Labor Law: Book V; Title III Bureau of Labor Relations (Arts. 232-239)
Arts. 232-239
Q: What cases may be brought to the Bureau of Labor Relations?
Q. May a labor case be settled through compromise between the parties? Are there formalities to observe to make the compromise valid?
Q. May the parties validly agree on a wage lower than the legal minimum?
Art. 232. Bureau of Labor Relations.
The Bureau of Labor Relations and the Labor Relations Divisions in the regional offices of the Department of Labor, shall have original and exclusive authority to act, at their own initiative or upon request of either or both parties, on all inter-union and intra-union conflicts, and all disputes, grievances or problems arising from or affecting labor-management relations in all workplaces, whether agricultural or non-agricultural, except those arising from the implementation or interpretation of collective bargaining agreements which shall be the subject of grievance procedure and/or voluntary arbitration.
The Bureau shall have fifteen (15) working days to act on labor cases before it, subject to extension by agreement of the parties.
Own Notes
- The Bureau of Labor Relations and regional Labor Relations Divisions
- original and exclusive authority for:
- inter-union conflicts
- intra-union conflicts
- problems arising from or affecting labor-management relations
- except:
- implementation or interpretation of collective bargaining agreements
- grievance procedure and/or voluntary arbitration.
- Action:
- within fifteen (15) working days, extendable by mutual agreement
Notes
- Mediator-arbitrator (familiarly called "med-arb")
- refers to an officer in the DOLE Regional Office or in the Bureau of Labor Relations who is authorized to hear and decide representation cases, inter/intra-union disputes and related labor relations disputes, except cancellation of union registration cases.
- Representation cases
- refer to the proceedings intended to determine which one, among rival unions, should be officially designated or as certified the exclusive representative of the employees in bargaining collectively their employer.
- "Inter-Union Dispute"
- refers to any conflict between legitimate labor unions involving representation questions for purposes of collective bargaining or to any dispute between legitimate labor unions.
- "Intra-Union Dispute"
- refers to any conflict between members of a union.
- It may involve grievances arising from any violation of the rights and conditions of membership, violation of or disagreement over any provision of the union's constitution and by-laws, or disputes arising from chartering or affiliation of union.
- If the dispute is between unions, it is inter-union; "intra' if confined to a union.
- Under D.O. No. 40-03 (issued in March 2003 to replace D.O. No. 9 of 1997) the long list of inter/intra-union disputes include:
- cancellation of union registration,
- audit of union funds,
- violation of union members' rights and
- other disputes between unions or between a union and its members.
- A complaint involving intra/inter-union dispute may be filed by a:
- legitimate labor organization (LLO) or
- its members.
- Where the issue, however, involves the entire membership, the complaint shall be supported by at least 30% of the membership.
- But D.O. No. 40-03 in the same Rule XI recognizes a second category called "other related labor relations disputes."
- These include any conflict between a labor union and the employer or any individual, entity or group that is not a labor organization or workers' association; such dispute include:
- cancellation of registration of a labor organization and
- interpleader.
- However, the "related labor relations dispute" cannot mean any conflict between a labor union and employer. It has to be related to inter-or intra-union disputes; other wise, BLR will be invading the jurisdictional domains of the labor arbiter/NLRC, the DOLE regional director, the NCMB or of a voluntary arbitrator.
- In inter/intra-union dispute, the complaint may be filed by:
- a union or
- union members;
- In a "related labor relations dispute," the complaint may be fIled by:
- a party-in-interest who is not necessarily a union or union member
- Whether the dispute is of the first or the second category, the complaint shall be filed with the DOLE Regional Office where the labor organization is registered if it involves:
- an independent union,
- a chartered local, or
- a workers' association
- But it shall be filed with the BLR itself if the complaint involves:
- a federation or
- an industry/national union
- The decision of the Med-Arbiter and Regional Director under this article may be appealed to the Bureau of Labor Relations by any of the parties within 10 days from receipt thereof, copy furnished the opposing party,
- The decision of the Bureau Director in the exercise of his original jurisdiction may be appealed to the Office of the Secretary by any party within the same period, with notice to the opposing party.
