Enjoin __ ____ strike of order that the workers on strike

already should go back to work. Who can do that? The

Secretary of Labor and Employment. That is what is known

in our jurisdiction as "AJ," on assumption of jurisdiction,

where the Secretary Labor and Employment assumes

jurisdiction over a labor dispute. That's the power of the

Secretary of Labor and Employment.

Circumstances that the Secretary of Labor and Employment

shall assume jurisdiction:

(1) if industry is indispensable to national interest, or

(2) in the case of establishments rendering essential

services, such as hospitals

When the workers of the hospitals go on strike, the

Secretary shall assume jurisdiction.

Air Traffic Controller -- statutorily prohibited from going on

strike. But in other jurisdiction, they may go on strike. If Air

Traffic Controllers go on strike, the Secretary shall assume

jurisdiction within 24 hours unless who will be manning the

(di ko naintindihan).

These are the 2 instances which the Secretary may/shall

assume jurisdiction. Why am I explaining this? Because the

Secretary has 2 options when he/she assumes jurisdiction.

What will the Secretary do? Either he will decide the case,

thus the term "assumption of jurisdiction," or he will certify

the case for compulsory arbitration because a strike is

actually a dispute. The strike can last for a long period time

and if the industry is indispensable to national interest,

example... Saging, kasi the company is losing several

billions because of the strike, etc., etc. Ano pa? Ang dami

noh? Mga coconut manufacturing company. Even in the ___,

the Secretary of Labor and Employment assume jurisdiction

over the labor dispute in Triumph Philippines, underscoring

the fact that underwear is a matter of national interest.

Why am I telling you this? Because the bottomline of this

discussion is that the Secretary has 2 options, either to

decide the case or to certify it for compulsory arbitration --

bring your cases to the NLRC and arbitrate them. It was

asked in the 2013 Bar. Can the Secretary (not the

assumption because all ___ labor relations would know that

the Secretary can assume jurisdiction over a labor dispute)

actually front(?) a CBA and make that one as the CBA of the

parties, between the management and the workers? That is

a natural offshoot to an assumption of jurisdiction. Why? If a

labor dispute is based on a bargaining deadlock, they

cannot agree anymore on something. What will the

Secretary do? Decide on the deadlock, obviously. When the

deadlock is decided, the effect is that there is a CBA that

will come out resolving the deadlock. In the same manner,

the labor arbiter, the Commision, may also come up with a

CBA. It is a certified case -- one that arises from the strike or

lockout. The Secretary certifies that for compulsory

arbitration. When the Secretary certifies thatbfor compusory

arbitration, where will it go? It will go to the NLRC. That is

the 2nd instance where the NLRC has original jurisdiction.

But that is concurrent to the jurisdiction also of the

Secretary of Labor and Employment because the Secretary

may also assuke jurisdiction and say "Okay. Bring the

matter to me. I will decide it." But both will have the same

effect that the strike is automatically enjoined; and workers

will have to return to their work. Kung lockout (temporary

refusal to furnish work) siya, an option available for the

management, kumbaga they will not allow the workers to

work. But then again, the effect is the same when the

Secretary assumes jurisdiction. The lockout is also enjoined.

Management will start furnishing work to the workers. Why

did I explained that? Because we want to clarify the

jurisdiction of the NLRC. As I said, by and large, the

jurisdiction is appellate.

There are only 2 instances when which the Commission has

original jurisdiction:

(1) injunction cases, and

(2) certified cases -- cases arising from a strike or lockout

where the Secretary said, "go back to work and resolve that

issue with the NLRC."

But, as I said, everything is appellate, if you look at the

provisions of the Labor Code.

Can the regular court enjoin the decision of the NLRC, or

even the Labor Arbiter? No. The general rule, of course, is if

it will... because the... well... a petition for review may, of

course, be filed, but the petition for review is only available

if there is no other plain, simple and (? 9:17) remedy under

the force of law. If there is grave abuse of discretion

amounting to lack or excess in jurisdiction, is the remedy

always petition for review on certiorari? No, because there

are still other remedies available for you. A petition for

review is dismissable always if you fail to exhaust

administrative remedies. So, the regular courts can only

enjoin decisions purely on the ground of abuse of discretion.

