o Who may issue: Chairman
Any Commissioner or Labor Arbiter o How issued: SUMMARILY
o Grounds: Committing any act of misbehavior in the presence of or so near the Chairman or any Commissioner or Labor Arbiter as to obstruct or interrupt the proceedings before the same, including:
Disrespect toward said officials Offensive acts toward others
Refusal to be sworn or to answer as a witness or to subscribe to an affidavit or deposition when lawfully required to do so
o Punishment:
When committed against the Commission or any member thereof:
• Fine not exceeding P500.00 and/or • Imprisonment not exceeding five days When committed against any LA:
• Fine not exceeding P100.00 and/or • Imprisonment not exceeding one day o Appeal:
From LA: to Commission within a period of five calendar days from notice of the judgment, and execution of said judgment shall be suspended pending resolution of the appeal upon the filing by said person of a bond on condition that he will abide by and perform the 33 LABOR LAW REVIEW NOTES: 2011 NLRC RULES OF PROCEDURE
judgment should the appeal be decided against him/her (Section 1, par. 2)
From Commission: immediately executory and inappealable (Section 1, par. 2)
• Indirect Contempt (Section 2) o Who may issue:
Commission
Any Labor Arbiter pursuant to Article 218(d) of the Labot Code o Grounds:
Misbehavior of any officer or employee in the performance of his/her official duties or in his/her official transaction (Section 2a); Disobedience of, or resistance to, a lawful writ, order or decision (Section 2b);
Any abuse of, or any unlawful interference with the processes or proceedings not constituting direct contempt (Section 2c);
Any improper conduct tending, directly or indirectly, to impede, obstruct, or degrade the administration of justice (Section 2d);
Assuming to be an attorney or a representative of party without authority (Section 2e);
Failure to obey a subpoena duly served (Section 2f); or Other grounds analogous to the foregoing (Section 2g) o Where charge to be filed (Section 2A)
Against Commission or an Officer appointed by it: Commission; Against LA: RAB subject to appeal to the Commission
o How commenced (Section 2B):
Motu proprio by the Commission or any LA by an order or any other formal charge requiring the respondent to show cause why he/she should not be punished for contempt
Other cases: Verified petition with supporting particulars and certified true copies of documents or papers involved therein, and upon full compliance with the requirements for filing initiatory pleadings in the Commission
• If the contempt charge arose out of or is related to a principal action pending in the Commission or RAB, the petition for contempt shall allege that fact but said petition shall be consolidated, heard, and decided separately, unless the Commission or LA in its/his/her discretion, orders the consolidation of the contempt charge and the principal action for joint hearing and decision
o Upon the date set for hearing, the Commission or LA shall proceed to investigate the charge and consider such comment, answer, defense, or testimony as the respondent may make or offer; failure to attend the scheduled hearing and to give a satisfactory explanation in writing to the Commission or the LA will result in the waiver of the respondent to be present during the hearing (Section 2C)
o Punishment (Section 2D):
Against the Commission or any member thereof: fine of P1,000.00 per day for every act of indirect contempt
Against any LA: fine of P500.00 per day for every act of indirect contempt
• Each day of defiance of, or disobedience to, or non-enforcement of a final order, resolution, decision, ruling, injunction, or processes, shall constitute an indirect contempt of the Commission
• If the contempt consists of the violation of an injunction or omission to do an act which is within the power of the respondent to perform, the respondent shall, in addition, be made liable for damages as a consequence thereof, which shall be measured by the extent of the loss or injury sustained by the aggrieved party by reason of the acts or omission of which the contempt is being prosecuted, and the costs of the proceedings, including payment of interest on damages
A writ of execution may be issued to enforce the decision imposing such fine and/or consequent damages as punishment (Section 2E)
LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES v. SEVERINO LISTANA, SR. (GR No. 152611, 5 August 2003) Ynares-Santiago
Facts: Severino Listana is the owner of a parcel of land in Sorsogon. He voluntarily offered to sell the said land to the government, through the Department of Agrarian Reform under the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law. The DAR valued the
property at an amount which was not acceptable to Listana, hence, the DAR
Adjudication Board commenced summary administrative proceedings to determine the just compensation of the land. A writ of execution was then issued directing the manager of Land Bank to pay Listana the amount defined by DARAB as just
compensation for Listana’s land. Subsequently, Listana filed a Motion for Contempt with the PARAD, alleging that Land Bank failed to comply with the writ of execution, and that such action constitutes contempt of the DARAB.