Art. 233. Compromise agreements.
Any compromise settlement, including those involving labor standard laws, voluntarily agreed upon by the parties with the assistance of the Bureau or the regional office of the Department of Labor, shall be final and binding upon the parties. The National Labor Relations Commission or any court, shall not assume jurisdiction over issues involved therein except in case of non-compliance thereof or if there is prima facie evidence that the settlement was obtained through fraud, misrepresentation, or coercion.
Own Notes
- Compromise Settlement
- voluntarily agreed upon by the parties
- with the assistance of the Bureau or the regional office of the Department of Labor.
- NLRC
- General Rule: shall not assume jurisdiction over issues involved therein
- Except:
- non-compliance
- prima facie evidence that the settlement was obtained through:
- fraud,
- misrepresentation, or
- coercion.
Compromise; Release and Quitclaim
- A compromise is a contract where the parties, by making reciprocal concessions, avoid a litigation or put an end to one already commenced. (Art. 2028, Civil Code)
- Dispute resolution through compromise is a pervading philosophy of Philippine labor laws.
- This is emphasized in Article 233 and it conforms with the statement of basic policy in Article 218(a) and the second paragraph of Article 227.
- Compromise agreements involving labor standards cases must be reduced to writing and signed in the presence of the Regional Director or his duly authorized representative. (Atilano v. Dela Cruz, C.R. No. 82488, February 28, 1990)
- The law looks with disfavor upon quitclaims and releases by employees who are inveigled or pressured into signing them by unscrupulous employers seeking to evade their legal responsibilities.
- On the other hand, there are legitimate waivers that represent a voluntary settlement of a laborer's claims that should be respected by the courts as the law between the parties:
- In Periquet vs. NLR.C, 186 SCRA 724 (1990), the Court declares:
- Not all waivers and quitclaims are invalid as against public policy. If the agreement was voluntarily entered into and represents a reasonable settlement, it is binding on the parties and may not later be disowned simply because of a change of mind. It is only where there is clear proof that the waiver was wangled from an unsuspecting or gullible person, or the terms of settlement are unconscionable on its face, that the law will step in to annul the questionable transaction. But where it is shown that the person making the waiver did so voluntarily, with full understanding of what he was doing, and the consideration for the quitclaim is credible and reasonable, the transaction must be recognized as a valid and binding undertaking.
- A judgment rendered in accordance with a compromise agreement is not appealable and is immediately executory, unless a motion filed to set aside the agreement on the ground of fraud, mistake, or duress, in which case appeal may be taken against the order denying the motion. (Master Tours, 219 SCRA 321; United Housing Corp., 181 SCRA 285)
- "Dire necessity"
- is not an acceptable ground for annulling the releases, especially if it is not shown that the employees had been forced to execute them, or that the considerations for the quitclaims were unconscionably low and that the employees had been tricked into accepting them. (See Veloso,August 5, 1991)
- Summing up, a compromise agreement may be valid and binding only if the agreement is voluntarily entered into and represents a reasonable settlement of the claims.
- It may be invalidated if the amount purportedly received by the complainant is unreasonably lower than what is legally due.
- Furthermore, the "compromise settlement" should be executed with the assistance of the Bureau of Labor Relations or the Regional Office of the DOLE pursuant to Article 233 of the Labor Code.
- The law believes the worker is protected if a DOLE representative assists him.
- A compromise agreement by union officers must be authorized by the union members. The authority must be produced in evidence. Each laborer must authorize the union officers to enter into a compromise before the laborer's right may be affected. (Kaisahan ng mga Manggagawa sa La Campana, 13 SCRA 220 [1984]) (See further discussion under Art. 250.)
- Seventeen employees filed a complaint (LSED Case No. 055-85) against Rose Shipping Lines and its proprietor, Vicente Atilano, alleging labor standard law violations.
- Another complaint (LSED Case No. 061-85) for unpaid wages was filed by the employees against Atilano; Atilano promised payment but failed to comply.
- Regional Director: Issued a Compliance Order for unpaid wages of P37,065.60.
