Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

NATIONAL FEDERATION OF LABOR v. NLRC – FIFTH DIVISION

This case has been cited 6 times or more.

	GR NO. 160058 2007-06-22	PILIPINO TELEPHONE CORPORATION v. PILIPINO TELEPHONE EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION PUNO, C.J.
5) The result of the strike vote should be reported to the NCMB at least seven (7) days before the intended strike or lockout, subject to the cooling-off period.[23] It is settled that these requirements are mandatory in nature and failure to comply therewith renders the strike illegal.[24]
	GR NO. 148021 2006-12-06	SIME DARBY EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION v. NLRC TINGA, J.
(P)etitioner believes that had there been a formal hearing, the arbiter's alleged mistaken reliance on some of the documentary evidence submitted by parties would have been cured and remedied by them, presumably through the presentation of controverting evidence. Evidently, this postulate is not in consonance with the need for speedy disposition of labor cases, for the parties may then willfully withhold their evidence and disclose the same only during the formal hearing, thus creating surprises which could merely complicate the issues and prolong the trial. There is a dire need to lessen technicalities in the process of settling labor disputes."[36] Elementary is the principle that this court is not a trier of facts. Judicial review of labor cases does not go beyond the evaluation of the sufficiency of the evidence upon which its labor officials' findings rest.[37] As such, the findings of facts and conclusion of the NLRC are generally accorded not only great weight and respect but even clothed with finality and deemed binding on this Court as long as they are supported by substantial evidence. In the instant case, the Court finds that the labor arbiter's decision, which was affirmed by both the NLRC and the Court of Appeals cite as basis thereof the evidence presented by both the petitioners and respondents in their pleadings. It is no longer the Court's function to assess and evaluate all over again the evidence, testimonial and documentary, adduced by the parties to an appeal, particularly where the findings of both the labor arbiter, the NLRC and the appellate court trial court on the matter coincide, as in this case at bar.[38]
	GR NO. 148021 2006-12-06	SIME DARBY EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION v. NLRC TINGA, J.
(P)etitioner believes that had there been a formal hearing, the arbiter's alleged mistaken reliance on some of the documentary evidence submitted by parties would have been cured and remedied by them, presumably through the presentation of controverting evidence. Evidently, this postulate is not in consonance with the need for speedy disposition of labor cases, for the parties may then willfully withhold their evidence and disclose the same only during the formal hearing, thus creating surprises which could merely complicate the issues and prolong the trial. There is a dire need to lessen technicalities in the process of settling labor disputes."[36] Elementary is the principle that this court is not a trier of facts. Judicial review of labor cases does not go beyond the evaluation of the sufficiency of the evidence upon which its labor officials' findings rest.[37] As such, the findings of facts and conclusion of the NLRC are generally accorded not only great weight and respect but even clothed with finality and deemed binding on this Court as long as they are supported by substantial evidence. In the instant case, the Court finds that the labor arbiter's decision, which was affirmed by both the NLRC and the Court of Appeals cite as basis thereof the evidence presented by both the petitioners and respondents in their pleadings. It is no longer the Court's function to assess and evaluate all over again the evidence, testimonial and documentary, adduced by the parties to an appeal, particularly where the findings of both the labor arbiter, the NLRC and the appellate court trial court on the matter coincide, as in this case at bar.[38]
	GR NO. 147080 2005-04-26	CAPITOL MEDICAL CENTER v. NLRC CALLEJO, SR., J.
Aside from the mandatory notices embedded in Article 263, paragraphs (c) and (f) of the Labor Code, a union intending to stage a strike is mandated to notify the NCMB of the meeting for the conduct of strike vote, at least twenty-four (24) hours prior to such meeting. Unless the NCMB is notified of the date, place and time of the meeting of the union members for the conduct of a strike vote, the NCMB would be unable to supervise the holding of the same, if and when it decides to exercise its power of supervision. In National Federation of Labor v. NLRC,[25] the Court enumerated the notices required by Article 263 of the Labor Code and the Implementing Rules, which include the 24-hour prior notice to the NCMB: 1) A notice of strike, with the required contents, should be filed with the DOLE, specifically the Regional Branch of the NCMB, copy furnished the employer of the union;
	GR No. 140992 2004-03-25	SAMAHANG MANGGAGAWA SA SULPICIO LINES v. SULPICIO LINES SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.
"x x x, but in the case at bar the facts and the evidence did not establish even at least a rational basis why the union would wield a strike based on alleged unfair labor practices it did not even bother to substantiate during the conciliation proceedings. It is not enough that the union believed that the employer committed acts of unfair labor practice when the circumstances clearly negate even a prima facie showing to warrant such a belief." We explained in National Federation of Labor vs. NLRC[11] that "with the enactment of Republic Act No. 6715 which took effect on March 21, 1989, the rule now is that such requirements as the filing of a notice of strike, strike vote, and notice given to the Department of Labor are mandatory in nature. Thus, even if the union acted in good faith in the belief that the company was committing an unfair labor practice, if no notice of strike and a strike vote were conducted, the said strike is illegal."
	GR No. 115755 2000-12-04	IMELDA B. DAMASCO v. NLRC QUISUMBING, J.
It is now axiomatic that the essence of due process in administrative proceedings is simply an opportunity to explain one's side or an opportunity to seek reconsideration of the action or ruling complained of.[14] A formal or trial-type hearing is not at all times and in all instances essential to due process, the requirements of which is satisfied where parties are afforded fair and reasonable opportunity to explain their side of the controversy at hand.[15]