Appeal 1

Info iconThis preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: he
 injunction
issued
by
NLRC.
A
petition
for
injunction
is
not
 the
way
to
halt
on
employee’s
dismissal
 PAL
dismissed
2
flight
stewards
for
involvement
in
 alleged
 smuggling.
 Employees,
 instead
 of
 filing
 an
 illegal
 dismissal
 complaint
 before
 a
 labor
 arbiter,
 directly
 petitioned
 the
 NLRC
 for
 injunction,
 with
 prayer
 for
 a
 TRO,
 to
 prohibit
 PAL
 from
 effecting
 their
 dismissal.
 NLRC
 issued
 the
 injunction.
 PAL
 disputed
legality
of
the
issuance
of
the
injunction.
 Power
 of
 the
 NLRC
 to
 issue
 an
 injunctive
 writ
 originates
 from
 any
 labor
 dispute
 upon
 application
 by
 a
 party
 thereof,
 which
 application
 if
 not
 granted
 may
cause
grave
or
irreparable
damage
to
any
party
 or
 render
 ineffectual
 any
 decision
 in
 favor
 of
 such
 party
 It
is
an
essential
requirement
that
there
must
first
be
 a
 labor
 dispute
 between
 the
 contending
 parties
 before
the
labor
arbiter.
 In
 the
 present
 case,
 there
 is
 no
 labor
 dispute
 between
 PAL
 and
 the
 employees
 as
 there
 has
 yet
 been
 no
 complaint
 for
 illegal
 dismissal
 filed
 with
 the
 labor
 arbiter
 by
 the
 employees
 against
 the
 petitioner.
 • 
 Chapter
II:
Powers
and
duties
(cont’d.)
 Article
221.
Technical
rules
not
binding
and
prior
resort
to
amicable
settlement.
 1. Proceedings
 before
 labor
 arbiter
 or
 the
 Commission;
 technical
 rules
 not
 applicable
 • Administrative
 and
 quasi‐judicial
 bodies
 are
 not
 bound
 by
 the
 technical
rules
of
procedure
in
the
adjudication
of
cases
 • Simplification
of
procedure,
without
regard
to
technicalities
of
law
or
 procedure
 and
 without
 sacrificing
 the
 fundamental
 requisites
 of
 due
 process,
is
mandated
to
insure
speedy
administration
of
justice
 o NLRC
 or
 Labor
 Arbiter
 can
 decide
 case
 on
 the
 basis
 of
 position
papers
and
other
documents
alone
 o Affidavits
 may
 be
 given
 evidentiary
 value
 even
 if
 the
 affiants
were
not
cross‐examined;
hearsay
does
not
apply
 • Modicum
of
Admissibility;
substantial
evidence
 o Evidence
 presented
 before
 it
 must
 at
 least
 have
 a
 modicum
of
admissibility
for
it
to
be
given
some
probative
 value
 Lalay
Abala.
ALS2014B.
Labor
II.
 Evidence
must
be
 substantial
or
such
relevant
evidence
as
 a
reasonable
mind
might
accept
as
adequate
to
support
a
 conclusion
 Cardinal
rights
in
quasi­judicial
proceedings
 o There
 are
 cardinal
 primary
 rights
 which
 must
 be
 respected
in
administrative
or
quasi‐judicial
proceedings.
 o Ang
Tibay
v.
CIR
 Case
regarding
laying
off
of
employees
of
Ang
Tibay
 belonging
to
the
National
Labor
Union
(NLU
 Issue:
Whether
there
was
due
process
observed
in
 the
CIR
proceedings?
 CIR
 is
 more
 of
 a
 administrative
 board;
 It
 is
 not
 narrowly
 constrained
 by
 technical
 rules
 of
 procedure.
 However,
 this
 does
 not
 mean
 that
 it
 can
 entirely
 ignore
 or
 disregard
 the
 fundamental
 and
 essential
 requirements
 of
 due
 process
 in
 trials
 and
 investigations
of
an
administrative
character.

 There
 are
 cardinal
 primary
 rights
 which
 must
 be
 respected
even
in
proceedings
of
this
character:
 Right
to
a
hearing
 Tribunal
 must
 consider
 the
 evidence
 presented
 Decision
must
be
supported
by
something
 (evidence)
 Supporting
evidence
must
be
substantial
 Decision
 must
 be
 rendered
 on
 the
 evidence
 presented
 or
 at
 least
 contained
 in
the
record
and
disclosed
to
the
parties
 affected
 Body
or
CIR
or
any
of
its
judges
must
act
 on
 his
 own
 independent
 consideration
 of
 the
 law
 and
 facts,
 and
 not
 simply
 accept
 the
views
of
the
subordinate
in
arriving
at
 a
decision
 Decide
 in
 such
 manner
 that
 parties
 can
 know
the
various
issues
involved
and
the
 reason
for
the
decision
 Verification
 o A
 pleading
 is
 verified
 by
 an
 affidavit
 that
 the
 affiant
 has
 read
the
pleading
and
that
the
allegations
therein
are
true
 and
correct
of
his
knowledge
and
belief.

 o It
is
intended
to
assure
that
the
allegations
in
the
pleading
 have
 been
prepared
in
good
faith
or
are
true
and
correct,
 not
mere
speculations
 o Generally,
 lack
 of
 verification
 is
 merely
 a
 formal
 defect
 that
is
neither
jurisdictional
nor
fatal
 Court
 may
 order
 correction
 of
 pleading
 or
 act
 on
 the
 unveri...
View Full Document

This document was uploaded on 03/11/2014.

Ask a homework question - tutors are online