PETITIONER Lino A. Fernandez Jr. was granted monetary awards in a case he filed against respondent Manila Electric Company (Meralco).
During the execution proceedings, he filed motions regarding the inclusions to, and computation of, the monetary awards due him.
Not contented with the order dated June 27, 2014 of Labor Arbiter (LA) Marie Josephine C. Suarez, he filed within the 10-day reglementary period a notice of appeal and memorandum on appeal. Later, he filed a motion to treat remedy previously filed as verified petition, with motion to admit original copy of the assailed order as part thereof.
The appeal and motion filed by Fernandez were merely “noted without action,” in an order of LA Suarez. She opined that these are prohibited pleadings under Section 5(i) and (j), Rule V of the NLRC Rules.
Did LA Suarez commit a reversible error?
Ruling: Yes.
The sole issue in Velasco v. Matsushita Electric Philippines Corp., G.R. No. 220701, June 6, 2016, was whether the NLRC, in noting without action petitioner’s notice of appeal from the order issued by the LA during the execution proceedings, committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. There, Velasco filed a notice of sppeal before the NLRC after the LA denied her manifestation and motion, claiming that Matsushita had not complied with the judgment in her favor. In ruling for Velasco, this Court held:
Petitioner is correct in asserting that she is not bereft of reliefs from adverse orders issued by the Labor Arbiter in connection with the execution of the judgment in her favor. However, she failed to avail of the correct remedy.
Rule 5, Section 5 of the 2011 Rules of Procedure of the National Labor Relations Commission explicitly provides that an appeal from an order issued by a Labor Arbiter in the course of execution proceedings is a prohibited pleading.
x x x
Rule 12, Section 1 provides that, instead of an appeal, the proper remedy is a verified petition to annul or modify the assailed order or resolution.
Nevertheless, while it was an error for petitioner to seek relief from the National Labor Relations Commission through an appeal, it is in the better interest of justice that petitioner be afforded the opportunity to avail herself of the reliefs that this Court itself, in its Nov. 23, 2009 ruling, found to be due to her.
It is a basic principle that the National Labor Relations Commission is “not bound by strict rules of evidence and of procedure.” Between two modes of action--first, one that entails a liberal application of rules but affords full relief to an illegally dismissed employee; and second, one that entails the strict application of procedural rules but the possible loss of reliefs properly due to an illegally dismissed employee--the second must be preferred. Thus, it is more appropriate for the National Labor Relations Commission to have instead considered the appeal filed before it as a petition to modify or annul.
Similarly, in the present case, the NLRC Rules of Procedure must be liberally applied to prevent injustice and grave or irreparable damage or injury to an illegally dismissed employee. The matter should be remanded to the NLRC for determination of the inclusions to, and the computation of, the monetary awards due to Fernandez. (Lino A. Fernandez, Jr. vs. Manila Electric Company (MERALCO), G.R. No. 226002, June 25, 2018).