for week four.

Based on my records, there were only 13 students who have complied with the
submission of the notes. So for those who have not yet submitted the notes, please submit
them. Second, we only have how many meetings today? 27, June 29, July 4, July 6, July 11, and
July 13. And there are a lot of topics that we have to cover. So I'd like to share with you one
strategy that I wish to adopt if it's okay with you.
One strategy is for us to start one hour early. Would that be okay with you? So instead of six
o'clock, we start at five o'clock. So if we're going to do that for the remaining days, then we will
get one, two, three, four, five hours. We will get five hours. And then what is the schedule of
your finals? Ms. Oro? The finals will be on July 17 to 22, but that's including the deptals na din
po.. Ah Including the deptals…. Meaning, when you say including the deptals, how would that
work?
Ms. Oro. The first three days of the week finals and the other three days is for the deptals.
Okay. This is what I propose to do. We're going to have our class on July 18, even if the finals
will start on July 19, unless you have a scheduled examination on July 18. However, in order not
to burden you unnecessarily, I will not give the finals within that week. Clear? Is that okay with
you? Take note, there are some students who are not regular. Are you going to have a problem
with such an arrangement? My proposal is for us to meet on July 18. Okay. My proposal is for
us to meet on July 18. So take note that I have two days for that week, July 18 and 20. I'm not
going to give an exam on July 20. I will give your final exam the following week. Would that be
okay with you? But I would just get your July 18. Any vehement opposition or authentic issues
that you want to raise?
Anyone, please? Oh, Ms. Bato, you're here. Okay, the brownout has been resolved. So any
objection that you see from your classmates? Remember, silence means yes. So let us repeat.
Starting June 29 up to July 13, our class would start at 5 o'clock. Commissioner? Yes, Ms. Oro?
Can we do an extension instead of earlier? Because most of us are working and 5 o'clock might
be a little too early po sa out po sa office. Okay, so what do you suggest? Let me meet up to 10
o'clock in the evening. Would that be more acceptable? So you have to take a snack or early
dinner no. Mr. Domingo, do you have a suggestion? Commissioner, if we can put it in half,
around 5.30 PM po, we can have it by 9.30. Okay, that's another suggestion. Just to be for the
working students. That's another suggestion that we could look into. 5.30 to 9.30. That would
give us one hour. 5.30 to 9.30. Not too much for those who would like to rest kasi 10 o'clock is
too late. But I remember having told you during the early part of our class that I have
conducted classes up to 11.30. Okay. So ganun siguro, maganda ang suggestion ni Mr.
Domingo. Thank you for that suggestion, Mr. Domingo. Is there any objection or opposition? So
would you put that on a motion, Mr. Domingo? Mr. Domingo? Nawala na si Mr. Domingo.
Okay, we'll put the proposal of Mr. Domingo into a motion. I move that classes be scheduled at
5.30 and that it should end at 9.30. Is there any opposition? Point for discussion? Hearing none,
the motion is carried. Okay, so that will be our agreement. 5.30 to 9.30. Starting June 29, July 4,
6, 12, 13, as well as July 18. Your finals will be the week after your hell week, that hell week. So
you could expect your finals to be on either a Tuesday or a Thursday. So siguro “para meron
naman kayong breathing spell” on the

