Chapter One

FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES AND POLICIES

TOPICS PER SYLLABUS

C. Labor Code

1. Article 3
2. Article 4
3. Article 166
4. Article 211
5. Article 212
6. Article 255
7. Article 277

C.
THE LABOR CODE
1. On Article 3.
Article 3 of the Labor Code states:
“Article 3. Declaration of basic policy. - The State shall afford protection to labor, promote full
employment, ensure equal work opportunities regardless of sex, race or creed and regulate the relations
between workers and employers. The State shall assure the rights of workers to self-organization,
collective bargaining, security of tenure, and just and humane conditions of work.”
This article reflects certain basic principles enshrined in the Constitution aimed at protecting the interest of
labor, promoting full employment and equal work opportunities irrespective of sex, race or creed. Substantially, it
was based on Section 9, Article II of the 1973 Constitution which was the constitution in force at the time of the
enactment of the Labor Code.
In the 1987 Constitution, these principles were amplified and enshrined in Section 3, Article XIII thereof.
This provision crystallizes the fundamental law’s policies on labor, defines the parameters of the rights granted to
labor such as the right to security of tenure, and prescribes the standards for the enforcement of such rights in
concrete terms. While not infallible, the measures provided therein tend to ensure the achievement of the
constitutional aims.1
2. On Article 4.
(NOTE: See discussion on this provision in relation to Article 1702 of the Civil Code, supra)
3. On Article 166.
Article 166 of the Labor Code states:
“Article 166. Policy. - The State shall promote and develop a tax-exempt employees’ compensation
program whereby employees and their dependents, in the event of work-connected disability or death,
may promptly secure adequate income benefit and medical related benefits. ”
a. The Employees’ Compensation Program (ECP) .
The ECP is designed to provide public and private sector employees and their dependents with income
and other benefits in the event of a work-connected injury, sickness, disability or death. It assures workers of total
protection through the provision of a comprehensive benefit package encompassing preventive occupational
safety and health aspects, curative or medical and compensatory grant, and rehabilitation of occupationally
disabled workers.2
b. Attributes of the ECP.
 The ECP is characterized as follows:
1. It is not subject to tax;
2. It is designed to ensure promptitude in cases of work-connected disability or death, in the award to
employees and their dependents of adequate income benefits and medical or related benefits;
3. It is funded by monthly contributions of all covered employers;
4. It is compulsory on all employers and their employees whose age is not over sixty (60) years old;
5. It provides for benefits which are exclusive and in place of all other liabilities of the employer to the
employee, his dependents or anyone otherwise entitled to receive damages on behalf of the employee or
his dependents; and
6. It has its own adjudicatory machinery with original and exclusive jurisdiction to settle any dispute with
respect to coverage, entitlement to benefits, collection and payment of contributions and penalties
thereon, or any other matter related thereto, independent of other tribunals, except the Supreme Court
(and the Court of Appeals per Revised Administrative Circular No. 1-95) .3
c. Compensable contingencies under the ECP.
Article 166 of the Labor Code makes reference to the promotion and development of a tax-exempt ECP
whereby employees and their dependents, in the event of work-connected disability or death, may promptly secure
adequate income benefit and medical related benefits. The following contingencies are compensable under the ECP:
1. Work-connected injury or accident;
2. Work-connected sickness; and
3. Any disability or death resulting from any work-connected injury or accident or work-connected
sickness.
(NOTE: See further discussion on this topic under “VI. SOCIAL WELFARE LEGISLATION (P.D. 626) xxx
D. Employee’s compensation – coverage and when compensable”, infra)
4. On Article 211.
The provision of Article 211 of the Labor Code states:
“Article. 211. Declaration of Policy. - A. It is the policy of the State:
(a) To promote and emphasize the primacy of free collective bargaining and negotiations,
including voluntary arbitration, mediation and conciliation, as modes of settling labor or
industrial disputes;
(b) To promote free trade unionism as an instrument for the enhancement of democracy and the
promotion of social justice and development;
(c) To foster the free and voluntary organization of a strong and united labor movement;
(d) To promote the enlightenment of workers concerning their rights and obligations as union
members and as employees;
(e) To provide an adequate administrative machinery for the expeditious settlement of labor or
industrial disputes;
(f) To ensure a stable but dynamic and just industrial peace; and
(g) To ensure the participation of workers in decision and policy-making processes affecting