At what particular circumstance would a regular court enjoin

decisions of the Labor Arbiter, NLRC? Only when it

prejudices or it will have prejudice involving innocent third

party. For example, in the execution (decisions of the Labor

Arbiter subject to execution -- when the Labor Arbiter

executes the order tapos ang sheriff levy on execution to a

property of a third person), the regular courts can enjoin the

execution because of probably a valid third party claim. If

the execution will not proceed, probably it will go the Labor

Arbiter or to a regular court. It doesn't matter. The

bottomline is there will always be an available remedy with

respect to rights of third persons that may be prejudiced.

Now, under the rules, under the 2011 rules, a writ of

1 LABOR RELATIONS (4) PRELIM

execution is now valid for 5 years. So, now, there is no need

to issue alias writs. In the past, of course, the writs of

execution is 5 or 6... 60 days. Now, writs of execution expire

in 5 years. So, execution can continue until such time na

may pera, makahanap ka talaga ng pera. Under the Labor

Standards, of course, 60 days pa rin ang enforcement/life

ng writ. Sa NLRC, 5 years na. Of course, there is no limit for

the issuance of an alias writ, except if it exceeds 5 years. If

it exceeds 5 years and not executed, the remedy is to file

another motion. It cannot be done moto propio anymore.

(12:50)

(12:50 -15:04) nangita ug marker... :) i-summarize daw niya

ang jurisdiction. No 3 and 6 in the context of 128 and 129)

Ang mga jurisdictions sa labor. Sa DOLE proper: RD, LA,

SOLE, BLR director. Sa NLRC: LA, the NLRC. Sa NCMB, has

no adjudicatory power, whatsoever. The job of thd NCMB is

precisely CM (Conciliation and Mediation) pero ang VA walay

jurisdiction. Jurisdiction of the VA: (1)implementation and

interpretation of the CBA provisions, (2)implementation and

enforcement of company policies, (3)wage distortion in

organized establishment, and (4)all other disputes

submitted for voluntary arbitration. Under NCMB, accredited

ang voluntary arbitrator. The voluntary arbitrator may have

jurisdiction of all labor disputes subject only to one

condition that the parties agreed to submit it to VA. Where

does compulsory arbitration happen? NLRC, either regular

arbitration rush through the Labor Arbiter (tama ba akong

pagkadungog? 23:14) Naa diha ang compusory arbitration.

Voluntary arbitration happens through the VA, who are not

necessarily lawyers, but many of them are lawyers and they

are paid of their services. The VAs resolve cases submitted

to him based on the agreement of the parties. The duty is to

select your own judge. The VA may only decide on the issue

where the parties cannot agree on.

Tapos sa overseas recruitment would be (1)POEA:

administrative cases involving recruitment including

cancellation of license and authority of the recruitment

agencies (displinary actions regarding recruiters which is

administrative in character), disciplinary actions for OFWs

for misbehavior, illegal recruiment with respect to

preliminary investigation in establishing probable cause but

never to prosecute, (2)LA: money claims arising out of

overseas employment regardless of amount, (3)regular

courts: illegal recruitment.

NLRC. We discussed the jurisdiction of the Labor Arbiter.

Almost all original jurisdiction related to Art. 217: unfair

labor practices, termination disputes with claim for

reinstatement, money claims even below 5000php,

damages, legality of strike, with or without labor

reinstatement, amount exceeds 5000, ofw claims, money

claims, wage distortion in an organized establishment,

enforcement of compromise settlements, declaration of

employee-employer relation, declaration of regular status of

employment, among other controversies. (nasa art 217...

Alam mo na yan baby labs :*)

Kung wala na moy mahunahunaan na lain, it probably would

have to fall within the jurisdiction of the Labor Arbiter

because the Labor Arbiter is our court for labor. It is the

lowest court in terms of labor. NLRC is our labor court. The

NLRC has appellate jurisdiction, except for instances:

certification cases and injunction cases.

