Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 82 views

    Allado v. Luna (2011)

    Uploaded by

    delayinggratification
    The NLRC does not have the authority to review issues not brought before it on appeal. In this case, the respondent Allado Construction appealed the labor arbiter's decision solely on the issue of financial assistance awarded. However, the NLRC went beyond this issue and ruled on the separate issue of illegal dismissal, which was not raised on appeal. The Supreme Court held that the NLRC violated its own procedural rules limiting its review to the issues specified in the appeal. While the NLRC has the power to correct errors, this does not allow it to consider entire issues not part of the appeal.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Allado v. Luna (2011)

    Uploaded by

    delayinggratification
    82 views2 pages
    The NLRC does not have the authority to review issues not brought before it on appeal. In this case, the respondent Allado Construction appealed the labor arbiter's decision solely on the issue of financial assistance awarded. However, the NLRC went beyond this issue and ruled on the separate issue of illegal dismissal, which was not raised on appeal. The Supreme Court held that the NLRC violated its own procedural rules limiting its review to the issues specified in the appeal. While the NLRC has the power to correct errors, this does not allow it to consider entire issues not part of the appeal.

    Original Description:

    Labor Law II, Labor Relations, NLRC, Labor Arbiter

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The NLRC does not have the authority to review issues not brought before it on appeal. In this case, the respondent Allado Construction appealed the labor arbiter's decision solely on the issue of financial assistance awarded. However, the NLRC went beyond this issue and ruled on the separate issue of illegal dismissal, which was not raised on appeal. The Supreme Court held that the NLRC violated its own procedural rules limiting its review to the issues specified in the appeal. While the NLRC has the power to correct errors, this does not allow it to consider entire issues not part of the appeal.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    82 views2 pages

    Allado v. Luna (2011)

    Uploaded by

    delayinggratification
    The NLRC does not have the authority to review issues not brought before it on appeal. In this case, the respondent Allado Construction appealed the labor arbiter's decision solely on the issue of financial assistance awarded. However, the NLRC went beyond this issue and ruled on the separate issue of illegal dismissal, which was not raised on appeal. The Supreme Court held that the NLRC violated its own procedural rules limiting its review to the issues specified in the appeal. While the NLRC has the power to correct errors, this does not allow it to consider entire issues not part of the appeal.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 2

    TOPIC: Adjudicatory power of the NLRC

     
    16. Luna v. Allado (2011)
    Rodolfo Luna v. Allado Construction, Inc. and/or Ramon Allado

    DOCTRINE:
    It is already settled in jurisprudence that the NLRC may not rely on Article 218(c) of the
    Labor Code as basis for its act of reviewing an entire case above and beyond the sole legal
    question raised. In Del Monte Philippines, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission
    (1990), which was correctly pointed out by the Court of Appeals as a case that is on all fours
    with the case at bar, we held that the NLRC cannot, under the pretext of correcting serious
    errors of the Labor Arbiter in the interest of justice, expand its power of review beyond the
    issues elevated by an appellant.
    ACTION SEQUENCE: LA (in favor of Allado)  NLRC (in favor of Luna)  appeal to CA by
    petition for certiorari under Rule 65 (CA ruled in favor of Allado)  SC