their rights, duties and welfare.
B. To encourage a truly democratic method of regulating the relations between the employers and
employees by means of agreements freely entered into through collective bargaining, no court
or administrative agency or official shall have the power to set or fix wages, rates of pay, hours
of work or other terms and conditions of employment, except as otherwise provided under this
Code. ”
a. State policy.
Article 211 is the first article of Book V of the Labor Code on Labor Relations. Both Article 211 and Article
3 are the letters that giveth life to the protection-to-labor policies in all the modern constitutions in the
Philippines.4
Noteworthy is the primordial policy of the State to promote collective bargaining, the settlement of labor
disputes through conciliation, mediation and arbitration, free trade unionism, establishment of strong and united
labor movement, education of workers on their rights and obligations and participation of workers in decision and
policy-making processes affecting their rights, duties and welfare, to ensure a stable but dynamic and just
industrial peace.
It is not only industrial peace that the State is concerned about. Article 211 actually is an amplification of
the principles laid down in Article 3 of the Labor Code which mandates that it is a basic policy of the State to
protect labor, promote full employment, ensure equal work opportunities regardless of sex, race or creed, and
regulate the relations between workers and employers. The State is further mandated to assure the rights of
workers to self-organization, collective bargaining, security of tenure and just and humane conditions of work.
b. Labor relations.
The term “labor relations” refers to that part of labor law which regulates the relations between employers
and workers. Examples are the provisions of Book V of the Labor Code which deal with labor organizations,
collective bargaining, grievance machinery, voluntary arbitration, conciliation and mediation, unfair labor practices,
strikes, picketing and lockout and those found in Book VI on termination of employment.
Broadly, “labor relations,” as understood within the ambit of Books V and VI of the Labor Code, dwell on
the broad and dynamic relationship between the employer and the employee, its ramifications and implications
insofar as their respective rights and interests are concerned as well as the modes of settling and adjusting their
differences and disputes and ultimately, the grounds and manner by which such relationship will be terminated. Just
like any relationship founded on mutual interest, the employer cannot exist without the employee and vice versa. It
is in this light that laws are enacted to delineate and govern their relationship with the end in view of promoting
industrial peace and harmony in the workplace.
c. Labor Relations vs. Labor Standards.
“Labor relations” may be distinguished from “labor standards” in that the latter is that part of labor law
which prescribes the minimum terms and conditions of employment which the employer is required to grant to its
employees. Examples of labor standards are the provisions embodied in the following Books of the Labor Code:
(1) Book One on recruitment and placement of workers and employment of non-resident aliens;
(2) Book Two on national manpower development program and training and employment of special
workers;
(3) Book Three on working conditions and rest periods, wages and working conditions for special groups of
employees; and
(4) Book Four on medical, dental and occupational safety, employees’ compensation and state insurance
fund, medicare (now PhilHealth) and adult education.
Labor relations and labor standards laws are not mutually exclusive. They are complementary to, and
closely interlinked with, each other. For instance, the laws on collective bargaining, strikes and lockouts which are
covered by labor relations law necessarily relate to the laws on working conditions found in Book III.
5. On Article 212.
Article 212 of the Labor Code simply enumerates and defines the various important terms and phrases used
in the Code, to wit:
“Article. 212. Definitions. –
(a) "Commission" means the National Labor Relations Commission or any of its divisions, as the case
may be, as provided under this Code.
(b) "Bureau" means the Bureau of Labor Relations and/or the Labor Relations Divisions in the regional
offices established under Presidential Decree No. 1, in the Department of Labor.
(c) "Board" means the National Conciliation and Mediation Board established under Executive Order No.
126.
(d) "Council" Tripartite Voluntary Arbitration Advisory Council established under Executive Order No.
126, as amended.
(e) “Employer” includes any person acting in the interest of an employer, directly or indirectly. The term
shall not include any labor organization or any of its officers or agents except when acting as
employer.
(f) “Employee” includes any person in the employ of an employer. The term shall not be limited to the
employees of a particular employer, unless the Code so explicitly states. It shall include any
