During my observation in NLRC in the bench of Hon. Marita V.

Padolina, as we entered the court room we sat on the back, facing the judge bench at the other end of the room. In front of me the respondent with his counsel. And the other side was the petitioner.

First, the case I have heard was about for illegal dismissal, non-payment of labor standards benefits, separation pay and exemplary benefits. The complainant alleges that he was hired by respondent security as a security guard and was signed at the office at Kaizen Security, until he was illegally dismissed. The complainant further avers that before his illegal termination he was paid a salary of 266.00/day and he was never paid an overtime. Complainant argues that he was dismissed when he was started questioning the conduct of respondent agency. Respondent basically argued that complainant was not dismissed or terminated as it was complainant who refused to work and the Labor arbiter set the hearing on another day for the decision.

Second, the case I have heard was about for illegal dismissal-actual, and illegal suspension with prayer for reinstatement, backwages, moral and exemplary damages and attorney's fees filed by Mr. Carangan the complainants against Global Asia, Inc. the parties failed to arrive as the date of aggrement, Labor Arbiter terminated the mandatory conciliation/mediation and ordered the parties to file the position papers.

Lastly, the case I have heard was for alleged illegal dismissal-actual, underpayment of salary, non-payment of ECOLA, moral and exemplary damages, attorneys fees. Mandatory conciliation /mediation conferences were held, but no settlement was arrived at so that parties were required and submitted their respective positions papers and evidence for both complainant and respondents. The Labor Arbiter calls for resetting.

To sum up, the case was easy to follow, and comprehensible to lay people, entirely different from what I had expected.

I was surprised at how simple the facts of the case were. But another vital issue as seen in the Labor Court was the little reference to precedent, merely stating only a section within the relevant statute. This supports the idea that the purpose of the courts is to discuss, question and decide on evidence. But I believe that the decisions of the Labor Arbiters will be equal.

I observed also that the NLRC court is different and has a similarity from the regular court wherein the NLRC is vested by law with quasi-judicial powers to resolve disputes arising from employer - employee relationships (a quasijudicial body is an individual or organization which has powers resembling those of a court of law or judge and is able to remedy a situation or impose legal penalties on a person or organization). The NLRC has a very similar standing to that of the regular court (the Regional Trial Court (RTC)) and is a commission organized by the Philippine Government to resolve, investigate, and settle disputes between employer and employee, or vice versa.

The relationship between the NLRC and the overall legal system of the Philippines can be very confusing. The NLRC has been granted very special powers and is a stand-alone court. In essence the government has created certain quasi-judicial bodies, like the NLRC, to address and resolve issues in a specialized field, with more technical knowledge, expertise and dispatch than the regular courts of justice.

The NLRC is therefore defined as a court of expertise in labor law. Under Philippine law, the decision of the NLRC Commissioner is final and executory 10 calendar days after receiving their written decision (or 10 calendar days after

receipt of the Commissioners Resolution relating to any Motions for Reconsideration that may be filed) and can thereafter be enforced against the losing party by filing a Motion for the Issuance of a Writ of Execution with the Labor Arbiter.

With the benefit of hindsight, it has been wrong to call cases elevated to the Court of Appeals an appeal, for technically it is not (an NLRC Commissioner has the same authority as Justices of the Court of Appeals, provided this authority is not abused). Under the law we can no longer appeal the case as a matter of right; this is discretionary on the part of the Court of Appeals. Therefore, a case is elevated to the Court of Appeals through a Petition for Certiorari (request for Judicial Review) within which it is argued that the Labor Judge of the NLRC has acted without or in excess of their jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction; and then go on to demonstrate why (the wrong application of Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) for example). It is, however, this non-linear legal system that creates much confusion.