The PARAD then issued an order granting the Motion for Contempt and subsequently ordered the issuance of an Alias Writ of Execution for the payment of the adjudged amount of just compensation to Listana. When it was not complied with, an arrest order against the Land Bank manager was issued. A preliminary injunction was prayed for by the Land Bank from the Sorsogon RTC, which was granted. On appeal, the CA nullified the order of the RTC.
Issue: W/N the contempt order was validly issued against the Land Bank manager. Ruling: NO. There are only two ways a person can be charged with indirect contempt, namely, (1) through a verified petition; and (2) by order or formal charge initiated by the court motu proprio. In the case at bar, neither of these modes was adopted in charging the Land Bank manager with indirect contempt.
Evidently, quasi-judicial agencies that have the power to cite persons in
contempt pursuant to Rule 71 of the Rules of Court can only do so by initiating them in the proper RTC. It is not within their jurisdiction and competence to decide the indirect contempt cases. These matters are still within the province of the RTCs. In the present case, the indirect contempt charge was filed, not with the RTC, but with the PARAD, and it was PARAD that cited the Land Bank manager with indirect
contempt.
Petition granted, CA decision reversed and set aside.
NOTE: This rule does not apply anymore. The NLRC does not need to go to the RTC to issue indirect contempt orders, by virtue of the rule-making power of the
Commission found in Article 218 of the Labor Code. RULE X INJUNCTION
• Ordinary labor disputes: a preliminary injunction or restraining order may be granted by the Commission when it is established on the basis of the sworn allegation in the petition that the acts complained of involving or arising from any labor dispute before the Commission, 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 (Section 1, par. 1)
o Must be accompanied by a certification of non-forum shopping (Section 1, par. 2)
o The writ of preliminary injunction or temporary restraining order shall become effective only upon posting of the required cash bond in the amount to be determined by the Commission to answer for any damage that may be suffered by the party enjoined, if it is finally determined that the petitioner is not entitled thereto (Section 1, par. 3)
• Strikes or lockouts (Section 2): a preliminary or permanent injunction may be granted by the Commission only after hearing the testimony of witnesses and with opportunity for cross-examination in support of the allegations of the complaint or petition made under oath, and testimony by way of opposition thereto, if offered, and only after a finding of fact by the Commission:
o That prohibited or unlawful acts have been threatened and will be committed and will be continued unless restrained, but no injunction or temporary restraining order shall be issued on account of any threat, prohibited or unlawful act, except against the person or persons, association or organization making the threat or committing the
prohibited or unlawful act or actually authorizing or ratifying the same after actual knowledge thereof (Section 2a)
o That substantial and irreparable injury to petitioner’s property will follow (Section 2b)
o That as to each item of relief to be granted, greater injury will be inflicted upon the petitioner by the denial of relief than will be inflicted upon respondents by the granting of relief (Section 2c)
o That petitioner has no adequate remedy at law (Section 2d)
o That the public officers charged with the duty to protect petitioner’s property are unable or unwilling to furnish adequate protection (Section 2e)
• Hearings shall be held after due and personal notice thereof has been served to all known persons against whom relief is sought, and also to the Chief Executive and other public officials of the province or city within which the unlawful acts have been threatened or committed charged with the duty to protect petitioner’s property (Section 3)
• The Commission may delegate the reception of evidence to any of its Labor Arbiters, who shall conduct such hearings in such places as he/she may determine to be accessible to the parties and their witnesses (Section 4)