 individual whose work has ceased as a result of or in connection with any current labor dispute or
because of any unfair labor practice if he has not obtained any other substantially equivalent and
regular employment.
(g) “Labor organization” means any union or association of employees which exists in whole or in part for
the purpose of collective bargaining or of dealing with employers concerning terms and conditions of
employment.
(h) “Legitimate labor organization” means any labor organization duly registered with the Department of
Labor and Employment, and includes any branch or local thereof.
(i) “Company union” means any labor organization whose formation, function or administration has been
assisted by any act defined as unfair labor practice by this Code.
(j) “Bargaining representative” means a legitimate labor organization whether or not employed by the
employer.
(k) “Unfair labor practice” means any unfair labor practice as expressly defined by the Code.
(l) “Labor dispute” includes any controversy or matter concerning terms and conditions of employment or
the association or representation of persons in negotiating, fixing, maintaining, changing or
arranging the terms and conditions of employment, regardless of whether the disputants stand in the
proximate relation of employer and employee.
(m) “Managerial employee” is one who is vested with the powers or prerogatives to lay down and
execute management policies and/or to hire, transfer, suspend, lay-off, recall, discharge, assign or
discipline employees. Supervisory employees are those who, in the interest of the employer,
effectively recommend such managerial actions if the exercise of such authority is not merely
routinary or clerical in nature but requires the use of independent judgment. All employees not falling
within any of the above definitions are considered rank-and-file employees for purposes of this Book.
(n) “Voluntary Arbitrator” means any person accredited by the Board as such or any person named or
designated in the Collective Bargaining Agreement by the parties to act as their Voluntary Arbitrator,
or one chosen with or without the assistance of the National Conciliation and Mediation Board,
pursuant to a selection procedure agreed upon in the Collective Bargaining Agreement, or any
official that may be authorized by the Secretary of Labor and Employment to act as Voluntary
Arbitrator upon the written request and agreement of the parties to a labor dispute.
(o) “Strike” means any temporary stoppage of work by the concerted action of employees as a result of
an industrial or labor dispute.
(p) “Lockout” means any temporary refusal of an employer to furnish work as a result of an industrial or
labor dispute.
(q) “Internal union dispute” includes all disputes or grievances arising from any violation of or
disagreement over any provision of the constitution and by-laws of a union, including any violation of
the rights and conditions of union membership provided for in this Code.
(r) “Strike-breaker” means any person who obstructs, impedes, or interferes with by force, violence,
coercion, threats, or intimidation any peaceful picketing affecting wages, hours or conditions of work
or in the exercise of the right of self-organization or collective bargaining.
(s) “Strike area” means the establishment, warehouses, depots, plants or offices, including the sites or
premises used as runaway shops, of the employer struck against, as well as the immediate vicinity
actually used by picketing strikers in moving to and fro before all points of entrance to and exit from
said establishment. ”
The above terms and phrases are cited in the appropriate commentaries herein on the various topics
prescribed under the syllabus for Labor Law.
6. On Article 255.
Article 255 of the Labor Code contains the following provisions:
“Article 255. Exclusive bargaining representation and workers’ participation in policy and decision-
making. – The labor organization designated or selected by the majority of the employees in an
appropriate collective bargaining unit shall be the exclusive representative of the employees in such unit
for the purpose of collective bargaining. However, an individual employee or group of employees shall
have the right at any time to present grievances to their employer.
“Any provision of law to the contrary notwithstanding, workers shall have the right, subject to such
rules and regulations as the Secretary of Labor and Employment may promulgate, to participate in
policy and decision-making processes of the establishment where they are employed insofar as said
processes will directly affect their rights, benefits and welfare. For this purpose, workers and employers
 may form labor-management councils: Provided, That the representatives of the workers in such labor-
management councils shall be elected by at least the majority of all employees in said establishment. ”
a. Article 255 provides for two (2) separate concepts.
Article 255 is composed of two (2) paragraphs embodying different legal concepts, namely:
(1) The 1 paragraph enunciates the concept of exclusive bargaining representation; and
st

