle of the sovereign equality of states under which one state cannot assert jurisdiction over another in violation of the maxim par in parem
non habet imperium (an equal has no power over an equal)
- the application of the doctrine of immunity from suit has been restricted to sovereign or governmental activities (jure
imperii). The mantle of state immunity cannot be extended to commercial, private and proprietary acts (jure gestionis).

EXECUTING MONEY CLAIMS AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT - Even when a government agency enters into a business contract with a private
entity, it is not the Labor Code but C.A. No. 327 that applies in pursuing a money claim (against the Government) arising from such contract.
In this jurisdiction, the general law waiving the immunity of the State from suit is found in Act No. 3083, when the Philippine
government "consents and submits to be sued upon any money claim involving liability arising from contract, express or implied, which could serve
as a basis of civil action between private parties." Implied consent, on the other hand, is conceded when the State itself commences litigation, thus
opening itself to a counter-claim or when it enters into a contract. In this situation, the government is deemed to have descended to die level of the
other contracting party and to have divested itself of its sovereign immunity. Not all contracts entered into by the government operate as a
waiver of its nonsuability; distinction must still be made between one which is executed in the exercise of sovereign function and another which is
done in its proprietary capacity. XXX Pursuant, however, to Commonwealth Act No. 327, as amended by Presidential Decree No. 1445, the money
claim should first be brought to the Commission on Audit. XXX The Labor Code, in relation to Act No. 3083, provides the legal basis for the State
liability but the prosecution, enforcement or satisfaction thereof must still be pursued in accordance with the rules and procedures laid down in CA
327, as amended by PD 1445. (Department of Agriculture vs. The National Labor Relations Commission, et al., G.R. No. 104269, November 11,
1993)

LOCAL WATER DISTRICT (LWDs)

Hagonoy Water District vs. NLRC, G.R. No. 81490, August 31,1988 – LWDs are quasi public corporations whose employees belong to the civil
service, hence, the dismissal of those employees shall be governed by the civil service law, rules and regulations

POWERS OF THE COMMISSION [National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC)]

1.1 Rule-Making Power
The Commission has the power to promulgate rules and regulations:
a) governing the hearing and disposition of cases before it and its regional branches;
b) pertaining to its internal functions; and
c) those that may be necessary to carry out the purposes of this Code.
The rules and regulations promulgated by the Commission have the force and effect of law. It is an elementary rule in administrative law that
administrative regulations and policies enacted by administrative bodies, such as the Revised Rules of the NLRC, to interpret the law which they
are entrusted to enforce, have the force of law, and are entitled to great respect.
It is likewise elementary that the rules and regulations must not be in conflict with or contrary to the provisions of the Labor Code and other laws.
1.2 Power to Issue Compulsory Processes
The Commission has the power to:
a) administer oaths;
b) summon parties; and
c) issue subpoenas ad testificandum and duces tecum.
1.3 Power to Investigate and Hear Disputes Within Its Jurisdiction
The Commission has the power to:
a) conduct investigations for the determination of a question, matter or controversy within its jurisdiction; and
b) proceed to hear and determine the disputes in the manner laid down under paragraph (c) of Article 218.
1.4 Contempt Power
The commission has the power to hold any person in direct or indirect contempt under Rule IX of the NLRC 2005 Rules of Procedure.
The procedures and penalties thereof are provided under paragraph (d) of Article 218.
Contempt is defined as a disobedience to the Court by setting up an opposition to its authority, justice and dignity. It signifies not only a willful
disregard or disobedience of the court's orders but such conduct as tends to bring the authority of the court and the administration of law into
disrepute or in some manner to impede the due administration of justice. There is no question that disobedience or resistance to a lawful writ,
process, order, judgment or command of a court or injunction granted by a court or judge constitutes indirect contempt punishable under Rule 71 of
the Rules of Court.
It is proper for a labor arbiter to cite guilty of indirect contempt an employer who refuses to reinstate an illegally dismissed employee.
1.5 Power to Conduct Ocular Inspection
Under Article 219, the chairman, any commissioner, labor arbiter or their duly authorized representatives may, at anytime during working hours:
a) conduct an ocular inspection on any establishment, building, ship or vessel, place or premises, including any work, material, implement,
machinery,
appliance or any object therein; and
b) ask any employee, laborer or any person, as the case may be, for any information or data concerning any matter or question relative to the object
of the investigation.
1.6 Adjudicatory Power: Original
Each of the NLRC divisions has original jurisdiction over petitions for injunction or temporary restraining order under Article 218(e).
Also, it has original jurisdiction to hear and decide "National Interest" cases certified to it by the Secretary of Labor under Article 263(g). The NLRC
thereby gains jurisdiction over all questions submitted or necessarily deemed submitted so as to resolve the dispute, even over issues that
otherwise fall within the labor arbiter's exclusive jurisdiction.
1.7 Adjudicatory Power: Appellate
The NLRC (i.e., a division) has exclusive appellate jurisdiction over all cases decided by labor arbiters and the DOLE regional director or hearing
officers under Article 129.
The NLRC has no appellate jurisdiction over decisions rendered by:
(1) a voluntary arbitrator, or
(2) the secretary of labor, or
(3) the bureau of labor relations director on cases appealed from the DOLE regional offices. The decisions of these three offices are
appealable rather to the Court of Appeals.
As already noted, cases falling within the labor arbiter's jurisdiction are employment-connected. Where the labor arbiter has no jurisdiction or has
not
acquired jurisdiction, neither has the NLRC. Its jurisdiction over cases under Article 217(a) is appellate, not original.

Pondoc vs. NLRC, et al, G.R. No. 116347, October 3, 1996

Issue: May a division of the NLRC defeat a final judgment of the labor arbiter by entertaining a petition for injunction and damages and by receiving
evidence to recover alleged indebtedness that will offset a monetary award to the employee?
Ruling: The proceedings before the NLRC were fatally flawed. In the first place, the NLRC should not have entertained the private respondent's
[employer's] separate or independent petition for "Injunction and Damages." It was obvious that the petition was a scheme to defeat or obstruct the
enforcement of the [labor arbiter's] judgment; in fact, a writ of execution had been issued. XXX if a claim does not fall within the exclusive original
jurisdiction of the Labor Arbiter, the NLRC cannot have appellate jurisdiction thereon.

POWER TO ISSUE INJUNCTION OR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER - injunctions or restraining orders are frowned upon as a matter of
labor relations policy
action for injunction - the main action of injunction seeks a judgment embodying a final injunction which is distinct from, and should not be
confused with the provisional remedy of preliminary injunction
preliminary injunction - the sole object of which is to preserve the status quo until the merits can be heard. A writ of preliminary injunction is
generally based solely on initial and incomplete evidence. (72)