Appeals in labor cases

A bill has recently been filed in Congress that aims to shorten the procedure in resolving appeals from decisions of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) in labor cases.

At present, complaints for violation of the Labor Code, e.g., unfair labor practice, illegal dismissal or suspension and non-payment of benefits, are initially resolved by a labor arbiter.

If any of the parties is dissatisfied with his decision, he can appeal it to the NLRC, which consists of one chair and 14 commissioners who are organized in five divisions with three members each.

The NLRC’s ruling can, in turn, be appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA). The latter’s decision may be further elevated to the Supreme Court for final resolution.

Symptomatic of the poor state of our judicial system, it takes at least seven years from the time a complaint is filed with the labor arbiter before it is resolved with finality.

The inordinate delay in the resolution of labor cases is often cited by employers (with the willing cooperation of labor arbiters) to persuade complaining workers into dropping their complaint in consideration for lopsided compromise settlements.

As a result, contrary to an oft-repeated political slogan, those who have less in life get even lesser in law.

Expensive

Under the proposed law, decisions of the NLRC will no longer pass through the CA and instead go straight to the tribunal to put a quicker end to labor disputes.

According to the bill’s author, Rep. Karlo Nograles, since most labor cases in the CA are brought to the tribunal for final resolution, “… it will be practical to bring the case directly to the High Court without passing through the CA.”

The measure wants to remove a procedural layer in the judicial mill that, contrary to earlier legislative expectations, has made the resolution of labor cases more tedious, time-consuming and expensive.

There is a significant downside, however, to this proposal: It would put more load on the tribunal’s already heavy and clogged docket.

As things stand, the tribunal has its hands full with so many cases that go far beyond its principal responsibility of deciding on the constitutionality or legality of laws, or pure questions of law.

It is not supposed to be a trier of facts or act like a trial court, but it has assumed that role time and again, and invoked “interest of justice” as justification for that action.

Stretched to the limits, the quality of some of its decisions has suffered in the process.

Business plans

The adverse effects of delay in the resolution of labor cases cut both ways.

In illegal dismissal cases, for example, the complaining worker has to endure job loss, lack of money and the uncertainty of the future as he awaits the final decision on his complaint.

With job opportunities in the country woefully scarce, the stigma of dismissal further reduces his chances of getting another employment while the courts decide on whether or not his dismissal is valid or the employer should be ordered to give him separation pay.

During the same waiting period, the employer may have to put on hold the filling up of the dismissed worker’s position or the implementation of disciplinary policies related to the dismissal lest its action be later struck down as unauthorized or result in financial sanctions.

Worse, an adverse decision in a labor case rendered several years after the filing of the complaint could ruin business plans or wreak havoc on an otherwise smoothly operating company.

Conscious of this probability and in compliance with regulatory requirements, some companies with unresolved labor problems are often obliged to set aside funds just in case.

Money that could have otherwise been used for development purposes is put in escrow or invested in readily convertible financial instruments while awaiting the final resolution of the labor case.

Contentious

The bill’s objective of hastening the resolution of labor cases could be best achieved if, instead of allowing direct appeals to the tribunal, the CA is given the authority to render the final ruling.

Unless the Labor Code is later amended, its contentious provisions have already been passed upon or discussed at length by the tribunal since it became effective in 1974.

There are hardly any more issues in the Labor Code or other labor regulations that would require the tribunal to render a final interpretation on their provisions.

As some lawyers put it, the tribunal’s rulings on labor cases are practically de kahon, or reiterations of past decisions on cases or issues earlier raised. The variations, if any, are mostly cosmetic and do not deviate from established jurisprudence.

Congress will be doing the tribunal and the affected parties a big favor if they make the CA the last stop in the judicial process for labor cases.

Considering their long experience on labor issues, the CA justices are competent to render final judgment on these matters.

It’s also a plus that the CA has sitting divisions in Cebu and Cagayan de Oro that can promptly attend to appeals from decisions of NLRC offices in the Visayas and Mindanao.

With the tribunal moving out of the judicial bureaucracy in the resolution of labor cases, the waiting period can be reduced by at least three years. It’s still long, but that’s a big improvement from the present state of things.

(For comments, please send your e-mail to [email protected].)