(2) The 2 paragraph enunciates the concept of co-determination.

nd

b. Different constitutional bases of the two concepts.

The constitutional basis of the first is different from the second. The first paragraph is anchored on the
constitutional precept that the State “shall guarantee the rights of all workers to self-organization [and] collective
bargaining and negotiations. ”5 The second paragraph is based on the constitutional grant to workers of the right to
“participate in policy and decision-making processes affecting their rights and benefits as may be provided by law.
”6
These concepts are discussed herein seriatim.
I.
IN RE: FIRST PARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE 255
a. Exclusive bargaining representative; meaning.
“Exclusive bargaining representative” or “exclusive bargaining agent” refers to a legitimate labor
organization duly recognized7 or certified8 as the sole and exclusive bargaining representative or agent of all the
employees in a bargaining unit.
Once so recognized or certified, it shall remain as such during the existence of the CBA, to the exclusion of
other labor organizations, and no petition questioning its majority status shall be entertained nor shall certification
election be conducted outside of the 60-day freedom period immediately before the expiry date of the 5-year term of
the CBA.
What is represented by the bargaining agent are not only its members but also its non-members who are
included in the bargaining unit.
The terms “bargaining union” and “bargaining agent” may be used interchangeably to refer to the union
designated as the sole and exclusive bargaining representative not only of its members but of all the members of the
bargaining unit where it operates and which it represents.
b. Individual employee or group of employees cannot bring grievable issues for voluntary arbitration
without the participation of the bargaining union.
The designation of a bargaining agent, however, does not deprive an individual employee or group of
employees to exercise their right at any time to present grievances to their employer, with or without the intervention
of the bargaining agent.
Article 255 explicitly provides that an individual employee or group of employees may validly bring
grievances directly to the employer even if there is an existing exclusive bargaining representative.
Tabigue v. International Copra Export Corporation. 9 - The Supreme Court, however, clarified in this
case that an individual employee or group of employees cannot be allowed to submit or refer unsettled grievances for
voluntary arbitration without the participation of the bargaining union. The petitioners in this case are members of
INTERCO Employees/Laborers’ Union (the union) , the bargaining agent in respondent company. Without the
participation of the union, petitioners filed a Notice of Preventive Mediation with the NCMB against respondent for
violation of Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) and failure to sit on the grievance conference/meeting. As the
parties failed to reach a settlement before the NCMB, petitioners requested to elevate the case to voluntary
arbitration. However, the president of the union of which petitioners are members wrote a letter stating that
petitioners “are not duly authorized by [the] board or the officers to represent the union, [hence] . . . all actions,
representations or agreements made by these people with the management will not be honored or recognized by the
union. ” The Supreme Court ruled that the right of any employee or group of employees to, at any time, present
grievances to the employer does not imply the right to submit the same to voluntary arbitration. In this case,
petitioners have not been duly authorized to represent the bargaining union, hence, they cannot present their unsettled
grievances for voluntary arbitration.10
Insular Hotel Employees Union-NFL v. Waterfront Insular Hotel Davao,11 reiterated the said ruling in
Tabigue. In this case, the Davao Insular Hotel Free Employees Union- National Federation of Labor (DIHFEU-
NFL) , the recognized labor organization in respondent hotel, entered into a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) with
the respondent which superseded the affected provisions of the existing CBA. The MOA was executed to effect the
re-opening of the hotel which earlier suspended its operation due to extreme business losses. Individual members of
another union, the Insular Hotel Employees Union-National Federation of Labor (IHEU-NFL) , petitioner in this
case, which claimed to be affiliated also with the same federation, questioned the validity of the MOA by filing a
Notice of Preventive Mediation with the NCMB.
On the issue of the identity of the duly recognized union, the respondent hotel contended that it is DIHFEU-
NFL which is the only recognized bargaining unit in the establishment, the other union named IHEU-NFL being a
non-entity since, as certified by the DOLE, it is not a registered labor organization. It was held, however, that
respondent is already estopped from questioning the same as it did not raise the said issue in the proceedings before
the NCMB and the Voluntary Arbitrator. A perusal of the records revealed that the main theory posed by respondent
was whether or not the individual employees had the authority to file the complaint notwithstanding the apparent
non-participation of the union. Respondent never put in issue the fact that DIHFEU-NFL was not the same as IHEU-
NFL. Consequently, it was declared already too late in the day to assert the same.
Resolving the issue raised by respondent of whether the individual members of IHEU-NFL have the
requisite standing to question the MOA before the NCMB and the Voluntary Arbitrator, the Supreme Court, invoking
its 2009 ruling in Tabigue and Section 3, Rule IV of the NCMB Manual of Procedure which provides that only a
certified or duly recognized bargaining representative has the right to file a notice or request for preventive
mediation, declared that the individual members of the union have no authority to file the case. Clearly, therefore, the
NCMB and the Voluntary Arbitrator had no jurisdiction to entertain the Notice of Preventive Mediation and the
voluntary arbitration case, respectively.
c. In order to have legal standing, the individual members should be shown to have been duly
authorized to represent the bargaining union.