o Submission of the LA’s report and recommendation shall be within 15 days from such delegation
• An ocular inspection may be conducted by the Chairman, any Commissioner, LA, or their duly authorized representatives, at any time during working hours, on any establishment, building, ship or vessel, place or premises, including any work, material, implement, machinery, appliance, or any object therein, and 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 petition, and the ocular inspection reports shall be submitted to the appropriate Division within 24 hours from the conduct thereof (Section 5) • Requisites of a Temporary Restraining Order:
o Testimony under oath, or by affidavits of the petitioner’s witnesses alleging that, unless a temporary restraining order shall be issued without notice, a substantial and irreparable injury to petitioner’s property will be unavoidable (Section 6)
o Petitioner’s undertaking to answer for the damages (Section 7) o Petitioner’s posting of a cash bond in the amount of P50,000.00 or such higher amount as may be determined by the Commission to
recompense those enjoined for any loss, expense, or damage caused by the improvident or erroneous issuance of such order or injunction,
including all reasonable costs, together with a reasonable attorney’s fee, and expense of defense against the order or against the granting of any injunctive relief sought in the same proceeding and subsequently denied by the Commission (Section 7)
• A temporary restraining order shall be effective for no longer than 20 days reckoned from the posting of the cash bond required; during the said period, the parties shall be required to present evidence to substantiate their
respective positions in the main petition (Section 8)
• The order or resolution enjoining the performance of illegal acts shall be immediately executory in accordance with the terms thereof. In case of non- compliance, the Commission shall impose such sanctions, and shall issue such orders, as may be necessary to implement the said order or resolution, including the enlistment of law enforcement agencies having jurisdiction over the area for the purpose of enforcing the same (Section 9)
RULE XI EXECUTION PROCEEDINGS • Execution upon finality of decision or order (Section 1):
o A writ of execution may be issued motu proprio or on motion, upon a decision or order that has become final and executory. (Section 1a)
Effectivity: 5 years
o If an appeal has been duly perfected and finally resolved by the
Commission, a motion for execution may be filed before the Labor Arbiter, when the latter has possession of the case records or upon submission of certified true copies of the decisions or final order/s sought to be enforced including notice of decision or order and the entry of judgment, copy furnished the adverse party (Section 1b)
o Final decisions CANNOT be disturbed: immutability of judgment doctrine
Finality of a decision is jurisdictional and it cannot be made to depend on the convenience of a party.
Final decisions are immutable and unalterable.
Judgment becomes final by operation of law and not by judicial declaration.
• Exceptions: correction of clerical errors; harmonizing the body of the decision with the dispositive portion; existence of a supervening event as shown by substantial evidence; nunc pro tunc entries; motion for reconsideration ad cautelam (with extreme caution) Judgment nunc pro tunc: A judgment entered on a day after the time when it should have been entered, as of the earlier date (Black’s Law Dictionary)
MANDAUE DINGHOW DIMSUM HOUSE v. NLRC (GR No. 161134, 3 March 2008) Nachura
Facts: Mandaue Dinghow Dimsum House, a restaurant in Mandaue City, closed down due to business losses. It filed a Notice of Retrenchment with the DOLE. Several employees filed a case for illegal dismissal against Mandaue Dinghow and Henry Uytengsu, the President and former General Manager of the said restaurant, before the LA. The LA absolved Uytengsu from any liability, holding that he did not act in bad faith an in excess of his authority. However, the LA found Mandaue Dinghow liable and ordered it to pay the complainants their respective separation pay.
