Republic of the Philippines
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Quezon City

16" Congress
First Regular Session

House Brno. 4529
Introduced by: HON. KARLO ALEXEI B. NOGRALES

E |ATORY NOT!

The 1987 Constitution of the Philippines specifically provides: “All persons shall have the
right to a speedy disposition of their cases before all judicial, quasi-judicial, or administrative bodies.”
This provision contemplates not only the speedy disposition of cases within a particular judicial,
quasi-judicial or administrative body, but speedy disposition of cases in its entirety, i. from filing of
‘case to the lower court (court of origin) up to the final review by the higher court,

Prior to the ruling of the Supreme Court in the case of St. Martin Funeral Homes vs. NLRC,
dated 16 September 1998, decisions of the NLRC in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction was
directly reviewable by the Supreme Court via Petition for Certiorari. The Supreme Court in said case
came out with a ruling that, “judicial review” over decisions of the NLRC shall first be lodged before

the Court of Appeals.

Its apparent that the purpose of the Supreme Court in the said case was to de-clog its docket.
However, this is a clear case of “judicial legislation” since the Court itself acknowledged in the same
aforecited case that: “In fine, Congress did intend to provide for judicial review of the adjudications of
the NLRC in labor cases by the Supreme Court, but there was an inaccuracy in the term used for the
intended mode of review. x x x.”

This will now clearly put into law the accurate “intended mode of review” of NLRC decisions
directly with the Supreme Court.

Significantly, with the reforms implemented by the Department of Labor and Employment
(DOLE) on Single-Entry Approach (SEnA) and Project Speedy and Efficient Delivery of Labor
Justice (SpeED), majority of labor cases are now finally settled and decided at the level of the
Regional Arbitration Branches and Commission Proper. But with the present set-up of three (3)
stages/level of appeal/review of labor cases, the mandate of providing speedy labor justice will still be
negated particularly for lowly workers who could ill afford a protracted, costly and frustrating
litigation before another level of appellate body. This additional layer of appeal affects the whole
workforce in the country, including the overseas contract workers, agricultural workers and domestic

helpers.

Notably, from 2009-2013, of the total 63,060 or 12,600 average cases decided per year by the
Commission Proper, only 5,844 or 1,168 average cases are appealed to the Court of Appeals. Thus,
only 9% of the decisions of the Commission Proper are appealed to the Court of Appeals. Of this
1,168 average cases appealed to the Court of Appeals per year, 980 average cases are also appealed to
the Supreme Court. Comparatively, of 12,600 cases decided by the Commission Proper, 11,432 or
91% attained finality in the Commission level, on t- other hand, of 1,168 cases decided by the Court
of Appeals, only 188 or 16% attained finality in the Court of Appeals level, hence, the remaining 980


or 84% are still appealed to the Supreme Court for final decision. In effect, had decisions of the
Commission Proper been directly appealable to the Supreme Court by way of Petition for Certiorari,
the 9% appealed/reviewed decisions of the Commission Proper or the 84% appealed/reviewed
decisions of the Court of Appeals will be disposed of in a much shorter time by the Supreme Court
with finality.

Interestingly, the process cycle time of appeal/review in the Commission Proper to the Court
of Appeals and then to the Supreme Court is quite longer because of the different modes of
appealireview with different procedural requirements and periods. The decision of the Commission
Proper is reviewable via Petition for Certiorari to the Court of Appeals under Rule 65 of the Rules of
Court, and the decision of the Court of Appeals is reviewable via Petition for Review on Certiorari to
the Supreme Court under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, It must be noted that Rule 65 is a special civil
actions governed by different procedural rules and requirements, while Rule 45 is an ordinary mode
of appeal, also with different procedural rules and requirements. The procedural requirements and
processes required by two (2) different modes of appeal before the case attains finality defeat the very
purpose of the Constitution on speedy labor justice. This Bill will lessen the level of appeal/teview
and simplify the procedural requirements and processes.

Hence, carly passage of the bill is hereby earnestly sought.

NOGRALES

KARLO ALEXEI E


Republic of the Philippines
;E OF REPRESENTATIVES
Quezon City

16" Congress
First Regular Session

4523

HOUSE BILL NO.

Introduced by: HON. KARLO ALEXEI B. NOGRALES.