Thursday of the following week. Clear? Okay, next point. Case alerts again. I want you to add
two more cases to your caseload with respect to the right to termination, right to self-
organization. Ah… I am referring to the case of Asian Institute of Management, Asian Institute
of Management, Faculty Association versus Asian Institute of Management. GR numbers 197-
089 and then 207-971, August 31, 2022. Okay, two additional cases for termination of
employment. GS Transport versus Medina, GR number 243-768, September 5, 2022.
And finally, also for termination of employment, Globe Telecom, Globe Telecom versus Ebitner,
Ebitner…. GR number 242-286, January 16, 2023. Okay, so all the matters that I want to raise
with you have been discussed and now we're going to go into the technical world of
procedures.
When we talk about procedures, class, our main platform will be the 2011 NLRC Rules of
Procedure. My expectation is you have read the entire rules. We're not going to discuss the
rules on a rule by rule, on a rule by rule approach. We will discuss the rules based on the
process flow of labor cases, okay, based on the proper process flow of labor cases. So the
process flow of labor cases resolution starts from the request for assistance. The request for
assistance is a requirement of RA10396. RA10396. For purposes of the labor code provision,
RA10396 found its way into Article 234 of the labor code. What is this article all about? It talks
about mandatory conciliation and mediation of all disputes so that all these disputes cannot be
filed with the office having jurisdiction over the same unless these disputes have undergone
compulsory mediation and conciliation. So let's apply this to the National Labor Relations
Commission.
The point that I want you to remember is that no complaint shall be entertained by the labor
arbiter unless such complaint has been the subject of a request for assistance and that a single
entry approach desk officer has issued a referral. Referral meaning the parties were not able to
settle their disputes amicably. Thus they are referred to compulsory arbitration. Take note,
while we're looking at NLRC, the referral can be addressed to the regional office of the
Department of Labor and Employment. The referral can be addressed to the Bureau of Labor
Relations or the referral can even be addressed to the regional tripartite wages and productivity
board. But for the majority of the information for tonight, majority information for tonight, our
focus will be on the procedures of the NLRC. I want you to remember Article 234 of the labor
code as a provision that does not respect jurisdiction as they are provided for by law. Article
234 does not respect jurisdiction as they are provided for by law. What is the of this statement?
It means that even if your complaint is for illegal dismissal, you can go to the regional office of
the Bureau of Labor Relations in order to request for assistance. It could be that your complaint
is for recruitment violations, but you could go to the NLRC, the regional arbitration branch,
even if your complaint is for recruitment violation.
Clearly, these two offices that I've mentioned do not have jurisdiction over the disputes that
I've mentioned. But still, pursuant to RA10396, the single entry desk would have to entertain
these complaints. Take note, “I use the word complaint loosely”. I still mean request for
assistance. Why the word request for assistance? The request for assistance is a bid on the part
of the law to encourage the parties to settle into, to enter into amicable settlement without
fear of this dispute becoming a full-blown labor controversy or a labor dispute. So the moment
that the period provided for under Article 234 has been consumed, then that's the time that
the case would have to be forwarded to the forum having appropriate jurisdiction over the
case. RA10396 as well as Article 234 provide that the period for a mandatory conciliation and
mediation is 30 days. However, this period can be shortened. When can it be shortened?
“When the parties have manifested that they will not enter into any amicable settlement”. Or
this period can be lengthened. When would it be possible? When the parties are almost
nearing settlement and they need more time in order to finalize the settlement. But if you want
a mainstream answer, the period for mandatory conciliation or mediation is only 30 days.
Okay? 30 working days.
Now let's move on. The implementing rules of RA10396 is Department Order Number 151, thus
16. Department Order Number 151, thus 16. In this Department Order, you will realize that
while the focus of this article or this law is on all disputes, there are disputes that should not be
referred to the single entry approach. And what are these disputes? The first one is a notice of
strike or a notice of lockout. And then the second one will be violations of an alien employment
permit. Violations of alien employment permit. Also excluded would be the application for
authority to recruit, denial of an application for authority to recruit, or a license to recruit. Of
course, there are other exceptions. But if you look at the other exceptions, the common thread
is that all those exempted would fall within the regulatory power of the Department of Labor
and Employment, specifically the regional director of the Department of Labor and
Employment.
When we talk about notice of strike as well as notice of lockout, these are cases cognizable by
the National Conciliation and Mediation Board, and therefore cannot be the subject of
mandatory conciliation and mediation for obvious reason. The moment a notice of strike or a
notice of lockout is filed with the NCMB, pursuant to its mandate, NCMB will conduct
conciliation and mediation. A complaint for illegal recruitment, at least for local recruitment,
because we now have the Department of Migrant Workers that would take care of illegal
recruitment that would happen for overseas employment, it would still be the regional director
for local illegal recruitment that would handle the complaint, and therefore, these two is
exempted from the coverage of RA10396. What is the responsibility of the forum to whom a
complaint has been filed without passing through mandatory conciliation and mediation? The
law speaks of the labor arbiter and other officials, and the law provides that in the event that a
complaint is filed without passing through RA10396, the same shall be dismissed. Therefore,
we can say rather categorically that non-compliance with Article 234 is a ground for the
dismissal of a complaint. I want you to look at Article 234 as a condition “sine qua non” before a
complaint can be filed before the labor arbiter. Okay, next point. Let's look at the complaint. A
request for assistance has been made. The parties were not able to enter into a settlement. The
single entry approach desk officer issued a referral addressed to the office of the labor arbiter. I
think I have already mentioned that the labor arbiters are based in the regional arbitration
branches of the National Labor Relations Commission. They are based in the regional
arbitration branches of the National Labor Relations Commission. Therein, there are complaints
units. So, what the complainant would do is to present this referral. Once there, the complaint
officer of the regional arbitration branch will give the complainant a complaint form.
Okay, the complaint form is a template. It's a checklist of cause or causes of action that the
complainant may have against a particular employer. Take note that for a complaint to be valid,
the complainant must be able to put the names, the names of the complainant and the
addresses, the names of the respondents and respective addresses, as well as the causes of
action. The complaint must also contain a verification. Verification with respect to the
information that would be given in the complaint.

