Jeorgelyn V.

Largado JD2-LO2

Verceles vs BLR GR No. 152322 Feb. 15, 2005

FACTS:
The case arose from a memorandum filed by Petitioners against Private Respondent for
allegedly spreading false rumors and creating disinformation among the members of the said
association.

The rumors, according to Petitioners happened when Private respondents, in filing a complaint
before the DOLE-NCR complained of petitioners’ failure to make financial and other records,
and deliberate refusal to call general and special meetings. According to CA's results, financial
statements for the years 1995 through 1997 were only sent to DOLE-NCR on February 6, 1998,
and those for the year 1998 were only submitted on March 16, 1999. The last meeting of the
association was held on April 21, 1995, and the minutes were only sent to BLR-DOLE on
February 24, 1998.

Petitioners do not hide the fact that they belatedly submitted their financial reports and the
minutes of their meetings to the DOLE.

Petitioners' Argument: According to the petitioners, the question of late submission of these
reports has been made moot and academic by their eventual enforcement. Besides, the
association has always done it this way.

Moreover, the petitioners likewise maintain that the passage of General Assembly Resolution
No. 10 dated 10 December 1997 and Resolution No. 8, Series of 2000, following the application
of the principle that the sovereign majority rules, cured any liability that may have been
brought about by their belated actions.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the non-holding of meetings and non-submission of reports by the petitioners
moot and academic, and whether the decision to hold meetings and submit reports contradict
and override the sovereign will of the majority?
RULING: No.
This issue was precipitated by the Court of Appeals decision affirming the order of DOLE
Regional Director Maximo B. Lim for the petitioners to hold a general membership meeting
wherein they make open and available the union’s/association’s books of accounts and other
documents pertaining to the union funds, and to regularly conduct special and general
membership meetings in accordance with the union’s constitution and by-laws.

The passage of General Assembly Resolution No. 10 dated 10 December 1997 and Resolution
No. 8, Series of 2000, which supposedly cured the lapses committed by the association’s
officers and reiterated the approval of the general membership of the acts and collateral
actions of the association’s officers cannot redeem the petitioners from their predicament. The
obligation to hold meetings and render financial reports is mandated by UEEA’s constitution
and by-laws. This fact was never denied by the petitioners. Their eventual compliance, as what
happened in this case, shall not release them from the obligation to accomplish these things in
the future.

Prompt compliance in rendering financial reports together with the holding of regular meetings
with the submission of the minutes thereon with the BLR-DOLE and DOLE-NCR shall negate any
suspicion of dishonesty on the part of UEEA’s officers. This is not only true with UEEA, but
likewise with other unions/associations, as this matter is imbued with public interest.
Undeniably, transparency in the official undertakings of union officers will bolster genuine trade
unionism in the country.
 MY Biscuits vs Laguesma GR No. 9511 Apr. 22, 1991
FACTS:
The Med-Arbiters hear representation disputes, intra-party disputes, and other similar disputes,
with the exception of union deregistration and collective bargaining agreement deregistration.

Before the DOLE's med-arbiter, respondent submitted a petition for registration election as a
bargaining agent for a party of petitioner M.Y. San's employees.

The med-arbiter issued an order dismissing the petition for lack of substance after the parties
submitted their position papers, noting that there is no employer-employee relationship
between petitioner and the delivery drivers/helpers represented by respondent Union.

Meanwhile, the respondent Union and several others filed a lawsuit with the NLRC Branch of
Region No. IV alleging wage underpayment, nonpayment of 13th month pay, service bonus pay
and COLA, penalties, and attorney's fees.

The labor arbitrator ruled that the case should be dismissed because the parties do not have an
employer-employee relationship.

The NLRC heard the appeal of a private respondent.

Issue:
 Whether or not the med-arbiter or the Secretary of Labor and Employment has the authority
to determine the existence of an employer-employee relationship between the parties in a
petition for certification election.