- LSED Case No. 061-85 was later dismissed after all claims were settled.
- Regional Director: Issued an order in LSED Case No. 055-85 requiring payment of P660,594.46.
- Atilano filed an ex-parte motion to dismiss the case (No. 055-86), citing quitclaims.
- Private respondents opposed, arguing these were for the other case.
- Atilano claimed both cases involved identical claims, and the dismissal of one should apply to the other.
- Atilano submitted a different set of quitclaims allegedly signed by private respondents with the Secretary of the Department of Labor and Employment.
- Undersecretary of Labor: Dismissed the motion for reconsideration or appeal for lack of merit.
WoN the quitclaims, releases and waivers signed by private respondents had controverted the claims and that therefore the present case should go to the Labor Arbiter. NO
We believe that the question of the authenticity or genuineness of the quitclaims, releases and waivers supposedly signed by private respondents, but vehemently denied by the latter, could be verified by the Regional Director in the course of, and in connection with, examination of the petitioner’s books and records of which such supposed quitclaims, etc. (if at all genuine) must have formed part. The quitclaim papers which petitioner alleges embodied a compromise or settlement agreement were in any case not duly executed, that is, they were not signed in the presence of the Regional Director or his duly authorized representative, in disregard of the requirements of Section 8, Rule II of the Rules on the Disposition of Labor Standards Cases in the Regional Offices,
The record thus strongly suggests that the issue of the genuineness or authenticity of the purported quitclaim documents was an issue belatedly manufactured by petitioner in the effort to evade the jurisdiction of the Regional Director and delay payment of the amounts awarded by the Regional Director.
- Corazon Periquet was dismissed by Construction Development Corporation of the Philippines (CDCP) for alleged breach of trust.
- Labor Arbiter: Ordered her reinstatement with full back wages.
- NLRC: Affirmed the order.
- Nine years later, petitioner filed a motion for the execution of the decision.
- Labor Arbiter: Granted the motion.
- NLRC: Reversed the order.
- NLRC ruled the motion for execution was time-barred, having been filed beyond the five-year period.
- NLRC also ruled as valid the two quitclaims she had signed waiving her right to reinstatement.
WoN the NLRC erred in setting aside the order of the Labor Arbiter. NO
Petitioner's behavior seems inconsistent. Initially, she accepted a waiver acknowledging full settlement, then rejected it, claiming she had been deceived. Later, she signed another waiver, accepted additional payment, reaffirmed full settlement, but is now disowning both acknowledgments, deeming them insufficient.
Not all waivers and quitclaims are invalid as against public policy. If the agreement was voluntarily entered into and represents a reasonable settlement, it is binding on the parties and may not later be disowned simply because of a change of mind. It is only where there is clear proof that the waiver was wangled from an unsuspecting or gullible person, or the terms of settlement are unconscionable on its face, that the law will step in to annul the questionable transaction. But where it is shown that the person making the waiver did so voluntarily, with full understanding of what he was doing, and the consideration for the quitclaim is credible and reasonable, the transaction must be recognized as a valid and binding undertaking. As in this case.
- Master Tours and Travel Corporation received summons and an Order of Attachment from Cathay Pacific Airways Ltd., leading to the sheriff immediately levying properties equivalent to Cathay's claim.
- Petitioner moved to set aside the attachment order due to lack of prior notice or hearing and unsatisfactory allegations in the complaint.
- While motions were pending, petitioner's counsel and vice-president were allegedly coerced into a compromise agreement by the respondent sheriff and Cathay's counsel.
- Petitioner moved to withdraw the said compromise agreement before the trial court could approve the same.
- Trial Court: Denied petitioner's twin motions.
- Court of Appeals: Dismissed the petition.
WoN a compromise agreement which has not been approved by the court may be withdrawn. NO
Petitioner likewise raises the issue of the permissibility of withdrawing a compromise agreement which has not been approved by the court. The rule is that a judgment rendered in accordance with a compromise agreement is immediately executory unless a motion is filed to set aside the agreement on the ground of fraud, mistake or duress in which case an appeal may be taken against the order denying the motion.
