The DOLE is the national government agency mandated to formulate and implement policies

and programs, and serve as the policy-advisory arm of the Executive Branch in the field of labor
and employment.
The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), a quasi-judicial agency attached to the
Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE), is mandated to adjudicate labor and
management disputes involving both local and overseas workers through compulsory arbitration
and alternative modes of dispute resolution.

NLRC Proceedings: What is an appeal in compulsory arbitration?
When an aggrieved party is not satisfied with the decision, order or award of the Labor Arbiter,
POEA Administrator or DOLE Regional Director or his duly authorized hearing officer, the
decision, award or order may be elevated to the Commission Proper upon grounds provided by
law.

NLRC Proceedings: When to submit position papers/ memorandum
If, during the conferences, the parties fail to agree upon an amicable settlement, either in whole
or in part, the Labor Arbiter shall issue an order directing the parties to simultaneously file their
respective verified position papers, with the supporting documents and affidavits within fifteen
(15) calendar days from the date of the last conference, with proof of having furnished each other
with the copies thereof.
The verified position papers shall cover only those claims and causes of action raised in the
complaint excluding those that may have been amicably settled.
The Labor Arbiter determines the necessity of a hearing
As soon as the parties have submitted their position papers/memorandum, the Labor Arbiter
shall, motu propio, determine whether there is a need for a formal trial or hearing. The Labor
Arbiter may, at his discretion, ask clarificatory questions to further elicit facts or information,
including but not limited to the subpoena of relevant documentary evidence from any party or
witness.
NLRC Proceedings: How many copies of the appeal must be submitted and where does one file
an appeal?
The appeal, in five (5) legibly typewritten copies, may be filed with the respective Regional
Arbitration Branch, the DOLE Regional Office or the POEA, where the case was heard and
decided.

NLRC Proceedings: When will the Labor Arbiter render decision?
The Arbiter shall render his decision within thirty (30) calendar days, without extension, after the
submission of the case by the parties for resolution, even in the absence of stenographic notes,
provided however that cases involving Overseas Filipino Workers shall be decided within ninety
(90) calendar days after the filing of the complaint which shall be deemed perfected upon
acquisition by the labor arbiter of jurisdiction over the respondent/s. (Sec. 5, Rule 5, NLRC
Rules as Amended)
NLRC Proceedings: May the Labor Arbiter conciliate disputes?
Yes. At any stage of the proceedings in all cases, the Arbiter shall exert all efforts and take
positive steps toward resolving the dispute through conciliation.

NLRC Proceedings: Conference
The Labor Arbiter shall summon the parties to a conference within two days from receipt of an
assigned case.The purpose of the conference is either to:
amicably settle the dispute;
determine the real parties in interest;
define and simplify the issues of the case;
enter into admissions and/or stipulations of facts; and
Thresh out preliminary matters. (Sec. 2, Rule 5, NLRC Rules as Amended)

NLRC Proceedings: When is a hearing necessary or not?
If there is a need for a hearing, the Labor Arbiter shall issue an order setting the date or dates for
said hearing which shall be terminated within ninety (90) days from initial hearing. However, if
he finds no necessity for further hearing after the parties have submitted their position papers and
supporting documents, he shall issue an Order to that effect and inform the parties. The Arbiter
shall render his decision in the case within ninety (90) days.

NLRC Proceedings: What is the period of appeal?
Within ten (10) calendar days from receipt of such decisions, awards or orders of the Labor
Arbiter or of the POEA Administrator. In case of a decision of the Regional Director or his duly
authorized hearing officer, the appeal may be filed within five (5) calendar days from receipt of
such decisions, awards or orders.

NLRC Proceedings: What are certified labor disputes?
Certified labor disputes are cases certified to the Commission for compulsory arbitration by the
Secretary of Labor and Employment if in his opinion, there exists a labor dispute causing or
likely to cause a strike or lockout in an industry indispensable to the national interest. (Sec. 2,
Rule 9, NLRC Rules as Amended)
What are the effects of certification?
Upon certification, the intended or impending strike or lockout is automatically prohibited even
if there is a motion for reconsideration of the certification order in the Office of the Secretary.
If a work stoppage has already taken place at the time of the Certification, all striking or locked-
out employees are to immediately return to work and the employer shall immediately resume
operations and readmit all workers under the same terms existing before the strike or lockout.
(Sec. 5, Rule 9, NLRC Rules as Amended)
When will the Commission resolve a certified case?
The Commission, sitting in the appropriate Division shall decide or resolve the certified dispute
within thirty (30) calendar days from the date of submission of the dispute for resolution. (Sec. 4,
Rule 9, NLRC Rules as Amended)

