THE IMPERATIVE OF SPEEDY LABOR JUSTICE
By: Atty. Sonny Matula, Vice President of FFW(ITUC)-Philippines

“The State shall promote the principle of shared responsibility between workers and employers and the preferential use of voluntary modes in settling disputes, including conciliation, and shall enforce their mutual compliance therewith to foster industrial peace.

The State shall regulate the relations between workers and employers, recognizing the right of labor to its just share in the fruits of production and the right of enterprises to reasonable returns on investments, and to expansion and growth (Sec. 3, At XIII of the Philippine Constitution).

“Those who have less in life must have more in law,”

President Ramon Magsaysay said more than half a decade ago.

The right of workers to have more in law is substantiated in the provision of the Constitution that states “(f)ree access to court and quasi-judicial bodies and legal assistance shall not be denied to any person by reason of poverty” (cf. Sec. 11, Art III of the Constitution).

Also, Section 16 of Article III of the Constitution also states that:

“All persons shall have the right to a speedy disposition of their cases
before all judicial, quasi-judicial, or administrative bodies.”

Unfortunately, other than labor disputes are being resolved at an agonizingly slow pace, workers are confronted by a confusing web of intricate jurisdictions and venues in our labor dispute resolution machineries.

Thus, the call for a speedy resolution of cases in the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), other quasi-judicial bodies and in regular courts reverberated in rallies and boldly-inked in manifestos and placards of the labor movement every May 1 or Labor day. Rationalization of our dispute settlement mechanism is also imperative.

There are two (2) bills in Congress that call for reforms in our labor laws concerning speedy labor justice and relevant in the post-crisis stage. They are, namely:

1. House Bill no. 1718 or the one stop shop bill or the National Mediation and Arbitration Board (NMAB) bill by Rep. Riza Hontiveros in the House of Representatives; and
2. Senate Bill no. 2207 or the Regional Labor Relations Court (NLRC) bill by Senator Miriam Defensor Santiago (FFW drafted bill) in the Senate

It has been observed that through the introduction of piecemeal amendments to our industrial dispute settlement processes, our workers and employers are confronted, not by design but because of lack of it, by a labor-relations system that is characterized multiple venues or jurisdictions, a large bureaucracy and often confusing rules and procedures.

In the Philippines, workers may confront the following labor disputes in the workplace:

1. Between the employers and their workers or their organizations;
2. Between two or more workers’ organizations or associations; and
3. Between members of the workers’ organization.

Workers’ disputes with their employers cover labor relations, labor standards, or welfare or social legislation disputes.

Labor relations disputes refer termination or disciplinary actions, union and representation issues, collective bargaining deadlock, strikes and lockouts, CBA administration and grievance issues and dispute on company policy interpretation and implementation.

Labor standards disputes include non-compliance, non-payment or underpayment of minimum wage, holiday pay, service incentive leaves and other threshold benefits as well as violations of occupational safety and health standards.

Welfare or social legislation disputes cover claims arising from non-compliance of the social and welfare obligations imposed by law such as remittances of SSS premiums and Employee’s Compensation contributions or failure to pay social benefits including maternity, sickness, medicare and disability compensations.

If worker is aggrieved, she or he may file her or his complaint before a number of venues depending on the issues and agencies having authority to decide and resolve the disputes.

On labor relations:

• Before the sala of the Labor Arbiter of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) (Articles 217 & 218 of the Labor Code, PD 422, as amended)
  • Illegal dismissals, with or without claim for reinstatement;
  • Unfair labor practice acts;
  • Legality of strikes or lockouts;
  • Claims for damages and attorney’s fees
• Before the sala of Med-Arbiter of the Regional Office of the Department of Labor and Employment (Articles 256, & 257)
  • Union Representation
• Before the Regional Director of DOLE or before the Bureau of Labor Relations (Articles 226, 256 & 257)
  • Inter and intra-union dispute
  • Cancellation of registrations
• Before the Regional Branches of the National Conciliation and Mediation Board (NCMB)(E.0. 126; Articles 260 to 262)
  • Bargaining deadlock
  • Unresolved grievances on CBA and company policy from the plant level
• Before the sala of the Secretary of Labor and Employment (Article 263g)
• Disputes involving national interest

On Labor Standards

• Before the sala of the Regional Office of the DOLE (Article 126)
  • Simple money claim not exceeding P5,000.00 which arises from employee-employer relationships
  • Other labor standard cases (Articles 82 to 210)
    1. Hours of work
    2. Weekly rest period
    3. wages
    4. women and minors
    5. Occupational Health and safety

On welfare or social legistion (166 to 208-A)

• Before the branch offices of the Social Security Sytem (RA 8282)
  • SSS and EC remittances dispute
  • SSS and EC benefit disputes

Wow! Worker is already lost in this labyrinth or jumble web of venues and jurisdictions of dispute settlement. It is said that this muddle system is not deliberate but a product of lack of a well-considered plan or well-studied design.