The compromise agreement, to say the least, in the contemplation of the law, is a valid document binding not only on the Executive Vice President, but also on the defendant corporation itself. It is not vitiated by what the Executive Vice President of the defendant corporation and the lawyer representing both call — lack of authority and threat and intimidation — that compelled them (Executive Vice President and counsel) to sign it. This protestation, is amply refuted in the plaintiff's opposition.
- Jose M. Tapia, Jr. purchased a lot from United Housing Corporation (UHC) under a Contract to Sell but UHC did not transfer the title despite full payment.
- Tapia filed a complaint before the Human Settlements Regulatory Commission (HSRC), leading to a compromise agreement promising to deliver the title transfer.
- A judgment upon compromise was issued but UHC failed to comply.
- Spouses Tapia filed a civil case for specific performance with damages against UHC in the RTC-Manila.
- UHC moved to dismiss the complaint on the ground of lack of jurisdiction under PD 1344.
- Hon. Abelardo M. Dayrit or RTC-Manila: Issued an order denying the motion.
WoN a case of specific performance decided by the Human Settlements Regulatory Commission whose decision has already become final, may be relitigated in the Regional Trial Court on the same issue and between the same parties. NO
As explicitly provided by law, jurisdiction over actions for specific performance of contractual and statutory obligations filed by buyers of subdivision lot or condominium unit against the owner or developer, is vested exclusively in the HSRC.
No one can dispute that the "essence of compromises, being mutual concessions by the parties, is to avoid or end litigation. It is therefore a well-settled rule that a compromise, once approved by final orders of the court has the force of res judicata * between the parties and should not be disturbed except for vices of consent or forgery". Judgment upon compromise which is a judgment embodying a compromise agreement entered into by the parties in which they make reciprocal concessions in order to terminate a litigation already instituted is not appealable, is immediately executory and has the effect of res judicata.
Upon failure then of the HSRC to act on their motion for execution of the judgment dated May 30, 1984, private respondents should have instituted mandamus proceedings to compel the HSRC to perform its purely ministerial duty of enforcing its final and executory decision. For the reasons hereinabove discussed a new complaint in court for specific performance was untenable.
- Alfredo Veloso and Edito Liguaton, along with several co-employees, filed a complaint against the Noah's Ark Sugar Carriers for unfair labor practices, which was decided in favor of the complainants.
- While a motion for reconsideration was pending, petitioners signed quitclaims and releases.
- The petitioners claim they were forced to signed releases in favor of their employer due to "dire necessity."
- Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE): Rejected their argument and approved the compromise agreements.
WoN the quitclaims they have signed may be annulled. NO
"Dire necessity" is not an acceptable ground for annulling the releases, especially since it has not been shown that the employees had been forced to execute them. It has not even been proven that the considerations for the quitclaims were unconscionably low and that the petitioners had been tricked into accepting them. While it is true that the writ of execution dated November 24, 1987, called for the collection of the amount of P46,267.92 each for the petitioners, that amount was still subject to recomputation and modification as the private respondent's motion for reconsideration was still pending before the DOLE. The fact that the petitioners accepted the lower amounts would suggest that the original award was exorbitant and they were apprehensive that it would be adjusted and reduced. In any event, no deception has been established on the part of the Private respondent that would justify the annulment of the Petitioners' quitclaims.
We find that the questioned quitclaims were voluntarily and knowingly executed and that the petitioners should not be relieved of their waivers on the ground that they now feel they were improvident in agreeing to the compromise. What they call their "dire necessity" then is no warrant to nullify their solemn undertaking, which cannot be any less binding on them simply because they are laborers and deserve the protection of the Constitution.
- Kaisahan ng mga Manggagawa sa La Campana filed a petition for better working conditions and other benefits including the reinstatement of nine dismissed workers.
- Series of cases were subsequently filed involving contempt, dismissals, rotations, and violations of return-to-work orders by the company.
- CIR: Found the company guilty of unfair labor practices and issued orders for reinstatement and back wages for dismissed workers.