NLRC Proceedings: Number of conferences allowed
The number of conferences shall not exceed three (3) settings and shall be terminated within
thirty (30) calendar days from the date of the first conference.
No motion for postponement shall be entertained. Non-appearance of the complainant/s during
the scheduled hearings for mediation/conciliation conference shall be a ground for the dismissal
of the case without prejudice.
In case of non-appearance of the respondent/s during the first conference, a second conference
shall proceed. Non-appearance of the respondent/s during the second conference shall
immediately terminate the mandatory conciliation/mediation conference. The complainant/s shall
thereupon be allowed to file his position paper as well as submit evidence in support of his cause
or causes of action after which, the labor arbiter shall render his decision on the basis of the
evidence on record. (Sec. 2, Rule 5, NLRC Rules as Amended)

NLRC Proceedings: What are the other requisites for the perfection of an appeal?
1. The appeal should be under oath.
2. Proof of payment of appeal fee.
3. Proof of posting of a cash or surety bond.
4. Must be accompanied by a memorandum of appeal which shall state the grounds relied upon
and the supporting arguments.
5. A statement of the date when the appellant received the appealed decision or award.
6. Proof of service on the other party of such appeal.

NLRC Proceedings: How much is the appeal fee?
An appeal fee of one hundred and ten (P110.00) pesos must be paid by the appellant to the
Regional Arbitration Branch, DOLE Regional Office or the POEA.

NLRC Proceedings: When is a bond required in an appeal?
In case the decision of the Labor Arbiter, POEA Administrator and DOLE Regional Director or
his duly authorized hearing officer involves monetary award.

NLRC Proceedings: Can an appeal for decisions involving monetary award be perfected
without posting a bond?
An appeal by the employer shall be perfected only upon posting of a cash or surety bond issued
by a reputable bonding company duly accredited by the Commission or the Supreme Court in an
amount equivalent to the monetary award.

NLRC Proceedings: What is the period to resolve the appeal?
The appeal from the decision, order or reward of the Labor Arbiter and POEA Administrator
shall be resolved by the Commission within 20 calendar days from receipt of the answer of the
appellee or upon the filing of the last pleading or memorandum.
In case of an appeal from the decision of the DOLE Regional Director or his duly authorized
hearing officer, it shall be resolved within 10 calendar days.

Which administrative body has jurisdiction over monetary claims of OFWs? What is
the mode of appeal?

Jurisdiction over money claims of OFW is vested with Labor Arbiters of the NLRC and not
with POEA (R.A. No. 8042).Decisions of Labor Arbiters in money claims of OFWs are
appealable to NLRC.


