Case flow at the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC)

The proceedings before the Labor Arbiters and the NLRC are governed by the Labor Code, as amended, the 2011 NLRC Rules of Procedure, and suppletorily, the Rules of Court. The NLRC Rules describe the proceedings before the Labor Arbiter as non-litigious. Subject to the requirements of due process, the technicalities of law and procedure in the regular courts do not apply in the labor arbitration proceedings.  Labor Arbiters have jurisdiction over seafarer  cases as enumerated under Article 217 of the Labor Code, among others , :(a) Termination disputes (or illegal dismissal cases) (b) Money claims arising out of employer-employee relationship or by virtue of any law or contract, involving Filipino workers for overseas employment, including claims for actual, moral, exemplary and other forms of damages as provided by Section 10 of R.A. No. 8042, as amended by R.A. No. 10022; and other cases as may be provided by law.


After the termination of the Single Entry Approach (SEnA), the following is the case  flow at the labor arbiter and appellate (commission proper) level at the NLRC:

FAQs - NLRC Proceedings

Here is the Frequently Asked Questions for cases filed before the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) 

 Conference

The Labor Arbiter shall summon the parties to a conference within two days from receipt of an assigned case.The purpose of the conference is either to:

·                                 amicably settle the dispute;

·                                 determine the real parties in interest;

·                                 define and simplify the issues of the case;

·                                 enter into admissions and/or stipulations of facts; and

thresh out preliminary matters. (Sec. 2, Rule 5, NLRC Rules as Amended)

 Number of conferences allowed

The number of conferences shall not exceed three (3) settings and shall be terminated within thirty (30) calendar days from the date of the first conference.

No motion for postponement shall be entertained. Non-appearance of the complainant/s during the scheduled hearings for mediation/conciliation conference shall be a ground for the dismissal of the case without prejudice.

In case of non-appearance of the respondent/s during the first conference, a second conference shall proceed. Non-appearance of the respondent/s during the second conference shall immediately terminate the mandatory conciliation/mediation conference. The complainant/s shall thereupon be allowed to file his position paper as well as submit evidence in support of his cause or causes of action after which, the labor arbiter shall render his decision on the basis of the evidence on record. (Sec. 2, Rule 5, NLRC Rules as Amended)

When to submit position papers/ memorandum

If, during the conferences, the parties fail to agree upon an amicable settlement, either in whole or in part, the Labor Arbiter shall issue an order directing the parties to simultaneously file their respective verified position papers, with the supporting documents and affidavits within fifteen (15) calendar days from the date of the last conference, with proof of having furnished each other with the copies thereof.

The verified position papers shall cover only those claims and causes of action raised in the complaint excluding those that may have been amicably settled.

When is a hearing necessary or not?

If there is a need for a hearing, the Labor Arbiter shall issue an order setting the date or dates for said hearing which shall be terminated within ninety (90) days from initial hearing. However, if he finds no necessity for further hearing after the parties have submitted their position papers and supporting documents, he shall issue an Order to that effect and inform the parties. The Arbiter shall render his decision in the case within ninety (90) days.

The Labor Arbiter determines the necessity of a hearing

As soon as the parties have submitted their position papers/memorandum, the Labor Arbiter shall, motu propio, determine whether there is a need for a formal trial or hearing. The Labor Arbiter may, at his discretion, ask clarificatory questions to further elicit facts or information, including but not limited to the subpoena of relevant documentary evidence from any party or witness.

 When will the Labor Arbiter render decision?

The Arbiter shall render his decision within thirty (30) calendar days, without extension, after the submission of the case by the parties for resolution, even in the absence of stenographic notes, provided however that cases involving Overseas Filipino Workers shall be decided within ninety (90) calendar days after the filing of the complaint which shall be deemed perfected upon acquisition by the labor arbiter of jurisdiction over the respondent/s. (Sec. 5, Rule 5, NLRC Rules as Amended)

May the Labor Arbiter conciliate disputes?

Yes. At any stage of the proceedings in all cases, the Arbiter shall exert all efforts and take positive steps toward resolving the dispute through conciliation.

 What is an appeal in compulsory arbitration?

When an aggrieved party is not satisfied with the decision, order or award of the Labor Arbiter, POEA Administrator or DOLE Regional Director or his duly authorized hearing officer, the decision, award or order may be elevated to the Commission Proper upon grounds provided by law.

 What is the period of appeal?

Within ten (10) calendar days from receipt of such decisions, awards or orders of the Labor Arbiter or of the POEA Administrator. In case of a decision of the Regional Director or his duly authorized hearing officer, the appeal may be filed within five (5) calendar days from receipt of such decisions, awards or orders.