Can we not have a single entry point? One door,instead of several doors?

Today, a simple labor case may take five to ten years to resolve from arbitration to the Supreme Court. Can we not cut the years of incubation of the finality of resolution of cases?

There is a need of “thinking anew”! As Hontiveros said it, “there is a need to rethink the current system of resolving industrial labor disputes in order to promote simplicity and minimize the bureaucracy which needs to support i.”.

In House Bill 1718, Rep. Hontiveros proposed a one stop shop for all labor disputes except SSS and ECC claims as well as questions on union representation; while in Senate Bill 2207, Senator Defensor-Santiago proposed to remove the appellate divisions of the Commission of the NLRC and just retain the Labor Arbiters.

While the evolution of mechanisms to resolve labor disputes from the Court of Industrial Relations (CIR) established under CA No. 103 to the current system under the Labor Code (P.D. No. 442, as amended) has resulted in a web of intricate and overlapping jurisdictions, Rep. Hontiveros favors a holistic and comprehensive approach to the problems besetting our labor dispute resolution system. She proposes:

• Single entry - The creation of the National Mediation and Arbitration Board (NMAB)
  • a single agency that has the needed expertise to address the distinct dynamics and characteristics of labor disputes;
  • All labor disputes is to be brought to NMAB
• Mediation as backbone - All claims brought to NMAB shall be subject to mediation
  • conducted by person hired and trained for the purpose
  • Mediation proceedings are confidential
  • Only if mediation failed that case is brought to arbitration
• Professional Arbitration – Arbitrators are trained in employer-employee issues but not necessary lawyers
  • Accredited and in a list of DOLE
  • Parties select their arbitrators from the list
• Direct recourse to the Supreme Court. Arbitral awards shall be final and executory except by petition for certiorari before the Supreme Court;
• Abolish NLRC and NCMB
  • as such their personnel as necessary are hereby transferred to the board and its regional branches.
  • Personnel not absorbed shall enjoy right and protection provided under the civil service law, rules and regulations
  • NLRC pending cases shall be transferred and processed by the board

On the other hand, the Federation of Free Workers (FFW) seeks to abolish one layer of appellate body, the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC). FFW sought the assistance of Sen. Mirriam Defensor-Santiago to sponsor a bill in the Senate of the Philippines. She thereby proposes the creation of the Regional Court of Labor Relations under the supervision of the Supreme Court.

The incumbent Labor Arbiters shall be deemed appointed as Judges of the Regional Court of Labor Relations and their decisions shall be appealable directly to the Court of Appeals.

It must be pointed out that the delay at the Labor Arbiters’ level is due to the fact that of the present 155 incumbent Labor Arbiters, 53 are assigned as “Reviewers” in the Office of the Commissioners.

Thus, with only one-half (1/2) of the incumbent Labor Arbiters bearing the brunt of hearing and resolving the average 3 1,000 cases filed per year in the Arbitration Branches, it is not surprising that backlogs are incurred.

By law and by the very nature of their original appointments, these Labor Arbiter-“Reviewers” are supposed to be performing their official function as hearing Labor Arbiters in the Arbitration Branches. Worst, there are Labor Arbiters who are detailed in the Office of the Secretary of Labor and other DOLE agencies. If all these Labor Arbiters will be returned back to their respective sala, there would be no more backlogs at the Arbitration level.

As to the delay in the resolution of appealed cases in the Commission, it must be recalled that the Five (5) Divisions were created way back on March 2, 1989by virtue of R.A. 6715. The number of appealed cases was still manageable at that time.

However, after barely ten (10) years later, the influx of appealed cases started to pile up. This was mainly triggered by the economic situation in the country resulting to more labor complaints filed by the affected workers. More than one-half of these cases were filed at the National Capital Region of the NLRC. Realizing this inadequacy, Congress enacted into law R.A. 9347 creating another three (3) Divisions in the NCR. Due to fiscal constraints, only one (1) Division was so far created as of this date. Thus, the problem of backlogs in the Commission proper remained unsolved.

This delay in the disposition of labor disputes was further exacerbated when the Supreme Court came out with a ruling in St. Martin Funeral Homes case in 1998 wherein it was ordered that all petition for certiorari from the decisions or final orders of the Commission must first be filed at the Court of Appeals instead of directly to the Supreme Court as was the practice ever since. This further proved to be a double-whammy for the litigants in a labor dispute.