In the same case of Insular Hotel, it was held that in order to acquire legal standing to initiate the complaint
(Notice of Preventive Mediation) , the individual employees should be shown to have been duly authorized to
represent the bargaining union. Petitioners have not, however, been duly authorized to represent the union.
I.
IN RE: SECOND PARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE 255
a. Principle of co-determination.
This constitutional and legal right is the basis of the principle of co-determination where the employees are
given the right to co-determine or share the responsibility of formulating certain policies that affect their rights,
benefits and welfare.
Philippine Airlines, Inc. (PAL) v. NLRC and Philippine Airlines Employees Association (PALEA) , 12
best illustrates this principle. The principal issue submitted for resolution in this case is whether or not the
formulation of a Code of Discipline among employees is a shared responsibility of the employer and the employees.
If in the affirmative, whether management may be compelled to share with the union or its employees its prerogative
of formulating said Code. On March 15, 1985, petitioner PAL completely revised its 1966 Code of Discipline. The
Code was circulated among the employees and was immediately implemented, and some employees were forthwith
subjected to the disciplinary measures embodied therein. This led private respondent PALEA to file a complaint
before the NLRC on August 20, 1985, for unfair labor practice with the following remarks: “ULP with arbitrary
implementation of PAL’s Code of Discipline without notice and prior discussion with Union by Management. ” It
thus prayed that the implementation of the Code be held in abeyance; that PAL should discuss the substance of the
Code with PALEA; that employees dismissed under the Code be reinstated and their cases subjected to further
hearing; and that PAL be declared guilty of unfair labor practice and be ordered to pay damages.
 In affirming the decision of the NLRC which ordered that the New Code of Discipline should be reviewed
and discussed with the union, particularly the disputed provisions and that copies thereof be furnished each
employee, the Supreme Court ratiocinated as follows:
“A close scrutiny of the objectionable provisions of the Code reveals that they are not
purely business-oriented nor do they concern the management aspect of the business of
the company as in the San Miguel case. The provisions of the Code clearly have repercussions
on the employees’ right to security of tenure. The implementation of the provisions may result in
the deprivation of an employee’s means of livelihood which, as correctly pointed out by the NLRC,
is a property right.13 In view of these aspects of the case which border on infringement of
constitutional rights, we must uphold the constitutional requirements for the protection of labor and
the promotion of social justice, for these factors, according to Justice Isagani Cruz, tilt ‘the scales
of justice when there is doubt, in favor of the worker. ’14
“Verily, a line must be drawn between management prerogatives regarding business
operations per se and those which affect the rights of the employees. In treating the latter,
management should see to it that its employees are at least properly informed of its
decisions or modes of action. PAL asserts that all its employees have been furnished copies of
the Code. Public respondents found to the contrary, which finding, to say the least is entitled to
great respect.
xxx
“Indeed, industrial peace cannot be achieved if the employees are denied their just
participation in the discussion of matters affecting their rights. Thus, even before Article 211
of the Labor Code (P.D. 442) was amended by R.A. No. 6715, it was already declared a policy of
the State: ‘(d) To promote the enlightenment of workers concerning their rights and obligations . . .
as employees. ’ This was, of course, amplified by R.A. No. 6715 when it decreed the
‘participation of workers in decision and policy making processes affecting their rights,
duties and welfare. ’ PAL’s position that it cannot be saddled with the ‘obligation’ of sharing
management prerogatives as during the formulation of the Code, R.A. No. 6715 had not yet been
enacted (Petitioner’s Memorandum, p. 44; Rollo, p. 212) , cannot thus be sustained. While such
‘obligation’ was not yet founded in law when the Code was formulated, the attainment of a
harmonious labor-management relationship and the then already existing state policy of
enlightening workers concerning their rights as employees demand no less than the observance of
transparency in managerial moves affecting employees’ rights. ” 15
b. Limitation: Grant of the right of participation does not mean co-management of business nor intrusion
into management prerogatives; This principle does not mean that workers should approve
management policies or decisions.
Although the law sets the standard that the participation of the workers in the policy and decision-making
processes of the employer is limited to policies and decisions which affect their rights, benefits and welfare, there
exists a question on the extent of such participation that may be afforded to the workers in the said processes. The
discussion of the 1986 Constitutional Commission on the provision granting this right which was ultimately
enshrined and designated as Section 3, par. 2, Article XIII, [Social Justice and Human Rights] of the 1987
Constitution, indicates that it is only in the area of grievance procedures and voluntary modes of settling disputes,
and not in the area of corporate planning, charting of corporate business, modes and procedures of corporate
management and acquisition of property, where workers may participate.
Manila Electric Company v. Quisumbing,16 instructs that the grant of this right is not an intrusion into
the employer’s management prerogative. The mandate of the Constitution and the law is complied with when, for
instance, the union is allowed to have representatives in the employer’s Safety Committee, Uniform Committee and
other committees of similar nature. Certainly, such participation by the union in the said committees is not in the
nature of a co-management control of the business of the employer. What is granted therein is participation and
representation. Thus, there is no impairment of management prerogatives.