And then finally, a complaint must have a certification of non-forum shipping. A certification of
non-forum shipping. Again, a complaint in the NLRC is a template. There are several cases
where the validity of this template form have been looked into. And the Supreme Court has
uniformly declared that this template form of a complaint is valid because it is friendly to the
litigants, particularly to the workers who have very little education. Majority of the
complainants have very little education and therefore, it is convenient for them to just check
the cause or causes of action that they have against their employers. Now, the point that I want
to look into is what is a verification. The verification pertains to the signature. This is the
signature of the complainant attesting to the fact that he or she is aware of all the facts
relevant to the complaint. That's a verification. If you look at the Supreme Court rulings that
have been assigned to you, specifically the Makabali? and the other cases that have been
assigned to you, I will ask some of you to discuss these cases later on. There is one concept that
should not be lost on you. And what is that concept? Verification is a “formal” requirement.
Ok… a Verification is a “formal” requirement It is necessary that the verification be signed by
the party pleader or the complainant or the petitioner. We're referring to the same person. He
may be called the complainant, he may be called the party pleader, or he may be called the
petitioner. He or she may be called those names. Take note that in the event that the
complainant fails to sign a verification, the labor arbiter may do one of three things. One,
require the complainant to sign in his presence. If there are errors, for example, particularly if
the complainant was not able to sign in the proper slot for verification, then the labor arbiter
may asked complainant to correct the error, or on the extreme the labor arbiter may disregard
this flow with respect to the verification. Which shows to us that indeed a verification is a
formal requirement and will not affect the validity of the complaint.

The certificate of non-forum shopping however Is on another level, why? Because It is not only
a formal but a mandatory and jurisdictional requirement, it is not only a formal but a
mandatory and jurisdictional requirement. I hope you would be able to distinguished between
verification and a certificate of non-forum. In real life, it will be very difficult to missed the
certification against forum shopping, because it is part of the template form all that the
complainant has to do is to affixed his/her signature and to attest that there are any other cases
pending before any other labor arbiter but it’s an integral part of the complaint.

Ok, so… I think I have assigned to you some cases…one of the cases… let me just consult my
notes…, aha.. the case of Bacolor Vs. Makabali, what is so striking about the case of Bacolor Vs.
Makabali? why was the Court of Appeals attention called by the Supreme Court? In the case of
Bacolor et al Vs. Makabali, take note, the complainant on this case are all doctor, so we cannot
say that they have little education or that they are very illiterate, they were all doctors. Three
of them signed the verification, three of them signed the certificate…certification of no forum
shopping the three of them did not signed. What happened to the three that did not signed?
Instead of being dropped as party complainants, the complaint of all this complainant was
dismissed. So I hope that you would be able to look on into this case and determine, because
there is a very good discussion here about the difference, the legal implication of a verification
vs. the/of a certificate of no forum shopping.

Honesty check, have you red the case of Makabali?? “ang ganda ng mga ngiti nila” before the
mid-term, so your reading had been inundated by other concepts courtesy of your other
discipline… your other subject. Ok, so look into the case of VL V. Makabali, VL Makabali….
Bacolor et al vs. Makabali.

And then, if you have the time there was a mention of one case, and this case started it all, im
talking about of Altress vs. empleyo…. Altress vs. empleyo has provided whoever maybe that
decision all the fine distinction between verification and non-forum shopping.

Take note: If there is no certificate of non-forum shopping the complaint can be dismissed. Take
Note also, Absence of a certification of non-forum shopping is a ground for “motion to
dismissed”, it is a ground for “motion to dismissed” I cannot say the same thing to a faulty or
defective verification, just remember verification pertains to form, certification of non-forum
shopping is jurisdictional and mandatory.