While there is already a delay in the disposition of appealed cases at the Commission, yet another delay was added by allowing the Court of Appeals to review the decisions of the Commission. It is apparent that there are now two (2) layers of appellate body reviewing the decisions of the Labor Arbiters. Resultantly, the gestation period in the final resolution of labor cases was drastically increased to the frustration of both the workers and employers alike. While the cases are pending, the labor unrest is not addressed and there is NO industrial peace in the workplace.

This condition has contributed to a negative and crippling effect on our economy as shown by several companies pulling out their investments from our country after their labor disputes remained unresolved for years. This is a clear violation of the Constitutional mandate to afford litigants with speedy disposition of their cases.

Thus, in order to comply with this mandate, She proposes Senate Bill 2207.

Moreover, with the her proposal to convert the Regional Arbitration Branches into Regional Court of Labor Relations branches, this set-up will be fully complemented by the existing branches of the Court of Appeals in the Visayas and Mindanao regions. Thus, appealed cases from the Judges of the Regional Court Labor Relations will be filed at the branches of the Court of Appeals in said regions. This will further hasten the resolution of labor cases in the Visayas and Mindanao regions.

Historically, all decisions and orders of the Labor Arbiters were appealable to the Commission proper. In turn, all decisions and final orders of the Commission are reviewed directly by the Supreme Court through a petition for certiorari. This was the procedural set-up when the Court of Industrial Relations (CIR)was established on October 29, 1936 through Commonwealth Act No. 103.

The same procedure was implemented when the CIR was replaced by the Interim National Labor Relations on October 14, 1972 through Presidential Decree No. 21. After two (2) years of existence, the Interim Commission, was abolished by PD 442, thereby establishing the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) on November 1, 1974. On March 21, 1989, R.A.6715 further strengthened the NLRC by granting said agency its quasi-judicial independence from the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE). However, on September 16, 1998, the Supreme Court came out with a decision in St. Martin Funeral Homes vs. NLR, G.R. No. 130866 decreeing that:

“Petitions (for certiorari) should henceforth be initially filed in the Court of Appeals in strict observance of the doctrine on the hierarchy of courts.”

This, in effect, ADDED ONE LAYER of appellate body to review the decisions and orders of the NLRC. Instead of being reviewed only by the Supreme Court as was the practice since 1989, decisions of the NLRC after September 16, 1998, are all elevated first to the Court of Appeals upon petition for certiorari.

With this additional layer of appellate body which was not envisioned by law, the resolution of labor cases was necessarily delayed. The period to resolve labor disputes with finality was now extended because of this decision by the Supreme Court. The average gestation period before the Labor Arbiters is one (1) year, the appeal to the Commission is resolved within an average of three (3) years and the Court of Appeals takes an average of also three (3) years to resolve petitions for certiorari.

Consequently, even the execution of decisions won by the workers at the level of the Labor Arbiters are also delayed because even the Court of Appeals has ruled time and again that in observance of the doctrine on the hierarchy of courts, no execution of the decision of the Labor Arbiter or the Commission shall be enforced during the pendency of a petition for certiorari at their level. Apparently this runs counter with the provision of Article 223 of the Labor Code which provides that “the decision of the Commission shall be final and executory after ten (10) calendar days from receipt thereof by the parties.” However, with the Supreme Court ruling in St. Martin (1998) decreeing that decisions of the Commission shall first be reviewed by the Court of Appeals and in the case of Milagros Panuncillo vs. CAP Philippines, hc. G.R. No. 161305, February 9, 2007 ordering that “Judicial courtesy” must be observed in the execution of the final decisions of the Conmission, there is now an obvious clash between the Labor Code provision and the constitutional rule-making power of the Supreme Court. Of course, there is only one forum to resolve this legal conflict, and that is the Supreme Court itself. To avoid this constitutional impasse, the only remedy is through legislation, which is what this Bill proposes.

Clearly, the rationale behind this legislative measure is simply to harmonize our existing laws with actual realities in the field of labor relations, taking into consideration the paramount welfare of the working class as well as affording equal protection to the employers for they are the affected players in the field of labor-management conflicts.

Given the situation and legal constraints which patently defeats the Constitutional mandate to resolve labor cases with dispatch, the most appropriate and practical legislative solution would be to eliminate one layer of appellate body. The adding of another layer of appellate body was not envisioned by the Labor Code. Nonetheless, it was a pronouncement of the Supreme Court in the exercise of its rule-making power under the Constitution. However, with the abolition of the Commission and herein providing that decisions and final orders of the Judges of the Court of Labor Relations shall henceforth be appealable to the Court of Appeals, the “hierarchy of courts” doctrine enunciated by the Supreme Court is now clearly delineated and established.