    FACTS:
     Respondent Allado Construction Co, Inc. is a juridical entity engaged in the
    construction business. Ramon Allado is the president of the said corporation.
     Rodolfo Luna filed a complaint before the Executive Labor Arbiter Arturo Gamolo,
    RAB Branch XI, Davao City, alleging that the was an employee of Allado
    Construction (part of the construction pool of personnel).
    o He had continuously rendered services as a warehouseman and a
    timekeeper in every construction project undertaken by Allado Construction.
     Sometime in 2001, while at the construction site in Maasim, Sarangani Prov. He was
    given a travel order to proceed to the main office at Davao City for reassignment.
    Upon arrival, he was told by one Matilano (personnel manager of Allado), to sign
    several sets of “Contract of Project Employment.” He refused.
     Because of Luna’s refusal, he was not given a reassignment or any other work.
    Hence, he filed a complaint.
     Allado (respondents) alleged that Luna applied for an LOA from Nov. 29, 2001-Dec.
    6, 2001, which was granted. Upon the expiration of the LOA, Luna was advised to
    report to the company’s project in Sarangani Prov. However, he refused to report and
    instead claimed that he had been dismissed illegally.
     LA – Dismissed the complaint for illegal dismissal; Luna should be deemed to have
    resigned. Ordered Allado to pay Luna P18K as financial assistance.
     Allado appealed with the NLRC, purely for the purpose of questioning the validity of
    the grant of financial assistance made by the LA.
     NLRC – Reversed the decision of the LA and declared Allado guilty of illegal
    dismissal and ordered them to pay Luna 1 month salary for every year of service as
    separation pay.
     Allado elevated their cause to the CA via petition for certiorari under Rule 65 to set
    aside the aforementioned NLRC issuances and to reinstate the LA’s decision with the
    modification that the award of financial assistance be deleted.
     CA – It was grave abuse of discretion for the NLRC to rule on the issue of illegal
    dismissal when the only issue raised to it on appeal was the propriety of the award of
    financial assistance; financial assistance may not be awarded in cases of voluntary
    resignation.
     Luna bases his argument on Art. 218(C) of the LC – “Powers of the Commission – “to
    correct, amend, or waive any error, defect or irregularity whether in substance or in
    form.” And New Pacific Timber v. Supply Company v. NLRC where it was held that
    “Under Art. 218(C) of the LC, the NLRC may, in the exercise of its appellate powers,
    correct, amend or waive any error, defect or irregularity whether in substance or in
    form.”
    ISSUE:
    1. Whether or not the NLRC has the authority to review issues not brought before it for
    appeal. (NO)
    HELD:
     Sec. 4(C), Rule VI of the 2002 Rules of Procedure of the NLRC, which was in effect
    at the time respondents appealed the LA’s decision, expressly provided that, on
    appeal, the NLRC SHALL LIMIT ITSELF ONLY TO SPECIFIC ISSUES THAT
    WERE ELEVATED FOR REVIEW.
    o Sec. 4 (C)—“Subject to the provisions of Art. 218, once the appeal is
    perfected in accordance with the Rules, the Commission shall limit itself to
    reviewing and deciding specific issues that were elevated on appeal.”
     The same provision was retained as Sec. 4(D), Rule VI of the 2005 Revised Rules of
    Procedure of the NLRC.
     IN THIS CASE, the NLRC evidently went against its own rules of procedure when it
    passed upon the issue of illegal dismissal although the question raised by Allado in
    their appeal was concerned solely with the legality of the LA’s award of financial
    assistance despite the finding that petitioner was lawfully terminated.
     Again, the clear import of the aforementioned procedural rule is that the NLRC shall,
    in cases of perfected appeals, limit itself tor reviewing those issues which are raised
    on appeal.
    o As a consequence, any other issues which are NOT included in the appeal
    shall become FINAL and EXECUTORY.
     The Court is aware of the fact that Article 218(c) of the Labor Code grants the NLRC
    the authority to “correct, amend or waive any error, defect or irregularity whether in
    substance or in form” in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction.
    o HOWEVER, a careful perusal of the body of jurisprudence wherein we upheld
    the validity of the NLRC’s invocation of that prerogative would reveal that the
    said cases involved factual issues and circumstances materially dissimilar to
    the case at bar.
    o It is settled in jurisprudence that the NLRC may not only rely on Art. 218(C) of
    the LC as basis for its act of reviewing an entire case above and beyond the
    sole legal questions raised.
     The well-settled rule, which also applies in labor cases, is that issues not raised
    below cannot be raised for the first time on appeal. Points of law, theories, issues
    and arguments not brought to the attention of the lower court need not be, and
    ordinarily will not be, considered by the reviewing court, as they cannot be raised for
    the first time at that late stage. (Genesis Transport Service, Inc. vs. Unyon Ng
    Malayang Manggagawa Ng Genesis Transport [UMMGT], [2010])

    You might also like

    pFad - Phonifier reborn

    Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

    Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


    Alternative Proxies:

    Alternative Proxy

    pFad Proxy

    pFad v3 Proxy

    pFad v4 Proxy