- The case went through appeals, including the NLRC, Secretary of Labor, and the Office of the President.
- The union, assisted by counsel, entered into a Compromise Agreement waiving all claims and counterclaims of whatever nature arising out of or in connection with the case.
- CFI: Approved the compromise agreement.
- Issued an order restraining the sheriff from implementing the writ of execution until further orders.
WoN the compromise agreement is valid. NO
Anent the issue of the validity of the Compromise Agreement allegedly entered into by and between the Union represented by its Secretary, Clarita de la Cruz, and the company, represented by its Vice-President Ricardo Tantongco, the Secretary (now Minister) of Labor held that said agreement is void there being no ratification by the individual members of the union and that the presence of complainants during the proceedings before the Labor Arbiter and the presentation of evidence relative to the prosecution of their case are eloquent indication of their interest in pursuing their claims which negate the assertion that they have consented to the withdrawal thereof.
Generally, a judgment on a compromise agreement puts an end to a litigation and is immediately executory. However, the Rules require a special authority before an attorney can compromise the litigation of their clients. The authority to compromise cannot lightly be presumed and should be duly established by evidence. The records are bereft of showing that the individual members consented to the said agreement.
Art. 234. Mandatory Conciliation and Endorsement of Cases.
(a) Except as provided in Title VII-A, Book V of this Code, as amended, or as may be excepted by the Secretary of Labor and Employment, all issues arising from labor and employment shall be subject to mandatory conciliation-mediation. The labor arbiter or the appropriate DOLE agency or office that has jurisdiction over the dispute shall entertain only endorsed or referred cases by the duly authorized officer.
(b) Any or both parties involved in the dispute may pre-terminate the conciliation-mediation proceedings and request referral or endorsement to the appropriate DOLE agency or office which has jurisdiction over the dispute, or if both parties so agree, refer the unresolved issues to voluntary arbitration.
Own Notes
- Mandatory Conciliation
- All issues arising from labor and employment shall be subject to mandatory conciliation-mediation
- Except:
- as provided in Title VII-A, Book V
- as may be excepted by the Secretary of Labor and Employment
- Endorsement
- Only endorsed or referred cases by the duly authorized officer shall be entertained
- Pre-terminate the conciliation-mediation
- Any or both parties involved in the dispute may pre-terminate and:
- request referral or endorsement to the appropriate DOLE agency
- refer the unresolved issues to voluntary arbitration.
Art. 235. Issuance of subpoenas.
The Bureau shall have the power to require the appearance of any person or the production of any paper, document or matter relevant to a labor dispute under its jurisdiction, either at the request of any interested party or at its own initiative.
Own Notes
- Power To Issue Subpoenas
- The Bureau shall have the power to require:
- the appearance of any person (subpoena ad testificandum) or
- the production of any paper, document or matter relevant to a labor dispute (subpoena duces tecum)
- either at the request of:
- any interested party or
- at its own initiative.
Art. 236. Appointment of bureau personnel.
The Secretary of Labor and Employment may appoint, in addition to the present personnel of the Bureau and the Industrial Relations Divisions, such number of examiners and other assistants as may be necessary to carry out the purpose of the Code.
Own Notes
- Appointment of bureau personnel.
- Who?
- Secretary of Labor and Employment
- What?
- examiners and other assistants as may be necessary
Art. 237. Registry of unions and file of collective bargaining agreements.
The Bureau shall keep a registry of legitimate labor organizations. The Bureau shall also maintain a file of all collective bargaining agreements and other related agreements and records of settlement of labor disputes and copies of orders and decisions of voluntary arbitrators. The file shall be open and accessible to interested parties under conditions prescribed by the Secretary of Labor and Employment, provided that no specific information submitted in confidence shall be disclosed unless authorized by the Secretary, or when it is at issue in any judicial litigation, or when public interest or national security so requires.