What is contracting or subcontracting?
Contracting or subcontracting refers to an arrangement whereby a principal agrees to put out or
farm out with a contractor or subcontractor the performance or completion of a specific job,
work or service within a definite or predetermined period, regardless of whether such job, work
or service is to be performed or completed within outside the premises of the principal.
What is the basis of compensation for death benefits of OFWs?
The basis of compensation for death generally is whichever is greater between Philippine law
and foreign law.
Power of NLRC to Reduce Appeal Bond
Is there a shift from strict to liberal policy, under Art. 223 of the Labor Code, in granting the
NLRC the discretion to reduce appeal bonds? Stated differently, is the power of the NLRC to
reduce the appeal bond, absolute? Negative to both questions.
The discretion given to the NLRC to reduce the amount of appeal bond is not a blanket power to
the NLRC. The discretion of the NLRC is not unbridled and is subjected by the Supreme Court
to strict guidelines because Art. 223 of the Labor Code is a rule of jurisdiction, not a rule of
procedure, that affords little leeway for liberal interpretation.
The reduction must be reasonable according to the special circumstance and the reduction must
have a factual basis.
When Article 223 of the Labor Code expressly provided that perfection of an appeal would be
only upon the posting of a cash or surety bond, the lawmakers had no other intention but to
require that the posting of the bond would be an indispensable requirement for perfection of an
employers appeal.
When Article 223 of the Labor Code expressly provided that the cash or surety bond to be posted
must be equivalent to the amount of the award of the Labor Arbiter whose award is on review
with the NLRC, the lawmakers had no other intention but to require that the amount to be posted
must be the whole amount of the Labor Arbiters award, excluding of course, damages and
attorneys fees.
The revision which allowed the NLRC to reduce the amount of the bond is a discretionary
power but that discretionary power is not unbridled and is subject to strict guidelines as set forth
in several decisions of the Supreme Court.
The reduction of the appeal bond must be reasonable and must be restricted to justifiable cases.
Thus, without proof and on the mere allegation that the decision sought to be appealed is
purportedly erroneous in fact or in law, would be inadequate.
As expressly stated by the law, a mere motion to reduce appeal bond cannot serve to mitigate the
appeal bond requirement, nor could the allegation that the monetary award was too large or too
harsh or unfounded or unsettled, be proper grounds to reduce the appeal bond. Even if the
monetary award to be paid as appeal bond runs into millions or billions of pesos, this does not
automatically give the employer-appellant a meritorious case to reduce the appeal bond.
Settled is the rule that Article 223 of the Labor Code, which prescribes the appeal bond
requirement, is a rule of jurisdiction and not a rule of procedure that could be treated
liberally. Being a rule of jurisdiction, it is strictly construed. There is little leeway for condoning
a liberal interpretation thereof, and certainly none premised on the ground that its requirements
are mere technicalities. The requirement for posting the surety bond is not merely procedural
butjurisdictional and cannot be trifled with.
The underlying purpose for the strict construction, other than the fact that Art. 223 of the Labor
Code is a rule of jurisdiction, not a rule of procedure, and being a rule of jurisdiction, it is strictly
construed, is that the appeal bond was intended by the lawmakers as a safeguard to ensure that
the employee can target properties of the employer on which he or she can execute upon in the
event of a final, providential award against the employer. It was intended to discourage
employers from using an appeal as a means to delay, or even evade, their obligation to satisfy
their employees just and lawful claims. The non-payment or woefully insufficient payment of
the appeal bond by the employer frustrates these ends.
Time and again, it has been held that the right to appeal is not a natural right or a part of due
process, it is merely a statutory privilege, and may be exercised only in the manner and in
accordance with the provisions of law. The party who seeks to avail of the same must comply
with the requirements of the rules. Failing to do so, the right to appeal is lost.
Article 223 of the Labor Code, as amended, must be strictly construed, and the NLRC would
have gravely abused its discretion if it reduced the appeal bond to be deposited, if a cash bond, or
posted, if a surety bond, by the employers, in order to perfect their appeal from decision of the
Labor Arbiter, without factual basis or if unreasonably low depending on the circumstances of
the case.
The Constitution commands that labor must be protected, because it is the declared policy of the
State to protect the rights of workers and promote their welfare and the State has a duty to afford
labor full protection in regard to assuring each employee who has been benefited with an award
of the Labor Arbiter, that that award be substantiated with either ready cash to be deposited by
the employer in the case of a cash bond, or reliable and liquid surety capable of paying the Labor
Arbiters award, in the case of a surety bond, if the Labor Arbiters award is sustained by the
NLRC.
The lawmakers have taken into consideration the situation when employees who have been
benefited with a favorable award by the Labor Arbiter because of alleged illegal dismissal would
find themselves laid-off, with the employers business already closed down and the employers
assets already in the process of being scuttled, with the added scenario that the employers
business may have already been taken over by an affiliate, subsidiary or business associate, in
derogation of their rights to security of tenure, and ruining their hopes for the company ever to
open again, so that any appeal could endanger the award of the Labor Arbiter with every day that
passes while the company is being liquidated. The unpaid appeal bond becomes even more
obscure if the employer would be permitted to subsequently employ artifices to evade execution
of judgment.
The Labor Arbiters award which takes the form of an appeal bond as envisioned by the framers
of the law, could turn out to be merely an illusion, with the passage of time, during employers
appeal. If there were no appeal bond required that is equivalent to the Labor Arbiters award,
even if the workers win the case appealed by the employer, there could be no money to pay for
the Labor Arbiters award that may have been affirmed by the NLRC so that each employee who
has lost his livelihood, would have nothing to tidy him over for the loss of his livelihood. The
framers of the law intended that the appeal bond would assure the winning workers that at the
end of the appeal by the employer, there would still be money to pay off their claims.
Article 223 of the Labor Code expressly provides the rules on appeal from the rules on appeal
from the Labor Arbiters monetary award, as follows:
ART. 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. x x x. >
In case of a judgment involving a 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 Commission in the amount equivalent to the monetary award in the judgment
appealed from.
The pertinent provisions of Rule VI of the New Rules of Procedure of the NLRC provide:
Section 1. Periods of Appeal. Decisions, awards or orders of the Labor Arbiter and the POEA
Administrator shall be 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 of the
Labor Arbiter x x x.
Section 3. Requisites for Perfection of Appeal. (a) The appeal shall be filed within the
reglementary period as provided in Section 1 of this Rule; shall be under oath with proof of
payment of the required appeal fee and the posting of a cash or surety bond as provided in
Section 5 of this Rule; shall be accompanied by a memorandum of appeal which shall state the
grounds relied upon and the arguments in support thereof; the relief prayed for; and a statement
of the date when the appellant received the appealed decision, order or award and proof of
service on the other party of such appeal.
A mere notice of appeal without complying with the other requisite aforestated shall not stop the
running of the period for perfecting an appeal. x x x
Section 6. Bond. In case the decision of the Labor Arbiter, the Regional Director or his duly
authorized Hearing Officer involves a monetary award, an appeal by the employer shall be
perfected only upon the posting of a cash or surety bond, which shall be in effect until final
disposition of the case, issued by a reputable bonding company duly accredited by the
Commission or the Supreme Court in an amount equivalent to the monetary award, exclusive of
damages and attorneys fees.
The employer, his counsel, as well as the bonding company, shall submit a joint declaration
under oath attesting that the surety bond posted is genuine.
The Commission may, in justifiable cases and upon Motion of the Appellant, reduce the amount
of the bond. The filing of the motion to reduce bond shall not stop the running of the period to
perfect appeal.
There are three (3) emphatic words that dictate a strict reading and application of the Labor Code
and the rules: first, the word only makes it perfectly clear that the lawmakers intended the
posting of a cash or surety bond by the employer to the exclusive means by which an employers
appeal may be perfected. The intention of the lawmakers to make the bond an indispensable
requisite for the perfection of an appeal is clearly limned in the provision that the appeal by the
employer may be perfected only upon the posting of a cash or surety bond.Second, although the
rules allow the NLRC to reduce the appeal bond, the law uses the word justifiable to modify
the word cases meaning that an exception to the rule is rare and this exception refers only to
special cases where the movant in the motion to reduce bond has proven through factual and
legal grounds that such employer is entitled to reduction of the appeal bond. Third, the rules
provide that: not even the filing of a motion to reduce bond is deemed to stay the period for
requiring an appeal. The words not even emphasize that a posting of an insufficient amount as
appeal bond, less than the monetary award in the judgment, or even the use of insufficient
postage in mailing in the managers check to serve as appeal bond, for that matter, would be
sufficient to perfect the appeal thus emphasizing the strictness of the provision. The exception
of justifiable cases does not kick-in as a matter of course by mere allegation. Movant must prove
reduction of appeal bond is meritorious.
Implied in the word justifiable is that the NLRCs discretion to reduce the appeal bond must be
reasonable. There ought to be no gross disparity between the Labor Arbiters monetary award
from what the NLRCs reduced amount of appeal bond.
When Section 6, Rule VI of the NLRCs New Rules of Procedure allows the Commission to
reduce the amount of the bond, such exercise of the authority is not a matter of right on the part
of the movant but lies within the sound discretionof the NLRC upon showing by the movant of
meritorious grounds.
The NLRC should also have factual basis as justifiable grounds for the reduction of the appeal
bond. The NLRC is obligated to make an in-depth analysis of the evidence to make sure that the
findings of fact of the NLRC, is well supported by evidence on record and that the NLRC does
not suffer from any misapprehension of the facts.
The NLRCs discretion to reduce appeal bond based on bare allegations and emotions without
factual basis is grave abuse of discretion tantamount to lack of or excess of jurisdiction.
The mere allegation of the Labor Arbiters decision as purportedly erroneous in fact or in law or
words of the NLRC to the effect that: (1) monetary award was too harsh or unfounded or
unsettled or (2) that the amount of the required appeal bond is enormous, or (3) that the
monetary award was too harsh and unfounded cannot serve to mitigate the appeal bond
requirement, absent concrete proof. Just about any aggrieved employer can invoke such
grounds.
The NLRC should be circumspect in the exercise of its discretion to reduce the amount of bond
by conducting an investigation on the matter in accordance with its power under Art. 218(e) of
the Labor Code. This is more in keeping with the declared policy of the State to protect the rights
of workers and promote their welfare, and to afford labor full protection.