AN ACT PROVIDING FOR APPEAL OF THE DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR
RELATIONS COMMISSION TO THE SUPREME COURT, AMENDING FOR THIS
PURPOSE ARTICLES 223 AND 224 OF PRESIDENTIAL DECREE NO. 442, AS AMENDED,
OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE “LABOR CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES”

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the Philippines in Congress
assembled:

SECTION 1. Article 223 of PD 442, otherwise known as the Labor Code of the Philippines,
as amended, is hereby further amended to read as follows:

“Article 223. Appeal. ~ Decisions, awards or orders of the Labor Arbiter are
final and executory unless appealed to the Commission by any or both parties within
ten (10) calendar days from receipt of such decisions, awards or orders. NO
APPEAL OR PETITION FROM THE DECISIONS, AWARDS OR ORDERS
OF THE LABOR ARBITER SHALL BE ENTERTAINED BY ANY COURT
OR AGENCY, EXCEPT BY THE COMMISSION. Such appeal OR PETITION
may be entertained only on any of the following grounds:

(a) If there is prima facie evidence of abuse of discretion on the part of the Labor
Arbiter;

(b) If the decision, order or award was secured through fraud or coercion,
including graft and corruption;

(c) If made purely on questions of law; and

(d) If serious errors in the findings of facts are raised which would cause grave or
irreparable damage or injury to the appellant.

In case of judgment involving monetary award, an appeal by the employer
may be perfected only upon the posting of a cash or surety bond issued by a reputable
bonding company duly accredited by the SUPREME COURT OR Commission in

the amount equivalent to the monetary award in the judgment appealed from.

In any event, the decision of the Labor Arbiter reinstating a dismissed or
separated employee insofar as the reinstatement. aspect is concerned shall
immediately be executory, even pending appeal. The employee shall either be
admitted back to work under the same terms and conditions prevailing prior to his
dismissal or separation or, at the option of the employer, merely reinstated in the
payroll. The posting of a bond by the employer shall not stay the execution of the
reinstatement provided herein.


To discourage frivolous or dilatory appeals, the Commission or the Labor
Arbiter shall impose reasonable penalty, including fines or censures, upon erring
parties.

In all cases, the appellant shall furnish a copy of the memorandum of appeal
to the other party who shall file an answer not later than ten (10) calendar days from
receipt hereof,

The Commission shall decide all cases within twenty (20) calendar days from
receipt of the answer of the appellee, The decision of the Commission shall be final
and executory after ten (10) calendar days from receipt thereof by the parties

Any law enforcement agency may be deputized by the Secretary of Labor and

Employment or the Commission in the enforcement of decisions, awards or orders.

SEC. 2, Article 224 of PD 442, otherwise known as the Labor Code of the Philippines, as
amended, is hereby further amended to read as follows:

“Article 224, Execution of Decisions, Orders or Awards. ~ (A) DECISIONS,
RESOLUTIONS OR_AWARDS_OF_THE COMMISSION SHALL BE
REVIEWABLE ONLY BY THE SUPREME COURT ON PETITION FOR

CERTIORARI UNDER THE RULES OF COURT SOLELY ON QUESTIONS:
OF LAW OR JURISDICTION IN THE EXERCISE OF ITS POWERS UNDER
PARAGRAPH (1) SECTION 5, ARTICLE VIM OF THE CONSTITUTION.

(B) The Secretary of Labor and Employment or any Regional Director, the
Commission or any Labor Arbiter, or Med-Arbiter or Voluntary Arbitrators may,
motu proprio or on motion of any interested party, issue a writ of execution on a
judgment within five (5) years from the date it becomes final and executor, requiring
1 sheriff or a duly deputized officer to execute or enforce final decisions, orders or
awards of the Secretary of Labor and Employment or Regional Director, the
Commission, the Labor Arbiter or Med-Arbiter or Voluntary Arbitrator or panel of
Voluntary Arbitrators. In any case, it shall be the duty of the responsible officer to
separately furnish immediately the counsels-of-record and the parties with copies of
said decisions, orders or awards. Failure to comply with the duty prescribed herein
shall subject such responsible officer to appropriate administrative sanctions.

(C) The Secretary of Labor and Employment, and the Chairman of the
Commission may designate special sheriffs and take any measure under existing laws
to ensure compliance with their decisions, orders or awards and those of Labor
Arbiters and Voluntary Arbitrators or panel of Voluntary Arbitrators, including the
imposition of administrative fines which shall not be less than five hundred pesos
(P500.00) nor more than ten thousand pesos (P10,000.00).”

Alll laws, decrees, executive orders, rules and regulations, or

SEC. 3. Separability Clause, ~
jon of this Act are hereby repealed, amended or mod

parts hereof inconsistent with the prov
accordingly.

SEC. 4, Effectivity Clause. — This Act shall take effect after fifteen (15) days follo
completion of its publication in the Official Gazette or in at least two (2) newspapers of general
circulation,

Approved,