c. Labor-Management Council.
(NOTE: A more extensive discussion of Labor-Management Council and its distinctions
from Grievance Machinery/Grievance Procedure is found under the topic of “VII. LABOR
RELATIONS LAW xxx B. Right to Collective Bargaining xxx Mandatory Provisions of CBA
xxx (iv) Labor-Management Council”, infra)
7. On Article 277.
Article 277 of the Labor Code states:
“Article 277. Miscellaneous Provisions. –
(a) All unions are authorized to collect reasonable membership fees, union dues, assessments and
fines and other contributions for labor education and research, mutual death and hospitalization
benefits, welfare fund, strike fund and credit and cooperative undertakings. 17
(b) Subject to the constitutional right of workers to security of tenure and their right to be
protected against dismissal except for a just and authorized cause and without prejudice to the
requirement of notice under Article 283 of this Code, the employer shall furnish the worker
whose employment is sought to be terminated a written notice containing a statement of the
causes for termination and shall afford the latter ample opportunity to be heard and to defend
himself with the assistance of his representative, if he so desires, in accordance with company
rules and regulations promulgated pursuant to guidelines set by the Department of Labor and
Employment. Any decision taken by the employer shall be without prejudice to the right of the
worker to contest the validity or legality of his dismissal by filing a complaint with the regional
branch of the National Labor Relations Commission. The burden of proving that the termination
was for a valid or authorized cause shall rest on the employer. The Secretary of the Department
of Labor and Employment may suspend the effects of the termination pending resolution of the
dispute in the event of a prima facie finding by the appropriate official of the Department of
Labor and Employment before whom such dispute is pending that the termination may cause a
serious labor dispute or is in implementation of a mass lay-off.18
(c) Any employee, whether employed for a definite period or not, shall, beginning on his first day of
service, be considered as an employee for purposes of membership in any labor union. 19
(d) No docket fee shall be assessed in labor standards disputes. In all other disputes, docket fees
may be assessed against the filing party, provided that in bargaining deadlock, such fees shall be
shared equally by the negotiating parties.
(e) The Minister of Labor and Employment and the Minister of the Budget shall cause to be
created or reclassified in accordance with law such positions as may be necessary to carry out the
objectives of this Code and cause the upgrading of the salaries of the personnel involved in the Labor
Relations System of the Ministry. Funds needed for this purpose shall be provided out of the Special
Activities Fund appropriated by Batas Pambansa Blg. 80 and from annual appropriations thereafter.20
(f) A special Voluntary Arbitration Fund is hereby established in the Board to subsidize the cost of
voluntary arbitration in cases involving the interpretation and implementation of the Collective
Bargaining Agreement, including the Arbitrator’s fees, and for such other related purposes to promote
and develop voluntary arbitration. The Board shall administer the Special Voluntary Arbitration Fund in
accordance with the guidelines it may adopt upon the recommendation of the Council, which guidelines
shall be subject to the approval of the Secretary of Labor and Employment. Continuing funds needed for
this purpose in the initial yearly amount of fifteen million pesos ( P15,000,000.00) shall be provided in
the 1989 annual general appropriations act.
The amount of subsidy in appropriate cases shall be determined by the Board in accordance with
established guidelines issued by it upon the recommendation of the Council.
The Fund shall also be utilized for the operation of the Council, the training and education of
Voluntary Arbitrators, and the Voluntary Arbitration Program.21
(g) The Ministry shall help promote and gradually develop, with the agreement of labor
organizations and employers, labor-management cooperation programs at appropriate levels of the
enterprise based on the shared responsibility and mutual respect in order to ensure industrial peace
and improvement in productivity, working conditions and the quality of working life. 22
(h) In establishments where no legitimate labor organization exists, labor-management committees
may be formed voluntarily by workers and employers for the purpose of promoting industrial peace. The
Department of Labor and Employment shall endeavor to enlighten and educate the workers and
employers on their rights and responsibilities through labor education with emphasis on the policy
thrusts of this Code.23
(i) To ensure speedy labor justice, the periods provided in this Code within which decisions or
resolutions of labor relations cases or matters should be rendered shall be mandatory. For this purpose,
 a case or matter shall be deemed submitted for decision or resolution upon the filing of the last pleading
or memorandum required by the rules of the Commission or by the Commission itself, or the Labor
Arbiter, or the Director of the Bureau of Labor Relations or Med-Arbiter, or the Regional Director.
Upon expiration of the corresponding period, a certification stating why a decision or resolution has
not been rendered within the said period shall be issued forthwith by the Chairman of the Commission,
the Executive Labor Arbiter, or the Director of the Bureau of Labor Relations or Med-Arbiter, or the
Regional Director, as the case may be, and a copy thereof served upon the parties.
Despite the expiration of the applicable mandatory period, the aforesaid officials shall, without
prejudice to any liability which may have been incurred as a consequence thereof, see to it that the
case or matter shall be decided or resolved without any further delay. 24
Of this very long enumeration, the most important provision is that one found in paragraph (b) above
which constitutes the statutory due process that should be observed in cases of termination of employment per
Agabon doctrine.25
(NOTE: A more comprehensive discussion thereon is found in the topic: “IV. TERMINATION OF
EMPLOYMENT xxx B. Dismissal from employment xxx 3. Due Process”, infra) .