Within thirty (30) days from the execution of a Collective Bargaining Agreement, the parties shall submit copies of the same directly to the Bureau or the Regional Offices of the Department of Labor and Employment for registration, accompanied with verified proofs of its posting in two conspicuous places in the place of work and ratification by the majority of all the workers in the bargaining unit. The Bureau or Regional Offices shall act upon the application for registration of such Collective Bargaining Agreement within five (5) calendar days from receipt thereof. The Regional Offices shall furnish the Bureau with a copy of the Collective Bargaining Agreement within five (5) days from its submission.
The Bureau or Regional Office shall assess the employer for every Collective Bargaining Agreement a registration fee of not less than one thousand pesos (P1,000.00) or in any other amount as may be deemed appropriate and necessary by the Secretary of Labor and Employment for the effective and efficient administration of the Voluntary Arbitration Program. Any amount collected under this provision shall accrue to the Special Voluntary Arbitration Fund.
The Bureau shall also maintain a file and shall undertake or assist in the publication of all final decisions, orders and awards of the Secretary of Labor and Employment, Regional Directors and the Commission.
Own Notes
- Registry of unions and file of collective bargaining agreements.
- The Bureau maintains a registry of legitimate labor organizations and a file containing collective bargaining agreements, settlement records, and voluntary arbitrator decisions.
- Access to this file is regulated by the Secretary of Labor and Employment, ensuring confidentiality of confidential information unless in specific situations:
- unless authorized by the Secretary, or
- when it is at issue in any judicial litigation, or
- when public interest or national security so requires.
- Collective bargaining agreements.
- Collective Bargaining Agreements (CBAs) must be submitted within 30 days of execution, accompanied by proof of posting and worker ratification, for registration by the Bureau or Regional Offices.
- The Bureau or Regional Offices process CBA registrations within five calendar days of submission.
- Employers are charged a registration fee for each Collective Bargaining Agreement, aiding the Voluntary Arbitration Program through the Special Voluntary Arbitration Fund.
- not less than one thousand pesos (P1,000.00) or in any other amount as may be deemed appropriate
- Other files
- The Bureau also maintains a file and assist the publication of final decisions, orders, and awards by the:
- Secretary of Labor and Employment,
- Regional Directors, and
- Commission.
Art. 232. Prohibition on certification election.
The Bureau shall not entertain any petition for certification election or any other action which may disturb the administration of duly registered existing collective bargaining agreements affecting the parties except under Articles 253, 253-A and 256 of this Code.
*Renumbered as 264, 265 and 266, respectively.
Own Notes
- Prohibition on certification election.
- General Rule: Shall not entertain any:
- petition for certification election or
- any other action which may disturb the administration of duly registered existing collective bargaining agreements
- Except:
- Art. 264 — Duty to bargain collectively when there exists a collective bargaining agreement
- Art. 265 — Terms of a collective bargaining agreement.
- Art. 266 — Representation issue in organized establishments
Notes
- Article 238 speaks of the "contract-bar rule"
- which means that while a valid and registered CBA is subsisting, the Bureau is not allowed to hold an election contesting the majority status of the incumbent bargaining union.
- The existence of the CBA does not allow, that is, it bars, the holding of the interunion electoral contest.
- The election is legally allowed, says Article 268, only during the "freedom period" which refers to the last 60 days of the fifth year of a CBA. (See Arts. 265 and 268.)
- The objective of the rule, obviously, is to minimize union "politicking" until the proper time comes.
- Contract bar is further explained under Articles 267 and 268.
Art. 233. Privileged communication.
Information and statements made at conciliation proceedings shall be treated as privileged communication and shall not be used as evidence in the Commission. Conciliators and similar officials shall not testify in any court or body regarding any matters taken up at conciliation proceedings conducted by them.
Own Notes
- Privileged communication.
- Information and statements made at conciliation proceedings shall not be used as evidence in the Commission.
- Conciliators and similar officials shall not testify regarding any matters taken up at conciliation proceedings conducted by them.
Notes
- "Privileged communication"
- is any statement of such privacy that the law exempts the person receiving the information from the duty to disclose it.
- Like the communication from client to attorney or from penitent to priest, information or statements made in conciliation or mediation meetings are treated, according to this Article, as privileged communication.
- They cannot be revealed nor used as evidence.
Comments
Post a Comment