RULING:
Under Article 226 of the Labor Code, as amended, the Bureau of Labor Relations (BLR), of which
themed-arbiter is an officer, has the following jurisdiction

Art. 226.Bureau of Labor Relations

The Bureau of Labor Relations and the Labor Relations divisions in the regional offices of
the Department of Labor shall have original and exclusive authority to act, at their own
initiative or upon request of either or both parties, on all inter-union and intra-union
conflicts,and all disputes, grievances or problems arising from or affecting labor-management
relations in all work places whether agricultural or non-agricultural , except those arising from
the implementation or interpretation of collective bargaining agreements which shall be the
subject of grievance procedure and/or voluntary arbitration. The Bureau shall have fifteen (15)
working days to act on labor cases before it, subject to extension by agreement of the parties.
(Emphasis supplied.)From the foregoing, the BLR has the original and exclusive jurisdiction to
inter alia, decide all disputes ,grievances or problems arising from or affecting labor-
management relations in all workplaces whether agricultural or non-agricultural. Necessarily, in
the exercise of this jurisdiction over labor-management relations, the med-arbiter has the
authority, original and exclusive, to determine the existence of an employer-employee
relationship between the parties.

Apropos to the present case, once there is a determination as to the existence of such a
relationship, the med-arbiter can then decide the certification election case.

 As the authority to determine the employer-employee relationship is necessary and

indispensable in the exercise of jurisdiction by the med- arbiter, his finding thereon may only
be reviewed and reversed by the Secretary of Labor who exercises appellate jurisdiction
under Article 259 of the Labor Code.

When as in this case Secretary Drilon of DOLE rendered a resolution dated December 15, 1989
reversing the order of the med-arbiter dated August 25, 1989 by declaring the existence of
an employer-employee relationship between the parties, such finding cannot be rendered
nugatory by a contrary finding of the labor arbiter in a separate dispute for money claims
between same parties.
 Diamonon vs DOLE GR No. 108951 Mar. 7, 2000

FACTS:

The applicant was the NACUSIP's National Executive Vice President and the PACIWU's VP for
Luzon. He later discovered that he had been removed from his role in both unions as a result of
a resolution passed at a meeting of the National Executive Boards of both unions. Petitioner
called for the resolution on his expulsion to be reconsidered, while also filing a complaint with
the Department of Labor (DOLE) against the National President of NACUSIP and PACIWU,
challenging the legitimacy of his removal. He filed a second lawsuit, accusing NACUSIP and
PACIWU officers of violating the C/BL, illegally disbursing union funds, and abusing their
positions of power. His removal was declared null and void in the first instance. The second
allegation was rejected by the Med-arbiter due to a lack of personality. Petitioner appealed the
dismissal of the second lawsuit to the Department of Labor and Employment, which released an
order finding that petitioner's inability to prove that administrative remedies had been
exhausted was fatal to his case. The petitioner claims that public respondents changed the basis
for dismissal from "lack of personality to file the case" to "non-exhaustion of administrative
remedies." By going beyond the released and ostensibly adjudicating on something about
which the parties were not heard, this was accomplished.

ISSUE: 

W/N public respondent committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the appeal.

RULING:

 No. An appellate court may only pass upon errors assigned, but such without exceptions.
An appellate court, as well as those in administrative bodies, are given broad
discretionary powers to waive the lack of assignment of errors and consider errors not
assigned. In this case, not only did petitioner fail to comply with the IRR of the Labor Code, but
he also did not exhaust the remedies set forth by the C/BL of both unions. A party with
an administrative remedy must not merely initiate the prescribed administrative procedure to
obtain relief, but also to pursue it to its appropriate conclusion before seeking judicial
intervention to prevent unnecessary and premature resort to said bodies.
 Montoya vs Escayo GR No. 82211-12
March 21, 1989

FACTS:
All of the former salesgirls at Montoya's shop, "Terry's Dry Goods Store," filed separate lawsuits
against the plaintiff for alleged unpaid overtime wages, holiday pay, 13th month pay, ECOLA,
and service leave pay; for breach of the minimum wage rule, unfair firing, and attorney's fees.
Montoya called for the complaints to be dismissed, alleging that the salesgirls, among other
things, failed to refer the dispute to the Lupong Tagapayapa for possible resolution and to
obtain the certification needed from the Lupon Chairman prior to filing the cases with the Labor
Arbiter. These actions were allegedly violative of the provisions of P.D. No. 1508.

ISSUE:
W/N P.D. 1508 ( Katarungang Pambarangay Law) is applicable to labor disputes?