------------oOo---------

Endnotes:

1 Separate Opinion of Mr. Justice Dante Tinga in Agabon v. NLRC, G.R. No. 158693, Nov. 17, 2004, 442 SCRA 573.

2 See full discussion on the components of the ECP featured in the website of the ECC at
http://www.ecc.gov.ph/ecp.htm.

3 San Miguel Corporation v. NLRC, G.R. No. 57473, Aug. 15, 1988.

4 See Section 6, Article XIV of the 1935 Constitution and Section 9, Article II of the 1973 Constitution.

5 1 paragraph, Section 3, Article XIII, 1987 Constitution.

st

6 Ibid.

7 The union may become the sole and exclusive bargaining agent through the process of voluntary recognition.

8 The union may also become the sole and exclusive bargaining agent through any of the following processes:
certification election, consent election, run-off election or re-run election.

9 G.R. No. 183335, Dec. 23, 2009.

10See also Atlas Farms, Inc. v. NLRC, G.R. No. 142244, Nov. 18, 2002, 440 Phil. 620.
11G.R. Nos. 174040-41, Sept. 22, 2010.
12 G.R. No. 85985, Aug. 13, 1993.

13 Callanta v. Carnation Philippines, Inc. , 145 SCRA 268 [1986.

14 Employees Association of the Philippine American Life Insurance Company v. NLRC, 199 SCRA 628 [1991] 635.

15 Underscoring supplied.

16G.R. No. 127598, Jan. 27, 1999, 302 SCRA 173, 213.
17 As amended by Section 33, R.A. No. 6715, March 21, 1989.

18 Id.

19 Id.

20 As incorporated by Batas Pambansa Bilang 130, Aug. 21, 1981.

21 As amended by Section 33, R.A. No. 6715, March 21, 1989.

22 As incorporated by Batas Pambansa Bilang 130, Aug. 21, 1981.

23 As amended by Section 33, R.A. No. 6715, March 21, 1989.

24 Id.

25 This doctrine was enunciated in Agabon v. NLRC, G.R. No. 158693, Nov. 17, 2004.