Thus, by simply abolishing the Commission, the workers are assured of their Constitutional right to speedy disposition of their complaints, and the employers will be spared of the unusually long and costly litigation. In effect, we avoid protracted labor disputes and therefore enhance the preservation of industrial peace conducive to the economic growth ofthe country. One of the causes for the reluctance of foreign investors to venture in the Philippines is labor unrest. In fact, labor unrest is one of the causes for a number of companies pulling out their business from the Philippines and relocating them to other Asian countries.

Of course, there is no justification to abolish the Court of Appeals because there will be no more appellate body for criminal, civil and administrative cases from the Regional Trial Courts and other quasi-judicial bodies. With the ruling in St. Martin, it is obvious that the Supreme Court will not allow itself to again directly review the decisions and resolutions of the Commission.

Therefore, the logical appellate body to be abolished is the Commission proper and thereby establishing the Regional Court of Labor Relations whose decisions and final orders being appealable to the Court of Appeals. This will effectively shorten the gestation period of labor dispute resolution without running afoul with the Supreme Court’s procedural ruling in St. Martin. In fact, this is in full accord with R.A. 9347 which was enacted into law on August 27, 2006 wherein it was decreed that the Labor Arbiters shall enjoy the same rank, salaries, retirement and other benefits at par with the Judges of the Regional Trial Courts. In enacting R.A. 9347, it is apparent that the Legislature had the intent to ultimately revert back to the former set-up in the Court of Industrial Relations (CIR) as a regular court under the supervision of the Supreme Court. That is precisely what this Bill is proposing now by establishing the Regional Court of Labor Relations.

Moreover, Commissioners who will be displaced are amply provided with optional retirement, if so qualified. Those not qualified are given equitable separation pay. Their severance pay can be sourced from the savings generated by the abolition of the Commission. Neither will there be unnecessary removal of employees with permanent appointments since they will be transferred to the sala of the Judges of the Court of Labor Relations.

At present, more than one-half of the incumbent Labor Arbiters are assigned to the Commissioners, including those detailed in the other offices of the DOLE and those cross-posted as Labor Attache abroad. Labor Arbiters assigned to the Commissioners are the ones drafting decisions for the latter. This practice in the Commission and the DOLE is a blatant violation of the original appointments of these Labor Arbiters since they are by law line Arbiters at the various Regional Arbitration Branches. In fact, Section 2 of

R.A. 9347 specifically provides that: “No Labor Arbiter shall be assigned to perform the functions of the Commission Attorney nor detailed to the office of any Commissioner.” Despite this specific and categorical prohibition by law which took effect on

August 27, 2006, Labor Arbiters assigned in the Commission as reviewers and decision- drafters for the Commissioners are still there even to date. The RABs are deprived of the services of these Labor Arbiters. This is a continuing violation of the law and this practice justifies the abolition of the Commission proper for in truth and in fact, the Labor Arbiters assigned thereat are actually the ones rendering decisions for the Commissioners.

As proposed in her Bill, all incumbent Labor Arbiters will thereafter be deemed appointed as Judges in the Regional Court of Labor Relations. Maintaining the present plantilla of One Hundred Seventy One (171) Judges, this will not only address the volume of cases but it will also greatly reduce the period ofresolving labor disputes at the sala of these front-line Labor Judges.

Finally, to further shorten the resolution of labor cases before the Regional Court of Labor Relations, this Bill likewise provides that the Alternative Dispute Resolution Law (ADR) established under R.A. 9285 shall also be applied in the disposition of labor cases through voluntary arbitration. Therefore, all cases filed with the Regional Court of Labor Relations shall likewise be referred first to the ADR provider or practitioner for conciliation and mediation. It should be noted that the present ADR Law specifically excludes labor cases from its coverage for the simple reason that the ADR process applies only to cases filed before the regular courts of law. However, since we are now proposing that there shall be established the Regional Court of Labor Relations as a regular court, there is no more reason to still exclude labor cases from the coverage of the ADR law.

With the incumbent Labor Arbiters being deemed appointed Judges of the Regional Court of Labor Relations, they shall be performing their functions under the disciplinary supervision of the Supreme Court. As such regular judges of a court of law, these Labor Judges will be constrained to act with dignity and respect to their profession. Moreover, we can expect quality decisions from them as their decisions may eventually reach the Supreme Court for the latter’s critical review.

As thousands of appealed cases continuously pile up in the Commission and hibernating thereat unresolved for years and years, there is a sense of urgency in the early passage of this Bill. The Constitution mandates speedy disposition of labor disputes. It is our sworn legislative duty to give life and meaning to such Constitutional mandate. As the saying goes: “Justice delayed, justice denied.” Our workers and employers deserve no less.

(BACK TO TOP)