Art. 226

What is the nature of controversy? Inter-union and Intra-

union conflicts. Kinsa naay jurisdiction? The BLR, or the

Labor Relations division in the regional office -- that unit no

longer exist as of the moment. Under the Labor organization

of the Department of Labor, the Labor Relations division is

non existent anymore. Who has jurisdiction over inter- and

intra-union dispute? It is the MA. Who is the MA? The

mediator arbiter. Who is this in the regional office? Of

course, there are also MAs in the Bureau, but inter- and

intra-union disputes, when they involve unions, not

federations, unions only at the enterprise level, is actually

recognizable by the MA. That jurisdiction is also shared by

the Regional Director. Somewhere here is the Secretary of

Labor and Employment. What is the nature of the case?

Inter- and intra-union dispute by way of review. We are not

talking about labor relations, labor standards cases,

enforcement of labor standards or small money claims. Who

has jurisdiction over this? It is the Regional Director. Appeal

in Labor standards cases? Cases decided based on the

enforcement power under Art. 128? The Secretary of Labor

and Employment. Small money claims, asa muappeal?

NLRC. Where did the case emanate? From the Regional

Director of the DoLE. The Regional Director of DoLE has

original jurisdiction over labor standards cases, and small

money claims, but appellate goes to Secretary in the

enforcement of labor standards, and with respect to small

money claims, it goes to the NLRC. Of course, almost (di ko

na maintindihan). Notice and file(? 32:15) appeal ang imong

claim is less than 2000 pesos. But in interpreting the

provisions of the law, that is common sense(?).

What is the nature lf the dispute according to Art. 226?

Inter- and Intra-union dispute. Inter-union involes 2 unions.

Intra-union involes conflict within the union, president

versus the vice president, members versus the president,

etc. Where can we read the enumeration in terms of what

are inter- or intra-union disputes and other related labor

disputes? Rule 11, Section 1, DO 40-03, series of 2003, as

amended (naa sa likod sa book). All of these (the

enumeration) is recognizable by the mediator arbiter.

Except for letter B of item B, cancellation of registration of

2 LABOR RELATIONS (4) PRELIM

unions and/or associations filed by etc. If cancellation (of

union registration) case, who has jurisdiction? It is the

Regional Director because he is the one who issues the

certificate of registration. All others (in the enumeration)

will fall under the jurisdiction of the mediator arbiter.

Case: Management is ready to terminate the employment of

the person by reason of expulsion from union membership,

pwede diay na? Can he be terminated because he was

expelled from membership of the union? Pwede under the

close shop agreement. So, the employee filed an illegal

expusion case. Asa siya muadto? He has to go to the med

arbiter. If the expulsion actually proceeded the termination,

the med arbiter loses jurisdiction and the controversy

becomes a case of termination dispute. It will now fall under

the jurisdiction of the Labor Arbiter. Since the expulsion did

not proceed yet to the termination, even it is a close shop

agreement (membership in the union is a condition sine qua

non to employment or continued employment). Under the

rules, the management is under oblgation to examine the

validity of the expulsion, even the jurisprudence is telling us

that. But if the expulsion is in fact valid, nganong under

obligation man? To comply with what had been agreed upon

the CBA, thus, will lead to terminate the employment of the

worker. Pero wala pa nakareceive at that point, nifile na ang

worker ug expulsion case sa Mediation Arbiter. If my

memory serves me right, I think I ruled in favor of the

worker then based on the ground of denial of due process.

But it will resort to the med arbiter ruling on the nullity of

the registration that was issued by the Regional Director.

Since the Regional Director has the power to register,

rightfully so, the power to cancel it is also with the Regional

Director. All others in the enumeration fall within the

jurisdiction of the MA.

Inter and Intra-union -- controversies within the union or

between unions.

Did you remember my illustration related to organization?

Anong kasunod nun? Representation and then Collective

Bargaining. Magorganize sa sila ug union, then they will

decide which of the 2 unions will represent the workers in

collective bargaining. There are authors including J. Chan,

according to Chan, representation cases have inter-union

dispute because it involves unions to represent the workers

in collective bargaining. I do not agree. Why? Because the

certification election may not always involve 2 unions. It can

be a choice between union ond no union. It's not inter-

union. It's not intra-union. It's a certification election. It's a

representation case. Otherwise, if it is an inter- or intra-

union dispute, the decision of the med arbiter is actually

appealable to the BLR. But a certification election, a case

related to representation, from the med arbiter goes directly

to the SoLE.

3 LABOR RELATIONS (4) PRELIM