Having said that a certification of non-forum shopping is jurisdictional and mandatory, we

should also be aware of the exception, the exceptions are found in the common interest rule, if
there are so many complainants, and that it would be inconvenient for them to execute the
certificate of non-forum shopping, and all these complainants have common interest or
common causes actions, then we could use the common interest rule, and then, these
common interest rule is sometimes called the substantial compliance rule.
Imagine a situation where a thousands of employees were retrenched, it could be highly
impractical for all of these one thousand employees to execute a certificate of non-forum
shopping, so it would be enough for some or a number of them to issue a certificate of non-
forum shopping and that would be in accordance with substantial compliance rule. Ok… again,
common interest rule and the substantial interest, substantial compliance rule… ok, that must
be discussed.

Next, a complaint will contain cause or causes of action… take note, as I’ved mentioned a while
ago, the complaint is a checklist, so all that the complainant has to do is to checked the
appropriate box, so if his complaint is for illegal dismissal, he would have to check the box for
illegal dismissal. And then there will be a smaller box there, actual dismissal or constructive
dismissal, complainant has to choose if its actual dismissal or a constructive dismissal. If this
complainant has money claims, all he has to do is to check all the money claims, that he may
have against the employer. So, all his cause or causes of action will be checked. Take note:
When complainants filed their complaint, they are normally not assisted by a lawyer, but there
is a complaint officer in the docket section who will be assisting the complainants.

So in addition to this template, the complainants are required write using their owned hand
writing, the cause or causes of action and once the complainant have written the cause or
causes of action, then it is up for the complainant officer to encode all the information that
were given by the complainant. So, as far as these proceedings are concern, there is no need
for a lawyer yet. It’s possible that the complainant when he filed the complaint maybe in a
state of adjucation and he may have forgotten vital information, like for example, the complete
name of the corporation or the complete name of the employer, the exact address of the
corporation, or the exact address of the employer. It’s also possible that the employee may
forget that he has also has other cause or causes of action like claims for attorney’s fees, and
moral and exemplary damage, so what is the recourse that is readily available to the
complainant? The recourse available to that complainant is to amend his or her complaint.

Ok, when can amendment of complaint be done? The amendment of the complaint should be
done before the submission of the position paper, ok?? The amendment of the complaint
should be done before the submission of the position paper. What if the complainant realized
the errors or the inadvertence that he may have committed after the submission of his position
paper? Does it mean to say that the complainant can no longer amend his or her complaint?
Answer: No, they can still amend with their complaint but this time with leve of the labor
arbiter. What do we mean by the leve on the part of the labor arbiter? The complainant has to
move or to ask permission from the labor arbiter to amend the complaint further. Without leve,
the new cause, causes of action, will not be considered in the resolution of the case.

You will become lawyers in the future and I’m sure of that, you will have clients who are
workers. Just make sure that they can identify the correct name of the employers, as well as the
correct name of the company, the address of the company, because this information are vital
particularly in the enforcement of the decision, in the event, because you are a very good
lawyer, you been able to secure a favorable judgement for your client.

Now let’s move on to another question, that has beleaguered the National Labor Relation
Commission, this question is, What if there are cause or causes of action not mention in the
complaint but were added in the position paper, is the labor arbiter under obligation to rule on
them? Take note: the cause or causes of action is not found in the complaint neither are they
found in the amended complaint, can the labor arbiter take cognizance on them, because they
are mentioned in the position paper? Take note, if you look at Section 12 paragraph C of the
2011 NLRC Rules of Procedure, your answer would be No, those cause or causes of action
cannot be taken cognizance of by the labor arbiter, because Section 12 paragraph C of Rule 5
expressly provide that only those cause or causes of action provided for in the complaint or in
the amended complaint shall be the subject for the resolution. Ok..

However, having said this, take note, I have I’m having been to be one of the three women
committee kasi who were responsible for submitting the draft “NLRC Rules of Procedure” to the
commission en banc, our intention was to make the complaint as well as the amended
complaint as the main source of cause or causes of action, that was clearly placed into effect
pursuant to Section 12 paragraph C of Rule 5. However, if you go at… if you go down to that
particular section, Section 12 paragraph D of Rule 5 as well, you get to realize… realized that in
the submission of the reply, cause or causes of action discussing the complaint and in the
amended complaint as well as the position paper. Ok…. I have one confession to make, the
term position paper should not have been there, because we deleted that, except when its
finally printed, the word position paper was still there.