On appeal, the NLRC affirmed the LA decision with a few modifications. The NLRC subsequently issued an entry of judgment certifying that its decision had already become final and executory. A writ of execution was then issued by the LA. However, the complainants averred that the writ could not be executed as Mandaue Dinghow could no longer be found and had transferred elsewhere; that both
Mandaue Dinghow and Uytengsu were impleaded as respondents, although in the NLRC decision, Uytengsu’s name was omitted; that Uytengsu is the President and majority stockholder of Mandaue Dinghow; and that it would be a mockery of justice if, despite the finality of the NLRC decision, the same could not be executed on a mere technicality. Invoking the doctrine of piercing the veil of corporate fiction, the complainants moved that the LA, in the exercise of his equity jurisdiction, issue an alias writ of execution directing the Sheriff to execute the judgment against
Mandaue Dinghow and Uytengsu. The LA then issued an Order decreeing that a writ of execution be issued against the properties of the officers/stockholders of
Mandaue Dinghow. On the basis of this Order, an Alias Writ of Execution was issued. Mandaue Dinghow and Uytengsu filed a motion to quash the writ of execution. When notices of garnishment were served on the banks, Uytengsu’s bank accounts were frozen. The LA then denied Uytengsu’s motion to quash the writ of execution. Uytengsu filed a motion for reconsideration, which was also denied on the ground that Uytengsu is jointly and severally liable with Mandaue Dinghow on the ground that he is the President/Chairman of Mandaue Dinghow and the latter is no longer existing.
On appeal to the CA, the CA dismissed Uytengsu’s petition on the following grounds: (1) the petition failed to indicate the full names of all private respondents and their respective complete addresses; (2) the certificate of non-forum shopping attached to the petition was merely signed by Uytengsu without attaching the appropriate board resolution or secretary’s certificate showing his authority to file the said petition in behalf of Mandaue Dinghow; and (3) Mandaue Dinghow and Uytengsu failed to file a motion for reconsideration of the NLRC decision before going to the CA on certiorari without justifying the reasons for such failure. Uytengsu filed a motion for reconsideration claiming that the petition’s failure to indicate the full names of all private respondents and their respective addresses was not intentional but due merely to inadvertence. Uytengsu also manifested that he is the lone petitioner before the CA and that the petition did not include Mandaue Dinghow anymore as the decision against the latter had long become final and executory. Thus, Uytengsu claimed that direct resort to certiorari was justified because despite the finality of the decision holding Mandaue Dinghow solely liable and the writ of execution issued against the same, the LA in excess of his authority issued an Alias Writ of Execution making Uytengsu liable for the respondents’ claims, as a result of which Uytengsu’s bank accounts in different banks were
garnished. Uytengsu prayed that technicalities be waived in order to serve the ends of justice. The CA denied the motion for reconsideration, holding that Uytengsu
failed to justify the non-filing of the required motion for reconsideration assailing the NLRC decision before resorting to certiorari.
Issue 1: W/N the CA committed grave abuse of discretion and serious error in dismissing the petition for certiorari purely on technical grounds and in not giving due course to the same.
Ruling: YES. A motion for reconsideration of an assailed decision is deemed a plain and adequate remedy expressly available under the law. The well-established rule is that a motion for reconsideration is an indispensable condition before an aggrieved party can resort to the special action for certiorari under Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended. The purpose of such rule is to afford the erring court or agency an opportunity to rectify the error/s it may have committed without the intervention of a higher court. The requisite motion is not only an expeditious remedy of an aggrieved party but it also obviates an improvident and unnecessary recourse to appellate proceedings. Failure to file a motion for
reconsideration with the NLRC before availing oneself of the special civil action for certiorari is a fatal infirmity. However, this rule is subject to certain recognized exceptions. The instant case falls within the recognized exceptions, namely, that the NLRC Order is a patent nullity considering that the LA and the NLRC were devoid of any jurisdiction to alter or modify the NLRC decision that had already attained finality.
Issue 2: W/N the Alias Writ of Execution was validly issued despite the finality of the NLRC decision.
Ruling: NO. The Order and Alias Writ of Execution issued by the LA are null and void for lack of jurisdiction and for altering the tenor of the NLRC decision which directed Mandaue Dinghow alone to pay the private respondents’ separation pay. The private respondents did not assail this ruling. Thus, the same became final and executory. Even granting that the NLRC committed a mistake in failing to indicate in the dispositive portion that Uytengsu was solidarily liable with Mandaue Dinghow, the correction—which is substantial—can no longer be allowed in this case because the judgment has already become final and executory.