DOLE Organizational Structure

ATTACHED AGENCIES ATTACHED CORPORATIONS

1. Institute for Labor Studies 1. Employees Compensation
2. Maritime Training Council Commission
3. NCMB 2. Occupational Safety and
4. NLRC Health Center
5. National Maritime Polytechnic
6. National Wages and Productivity Commission Office of the
7. OWWA
8. POEA Secretary
9. PRC
10. TESDA

Bureau of Labor Bureau of Bureau of

Bureau of Labor Bureau of Local
& Employment Workers with Working
Relations Employment
Statistics Special Concerns Conditions
Jurisdiction of Quasi-Judicial Bodies
• Injunction in ordinary labor disputes, and in strikes and lockouts.
• Labor disputes likely to cause strike or lockout in an industry indispensable to national
NLRC interest.
• Appellate: all cases decided by Labor Arbiters; cases decided by DOLE RD involving
wages, simple money claims, and other benefits.

• Inter-union disputes; representation disputes; complaints/requests for examination of

union accounts
BLR • Intra-union disputes
• Labor-management disputes
• Registration of labor unions; cancellation of registration

• Notice of strike or lockout

NCMB • Disputes submitted by the parties for preventive mediation
The NLRC -- Jurisdiction
 Exclusive and original jurisdiction
 Unfair labor practice cases
 Termination disputes
 Cases involving wages, pay rates, work hours,
employment conditions, accompanied by reinstatement
claims
 Claims for damages arising from employer-employee
relations
 Legality of strikes and lockouts
 Cases decided by Labor Arbiters (appellate)
The NLRC -- Powers
 To make rules and regulations pertaining to its
functions
 To administer oaths and issue subpoenas and
summons
 To investigate, hear, and decide disputes within its
jurisdiction
 To hold persons in contempt
 To issue restraining orders and injunctions
 To conduct ocular inspection
 To decide appealed cases
The NLRC – Dispute Resolution
The NLRC Rules of Procedure
 Salient features
 Mandatory conference
 Case should be decided within 30 days after
the last hearing set for the case.
 Non-litigious nature
 Motions for reconsideration are not allowed
Cases
 Nicario v. NLRC et al., G.R. No. 125340
 Facts: In 1986, Emelita Nicario worked as a
salesgirl with Mancao Supermarket, and later on
promoted as supervisor. Her services were
terminated in 1989. This case was a claim for
overtime pay.
 NLRC dismissed the complaint in view of the
evidence of DTR copies presented by Mancao,
which Nicario assailed as forgeries.
Cases
 Issue: Did the NLRC commit grave abuse of discretion in
ruling that Nicario is not entitled to overtime pay.

 Ruling: Yes. While Mancao supermarket submitted the DTR

copies, the NLRC should have ordered a formal hearing on
the case and merely depended on the evidence presented by
Mancao supermarket.

 It is a well-settled doctrine that, if doubts exist between the

evidence presented by the employer and the employee, the
scales of justice must tilt in favor of the latter.
Cases
 Dy v. NLRC, G.R. No. 68544
 Facts: In a Board resolution of the Rural Bank of Ayungon
(Negros Oriental), Carlito Vailoces was relieved as bank
manager. He filed a complaint with the NLRC for illegal dismissal,
for which the Labor Arbiter ruled in his favor.
 The bank, represented by Lorenzo Dy, appealed to the NLRC,
stating:
○ Vailoces was dismissed because of absenteeism and negligence
of his duties, and had the opportunity to refute the charges against
him, but simply abandoned his work.
○ The matter was within the adjudicatory powers of the SEC, and
NLRC had no jurisdiction.
 The NLRC bypassed the issues, and simply dismissed the
appeal.
Cases
 Issue: Did the NLRC abused its authority?
 Ruling: Yes. The case falls squarely within the
powers of the SEC as an intra-corporate
controversy, defined in Sec. 5, par (c) of PD 902-
A:
 “Controversies in the election or appointments of
directors, trustees, officers or managers of such
corporations, partnerships, or associations,”
 The NLRC decision was thus held null and void.
Cases
 Ang Tibay v. CIR, 69 Phil 635
 Facts: Teodoro Toribio owns and operates Ang Tibay, a leather
company which supplies the Philippine Army. Due to alleged
shortage of leather, Toribio caused the layoff of a number of his
employees. However, the National Labor Union Inc. questioned the
validity of the layoff as it averred that the laid off employees were
members of the NLU while no member of the rival union National
Workers Brotherhood were laid off. NLU claims that NWB is a
company dominated union and Toribio was merely busting NLU.
 The case reached the CIR where Toribio and NWB won. Eventually,
NLU went to the Supreme Court, invoking its right to a new trial on
the ground of newly discovered evidence. The SC agreed with NLU,
but the Solicitor General, arguing for the CIR, filed a motion for
reconsideration.
Cases
 Issue: Whether or not NLU is entitled to a new trial.
 Ruling: Yes. The records show that the newly
discovered evidence obtained by NLU, which they
attached to their petition with the SC, were evidence
so inaccessible to them at the time of the trial that
even with the exercise of due diligence they could not
expected to have obtained them and offered as
evidence in the CIR. Moreover, the documents are of
such of far-reaching importance and effect that their
admission would necessarily mean the modification
and reversal of the judgment rendered.