If you look at Section 12 C and Section 12 D, there seems to be a contradiction, right? “Sabi
doon sa taas” amended complaint or complaint. “Sabi doon sa baba” amend complaint,
amended complaint are those discussed in the position paper, ok.. But do take note, the
intention of this particular is to make sure that there will be no piece meal submission of cause
or causes of action. Because we thought, the committee thought that if there is piece meal
submission of cause or causes of action, the same is violative of the concept of due process.
Because there should be no surprises in litigation, imagine after submitting the amended
complaint, here is another position paper tackling another cause or causes of actions, in the
reply there would be another cause or causes of actions. And the… the.. infocation of cause or
causes of actions will be” ad infinitum” and that would be in violative of basic concept of due
process. We believe that there should be no surprises in the litigation.

The Supreme Court however, came out with, I think, let me mentioned one case, let me look at
my note, Tegimenta chemical Philippines, Tegimenta Chemical Philippines vs. Buen Salida, this
is of June 17, 2003 ruling of the Supreme Court, what was the ruling of the Supreme Court in
this case. The cause or causes of actions can be seen not only in the complaint or in the
amended complaint but also in the position paper. Ok.. and then there is another case, and I’m
talking about the case of Samar Med Distribution, Samar Med Distribution vs. NLRC and
gutang.. this is a July 15, 2013 Ruling, of the Supreme Court, the Ruling of the Supreme Court in
this case is similar to Tegimenta Ruling.

Third, Our House Realty Corporation vs. Parian et al, this is an August 6, 2014 Ruling of the
Supreme Court, the Ruling of the Supreme Court is the same as Tegimenta and Samar Med. Ok,
so..DJ’s Inn and Café vs. Rañeses this is part of your case load. DJ’s Inn and Café vs. Rañeses,
this is an October 5, 2015 Ruling of the Supreme Court. Ok… Take note, that all these four cases
are uniformed in saying that its not only the complaint but the position paper as well that could
be the source of cause or causes of actions, and therefore cause of cause or causes of actions
discussed in the position paper would have to be included in the decision. But, if you look at
this cases, these cases invoked an earlier iteration of the NLRC Rules of Procedure. K, takenote,
this four cases where decided under the environment of the 2002 NLRC Rules of Procedure.
Ok, this is a way of warning you about this cases because they were decided under the 2002
NLRC Rules of Procedure. And then there came the case of Coswe… Coswe vs. Feritz, this is a
July 24, 2017 of the Supreme Court, the same issue was raised there, but the Supreme Court
did not go into whether cause or causes of actions not included in the complaint or amended
complaint can be the subject of the decision rather the Supreme Court focus on the admission
made by the employer. For example, the employee is asking for the payment of the overtime,
the employer admitted that indeed, there is non-payment of the overtime but a claim for
overtime was not included in the cause or causes of actions in the complaint. So this case is
different from the four because there is an expressed admission on the liability on the part of
the company.

And then here is the case of Bornea vs. Security Trading Corporation, April 26, 2021, I am sure
this is part of your case load. In the Bornea case, the Supreme Court reconciled the seeming
conflict between Section 12 paragraph C and Section 12 paragraph D, so the Supreme Court
came out with this declaration cause or causes of actions not included in the complaint or in the
amended complaint but included in the position paper maybe a subject of a resolution or
result. This is pursuant to the clear letter of Section 12 paragraph C of the 2011 NLRC Rules of
Procedure. “Walang magawa si NLRC” because it was a typographical error that we missed
during the process of editing before the final publication of the 2011 NLRC Rules.

So were clear? Last, so whats the standing rule, cause or causes of actions not included in the
complaint or in the amended complaint but included in the position paper can be the subject of
the resolution. K, so let’s move on..

I want you to remember, that the complaint is the initiatory cliving before the NLRC, once the
labor arbiter receives a copy of a complaint and this complaint will be received by the labor
arbiter after it has been raffled. Raffled is done in the National Capital Region electronically.
But in other regions, of the National Labor Relation Commission, we use the “tambiolo” type of
raffle. K, we use the “tambiolo” type of raffle.