In a Decision on December 2012, an NCR Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of the maintenance
welder against the South Central Construction for illegal dismissal.
The complainant, Jeremias P. Rante, filed a complaint for illegal dismissal with claim for
payment of separation pay against the company.
The complainant commenced his employment with the company on March 20, 2002 as a
maintenance welder. Complainant was a welder in charge of maintaining the proper order of
pipelines, hot and cold sprinkler system of the building, repair and fabricate steel railings from
basement to 12thfloor, assisting elevator technician for welding works of the elevators, aside
from his work at the Manila Prince Hotel.
After 10 years of service, complainant was informed that he could get his separation pay,
13thmonth pay and the last salary for the second week of the month for he was already
terminated. The company however contends that complainant is an independent contractor.
After a careful perusal of the facts and circumstances of this case, this Arbitration Branch
is convinced that the complainant was illegally dismissed by the respondents from his
employment, the Labor Arbiter ruled.
It should be noted that in illegal dismissal cases, it is the respondent which should show
proof that the dismissal was based on just or authorized causes and only after observance of due
process, he said.
Article 106 of the Labor Code provides that there is labor only contracting where the
person supplying workers to an employer does not have substantial capital or investment in the
form of tools, equipment, machineries, work premises, among others, and the workers recruited
and placed by such person are performing activities which are directly related to the principal
business of such employer. In such cases, the person or intermediary shall be considered merely
as an agent of the employer who shall be responsible to the workers in the same manner and
extent as if the latter were directly employed by him, he added.
The Labor Arbiter ruled that respondent company did not submit any documents to show
that respondent is an independent contractor as envisioned under Article 106 of the Labor Code,
as amended; and hence, the respondent company will be deemed as a labor-only contractor and
an agent of the Manila Prince Hotel where they shall be held solidarily liable as complainants
employer.
The Labor Arbiter has exclusive jurisdiction over illegal dismissal, money claims and other
claims arising from employer-employee relationship.
If no appeal is filed, the decision or order of the Labor Arbiter becomes final and
executory after ten (10) calendar days from receipt thereof.
MEMORANDUM CIRCULAR NO. 01
Pursuant to the provisions of the Labor Code, as amended in relation to the observance of
declared holidays and in response to the queries received every time a Presidential Proclamation
or a law is enacted by Congress which declares certain days either as a regular holiday, a special
day or a special working holiday, the following guidelines shall be observed by all employers in
the private sector:
For regular holidays as provided for under EO 203 (incorporated in EO 292) as amended by RA
9177:

New Year's Day - January 1
Maundy Thursday - Movable Date
Good Friday - Movable Date
Araw ng Kagitingan - April 9
Labor Day - May 1
Independence Day - June 12
National Heroes Day - Last Sunday of August
Bonifacio Day - November 30
Eidul Fitr - Movable Date
Christmas Day - December 25
Rizal Day - December 30

The following rules shall apply:
If it is an employee's regular workday
If unworked - 100%
If worked
1st 8 hours - 200%
excess of 8 hours - plus 30% of hourly rate on said day

If it is an employee's rest day
If unworked - 100%
If worked
1st 8 hours - plus 30% of 200%
excess of 8 hours - plus 30% of hourly rate on said day

For declared special days such as Special Non-Working Day, Special Public Holiday, Special
National Holiday, in addition to the two (2) nationwide special days (November 1, All Saints
Day and December 31, Last Day of the Year) listed under EO 203, as amended, the following
rules shall apply:

If unworked
No pay, unless there is a favorable company policy, practice or collective bargaining agreement
(CBA) granting payment of wages on special days even if unworked.

If worked
1st 8 hours - plus 30% of the daily rate of 100%
excess of 8 hours - plus 30% of hourly rate on said day

Falling on the employee's rest day and if worked
1st 8 hours - plus 50% of the daily rate of 100%
excess of 8 hours - plus 30% of hourly rate on said day

For those declared as special working holidays, the following rules shall apply:
For work performed, an employee is entitled only to his basic rate. No premium pay is required
since work performed on said days is considered work on ordinary working days.
BUREAUS
BLE
BLES
BLR
BWC
BWSC
ILAB

AGENCIES
ECC
ILS
NCMB
NLRC
NMP
NRCO
NWPC
OSHC
OWWA
POEA
PRC
TESDA

REGIONAL OFFICES
NCR
CAR
CARAGA
Region I
Region II
Region III
Region IV-A
Region IV-B
Region V
Region VI
Region VII
Region VIII
Region IX
Region X
Region XI
Region XII

The BLE shall:
Formulate policies, standards and procedures on productive manpower resources,
development, utilization and allocation;
Establish and administer a machinery for the effective allocation of manpower resources
for maximum employment and placement;
Develop and maintain a responsive vocational guidance and testing system in aid of proper
human resources allocation;
Regulate and supervise a private sector participation in the recruitment and placement of
workers locally under such rules and regulations as may be issued by the Secretary;
Establish and maintain a registration or work permit system to regulate employment of
aliens;
Develop and maintain a labor market information system in aid of proper manpower and
development planning;
Formulate employment programs designed to benefit disadvantaged groups and
communities; and
Perform other functions as may be provided by law.