RULING:
No. The provisions of P.D. 1508 requiring the submission of disputes before the barangay
Lupong Tagapayapa prior to their filing with the court or other government offices are not
applicable to labor cases. Requiring conciliation of labor disputes before the Barangay courts
would defeat the very salutary purposes of the law. Instead of simplifying labor proceedings
designed at expeditious settlement or referral to the proper court or office to decide it finally,
the position taken by the petitioner would only duplicate the conciliation proceedings and
unduly delay the disposition of the labor case.
 Bernardo vs. NLRC
G.R. No. 105819 March 15, 1996

FACTS:
On February 14, 1977, petitioner Marilyn Bernardo worked at Univet Agricultural Products, Inc.,
a division of United Laboratories. She served as a general clerk until 1980, when she was
promoted to administrative clerk, a position she held until March 18, 1989, when she was fired
for dishonesty.

The Manufacturing Department of the University of Agriculture demanded two filing cabinets in
January 1989, according to documents. Petitioner prepared a Capital Appropriations Request
(CAR) for the procurement of two filing cabinets as a result. Dr. Salvador P. Cajilog, the
department director, signed the request, which was later accepted by five other Univet
Agricultural officers. Before the CAR was sent to the purchasing department for office
equipment procurement, it was discovered that petitioner had included the purchase of one
executive swivel chair in the order.

The following memorandum was sent to petitioner on February 18, 1989, asking her to clarify
why no disciplinary action should be taken against her within 48 hours.

ISSUE:
I. WHETHER OR NOT PETITIONER WAS DISMISSED WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF LAW;

II. WHETHER OR NOT THERE WAS VALID GROUND TO DISMISS PETITIONER; AND

RULING:
I. Before discussing the merits of the petition, we shall first consider the objection of private
respondents that the petition in this case does not comply with this Court's Circular No. 28-
91, which as originally promulgated, required parties in the Court of Appeals or in the Supreme
Court (1) to indicate in the caption of every petition the docket number of the case in the court
below and (2) to submit a certification that no case involving the same or similar parties and
issues is pending in any other court or tribunal.
While it is true that the docket numbers of the case in the Labor Arbiter's office and in the NLRC
are not indicated in the caption of the petition, the fact is that the numbers appear in the
affidavit of service. This failure to comply strictly with the requirement may be excused on the
ground that there was nevertheless substantial compliance by petitioner indicating the docket
numbers in the affidavit of service which is a part of her petition. In any event the informality
may be overlooked in view of the fact that this requirement was subsequently removed by the
amendment of Circular No. 28-91 by Revised Circular No. 28-91, which took effect on April 1,
1994.

As to the second requirement pertaining to certificates of non-forum shopping, the record

shows that the certification in this case was incorporated in the petition. As in the case of the
first requirement regarding docket numbers, there was substantial compliance in this case.
Indeed, while the requirement as to certificate of non-forum shopping is mandatory,
nonetheless the requirements must not be interpreted too literally and thus defeat the
objective of preventing the undesirable practice of forum-shopping .

II. Private respondents accuse petitioner of forum-shopping, citing the petition for certiorari
which petitioner filed in G.R. No. 93958. They claim that our decision in that case constitutes
res judicata in the present case.

The petition in G.R. No. 93958 was filed when this case was still pending before the Labor
Arbiter's office. It was for reinstatement, pending determination of the case by the Labor
Arbiter on the ground that there was undue delay in the disposition of the case. As already
stated, the petition was dismissed and the Labor Arbiter was instead ordered to expedite the
resolution of petitioner's case by deciding it within 30 days. On the other hand, the present
petition, although seeking the reinstatement of petitioner, is based on petitioner's claim that
the decision of the NLRC was rendered with grave abuse of discretion and therefore is void. The
two actions, therefore, involve different causes of action. For the principle of res judicata to
apply, the following must be present: (a) a decision on the merits; (b) by a court of competent
jurisdiction; (c) the decision is final; and (d) the two actions involve identical parties, subject
matter, and causes of action. The last element is absent in this case.

Nor may petitioner be accused of forum-shopping, which exists when, as a result of an adverse
decision rendered in a case, the losing party seeks a favorable decision in another forum other
than by appeal or certiorari. The present certiorari is not a separate case but a review of the
decision of the NLRC.