When I was appointed as a labor arbiter in 1986, one day, to my surprise, I received 7 cases.
“Sabi ko” how was it possible for me to received seven cases when there are, there were
twenty four other labor arbiters? How was it possible to receive for me 7 cases when there are
twenty four other labor arbiters? So I went to the office of the Executive Labor Arbiter who by
the way is tasked to supervise the whole operation of the Arbitration Branch, and I told the
Executive Labor Arbiter “isn’t statistically possible for a labor arbiter to received 7 cases, on
after another, when there are twenty five of Us here in the National Capital Region? “Tapos
sabi nya, OO kasi there is actually so many complainants who have filed their complaint in the
morning. I went back to my room but I was thinking about it. I was so worried about the
statistical improbability so I went back to the Executive Labor Arbiter and ask “how was the
raffle done”. What delivered… what the Executive Labor Arbiter did was to bring out a tissue
box like this, ok.. he brought out a tissue box and said “There are pieces of paper there, and the
complainant has to dip in the tissue box and get the name of the labor arbiter who would
handle his or her case. “Sabi ko” may I just tore the content of this tissue box? So I poured out
all the contents of the tissue box, and to my surprise even after receiving 7 cases, “meron pa
din akong 4 na pangalan” inside the tissue box. “Kasi sabi ko” so, what happened? So the only
conclusion that we were at is, when the complainant filed their complaint, they already had a
piece of paper, they were holding a piece of paper already. Ok, so yun “so sabi ko” take note,
the trust of the public starts from the raffle system, and if you cannot get the trusts of the
public because the raffle has not been done in the transparent manner, how do we expect the
public to trust the impartiality of the procedings.

So, “sabi ng Executive Labor Arbiter”, but it has been this way since time in memorial. If there’s
one statement that I don’t like the most, that was the statement. Why? Because we should not
be contented, with status quo, we must be able to challenge the status quo, particularly the if
the challenge is aim at improving the system. So I asked the labor arbiter, would it be possible
for me to device a system that would be more transparent? So, “sabi nya” oh ok, its fine if you
want to ah, undertake additional job, fine, fine with me. So, I was looking at PCSO,
“nakikipagbiruan ako with PCSO” “sabi pwede rin yan eh”, even if not automated, we could do
it mechanically, and then what I did is to get this pingpong ball, so “nilagyan” ng numbers,
1,2,3,4,5 up to 25 because there were 25 labor arbiter in the National Capital Region.
Takenote, that the number are so ah, conspiculous, you see them, so I taught the system was
fool proofed. “Pero eto pala ang mga complainant” because they could very well see the
number hihintayin muna nila before sila magraffle. Because they know that number 1 pertains
to arbiter so and so, number this pertains to arbiter so and so. “sabi ko” it’s very difficult to
introduce an innovation particularly if even the public that your tasked to served would not like
to cooperate with you.

“Sabi ko” let’s do it this way, let us assigned a code to a particular labor arbiter that would not
be known by everyone, Guys, we thought that we are safe “ayan na naman sya” take note,
prototype that lotto type of contraption. It is very crude but nonetheless there’s transparent in
the process. So I thought everything was fine, but then I realize that the complainants, not the
complainants but the fixers, that then abound the premises of the NLRC, must already in the
know about the code. “So anong nangyari later on” every Monday we change the code. So we
were just one step ahead of people who would like to rig the raffle process. And then finally,
we went into electronic raffle. So “siguro hindi na pwede electronic raffle na ma rig?” Because,
it so random, K? so why am I telling you this? You will become part of this system when you
became lawyers, so be part of the solution, do not be part of the problem. Ok? Do not be part
of the problem. My colleagues then where raising an eyebrow because they were telling me,
Belle, why do you have to tire yourself of thinking about this. “Sabi ko” because the integrity of
the entire system starts with the raffle system. Ok, so when you became lawyers do not be part
of the problem, you should respect the procedure, and trust that the procedure will work for
you if you play fair n square. Let’s move on, Okay.

So next point that I wanted discuss with you is the year… Year is the complaint and the
complaint if for money claims, money claims, plain and simple, there were no other complaints
except for money claims. But then, the labor arbiter upon consideration of the records realized
based on the narrations of facts, that the complainant was also dismissed. The question that
came to my mind now is, is it valid for the labor arbiter to rule on the issue of illegal dismissal?
Answer: No, in the case of Inter-orient vs. Hechanova which I’m sure is part of your case load,
the Supreme Court said the court cannot grant a relief that was not prayed for by the parties,
even if, expatent from the submission that there is another complaint and a relief should be
given. Because the rule is, the court cannot grant a relief not prayed for or also in excess of
what is sought for by a party to a case. So, the relief should be limited to what the complaint to
what the complaint is all about. “Sasabihin na natin na” complaint, amended complaint and
then we could also add the position paper pursuant to the ruling of the Supreme Court in the
Bornea Trading Case.

Next point, the labor arbiter, upon receiving the complaint, will not immediately require the
parties to submit their respective position paper, what will delay the arbiter to? The labor
arbiter is under obligation to conduct conciliation, mediation, “ito yung mandatory
conference”. Take note, we are now talking about conciliation and mediation not as an
alternative mode of dispute resolution but as adjunct