What are the other requisites for the perfection of an appeal?

·                                 The appeal should be under oath.

·                                 Proof of payment of appeal fee.

·                                 Proof of posting of a cash or surety bond.

·                                 Must be accompanied by a memorandum of appeal which shall state the grounds relied upon and the supporting arguments.

·                                 A statement of the date when the appellant received the appealed decision or award.

Proof of service on the other party of such appeal.

 When is a bond required in an appeal?

In case the decision of the Labor Arbiter, POEA Administrator and DOLE Regional Director or his duly authorized hearing officer involves monetary award.

How many copies of the appeal must be submitted and where does one file an appeal?

The appeal, in five (5) legibly typewritten copies, may be filed with the respective Regional Arbitration Branch, the DOLE Regional Office or the POEA, where the case was heard and decided.

Can an appeal for decisions involving monetary award be perfected without posting a bond?

An appeal by the employer shall be perfected only upon posting of a cash or surety bond issued by a reputable bonding company duly accredited by the Commission or the Supreme Court in an amount equivalent to the monetary award.

What is the period to resolve the appeal?

The appeal from the decision, order or reward of the Labor Arbiter and POEA Administrator shall be resolved by the Commission within 20 calendar days from receipt of the answer of the appellee or upon the filing of the last pleading or memorandum.

In case of an appeal from the decision of the DOLE Regional Director or his duly authorized hearing officer, it shall be resolved within 10 calendar days.

Source: Department of Labor And Employment 

Liberal interpretation of the POEA Standard Employment Contract

Part and parcel of every employment contract entered into by a seafarer is the Standard Employment  Contract (SEC) duly approved by the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA). It is crafted for the sole purpose of ensuring that the seafarers are not put at a disadvantage in their desire of seeking greater economic benefit abroad. (Philippine Transmarine Carriers, Inc. Vs. Cristino, G.R. No. 188638. December 9, 2015)

At the outset, it bears stressing that the employment of seafarers  is governed by the contracts they sign at the time of their engagement. As long as the stipulations therein are not contrary to law, morals, public order, or public policy, they have the force of law between the parties.

Nonetheless, employment contracts of seafarers on board foreign ocean-going vessels are not ordinary contracts. They are regulated and an imprimatur by the State is necessary. While the seafarer and his employer are governed by their mutual agreement, the POEA Rules and Regulations require that the POEA-SEC be integrated in every seafarer’s contract. (Inter-Orient Maritime, Inc. vs. Candava,  700 SCRA 174) 

The standard employment contract for seafarers was formulated by the POEA pursuant to its mandate under E.O. No. 247 to "secure the best terms and conditions of employment of Filipino contract workers and ensure compliance therewith" and to "promote and protect the well-being of Filipino workers overseas."  The POEA SEC itself provides that "all rights and obligations of the parties to the Contract, including the annexes thereof, shall be governed by the laws of the Republic of the Philippines, international conventions, treaties and covenants where the Philippines is a signatory."

The latest  Amended Contract Governing the Overseas Employment of Filipino Seafarers On-board Ocean-Going Vessels was implemented by virtue of POEA Governing Board Resolution No. 9, Series of 2010 and is divided in two parts: the standard One-Page Contract and the standard Terms and Conditions. 

In every labor dispute, courts are called upon to be vigilant in their time-honored duty to protect labor, especially in cases of disability, ailment or death. When applied to a Filipino seafarer, the perilous nature of their work is considered in determining the proper benefits to be awarded. These benefits, at the very least, should approximate the risks they brave on board the vessel every single day  ( Seagull Maritime Corp. vs. Dee , 520 SCRA 109).

 

 The Supreme Court stressed that “in carrying out and interpreting the Labor Code's provisions and its implementing regulations, the employee's welfare should be the primordial and paramount consideration (Reyes vs. Court of Appeals, 267 SCRA 409), This kind of interpretation gives meaning and substance to the liberal and compassionate spirit of the law as provided in Article 4 of the Labor Code which states that "all doubts in the implementation and interpretation of the provisions of [the Labor Code including its implementing rules and regulations, shall be resolved in favor of labor," and Article 1702 of the Civil Code which provides that "in case of doubt, all labor legislation and all labor contracts shall be construed in favor of the safety and decent living for the laborer ". (Asia World Recruitment, Inc. vs. NLRC,  313 SCRA 1)

The Supreme Court likewise expounded this principle by saying that " we are dealing here not with an ordinary transaction but with a labor contract which deserves special treatment and a liberal interpretation in favor of the worker xxx the Constitution mandates the protection of labor and the sympathetic concern of the State for the working class conformably to the social justice policy xxx Under the policy of social justice, the law bends over backward to accommodate the interests of the working class on the humane justification that those with less privileges in life should have more privileges in law xxx". (PNCC vs. NLRC, 217 SCRA 455),

            The Supreme Court underscored in Wallem Maritime Services, Inc. vs. NLRC,( 318 SCRA 623) the liberal interpretation of the provisions of a labor contract  when it said “It is relevant to state that the POEA standard employment contract is designed primarily for the protection and benefit of Filipino seafarers in the pursuit of their employment on board ocean-going vessels. Its provisions must, therefore, be construed and applied fairly, reasonably and liberally in favor or for the benefit of the seafarers and their dependents. Only then can its beneficent provisions be fully carried into effect”

 

For comments, please send  email  at info@sapalovelez.com or call  09175025808.

“Social justice provisions” of the labor laws.

In most labor cases, the Supreme Court stressed that courts and quasi-judicial bodies must avoid making narrow interpretations of the law by   disregarding  the “social justice provisions” of the labor laws.  It said that  “in carrying out and interpreting the Labor Code's provisions and its implementing regulations, the employee's welfare should be the primordial and paramount consideration.[1] This kind of interpretation gives meaning and substance to the liberal and compassionate spirit of the law as provided in Article 4 of the Labor Code which states that "[a]ll doubts in the implementation and interpretation of the provisions of [the Labor] Code including its implementing rules and regulations, shall be resolved in favor of labor," and Article 1702 of the Civil Code which provides that "[i]n case of doubt, all labor legislation and all labor contracts shall be construed in favor of the safety and decent living for the laborer".[2)

 The Supreme Court likewise expounded this principle by saying that "a strict interpretation of the cold facts before us might support the position taken by the companies. However, we are dealing here not with an ordinary transaction but with a labor contract which deserves special treatment and a liberal interpretation in favor of the worker xxx the Constitution mandates the protection of labor and the sympathetic concern of the State for the working class conformably to the social justice policy xxx Under the policy of social justice, the law bends over backward to accommodate the interests of the working class on the humane justification that those with less privileges in life should have more privileges in law xxx".[3]

The standard employment contract for seafarers was formulated by the POEA pursuant to its mandate under E.O. No. 247 to "secure the best terms and conditions of employment of Filipino contract workers and ensure compliance therewith" and to "promote and protect the well-being of Filipino workers overseas." Section 29 of the 1996 POEA SEC itself provides that "all rights and obligations of the parties to the Contract, including the annexes thereof, shall be governed by the laws of the Republic of the Philippines, international conventions, treaties and covenants where the Philippines is a signatory."[4]

  It is relevant to state that the POEA standard employment contract is designed primarily for the protection and benefit of Filipino seafarers in the pursuit of their employment on board ocean-going vessels. Its provisions must, therefore, be construed and applied fairly, reasonably and liberally in favor or for the benefit of the seamen and their dependents. Only then can its beneficent provisions be fully carried into effect”. [5] Employment contracts of seafarers on board foreign ocean-going vessels are not ordinary contracts. They are regulated and an imprimatur by the State is necessary. While the seafarer and his employer are governed by their mutual agreement, the POEA Rules and Regulations require that the POEA-SEC be integrated in every seafarer’s contract.[6] Courts are called upon to be vigilant in their time-honored duty to protect labor, especially in cases of disability or ailment. When applied to Filipino seafarer, the perilous nature of their work is considered in determining the proper benefits to be awarded. These benefits, at the very least, should approximate the risks they brave on board the vessel every single day.[7]

---

1.  Reyes vs. Court of Appeals, 267 SCRA 409.

2. Cristobal v.ECC,103 SCRA 329; Acosta v. ECC ,109 SCRA 209; Sarmiento v. ECC, 144 SCRA 422); Philippine Telegraph & Telephone Corporation v. NLRC, 183 SCRA 451; Asia World Recruitment, Inc. vs. NLRC 313 SCRA 1

3.  PNCC vs. NLRC (217 SCRA 455),

4.  KESTREL SHIPPING CO., INC. etc, vs. FRANCISCO D. MUNAR,  G.R. No. 198501    January 30, 2013

[5] Philippine Transmarine Carriers, Inc. v. NLRC, 405 Phil. 487, 495; Wallem Maritime Services, Inc. vs. NLRC, 376 Phil. 738, 749 (1999).

[6] Inter-Orient Maritime, Incorporated v. Candava, G.R. No. 201251, June 26, 2013, 700 SCRA 174

[7] Seagull Maritime Corporation v. Dee, 520 SCRA 109.