Wednesday, November 15, 2006

Maxim Cover

This week is crazy, this blog has never had so many hits. In my pre-Aubrey posts (topics about laws and stuff), my average hits were in 20s but eversince this Aubrey-Jacq posts and pics, my hits averaged nearly 100s with highs of 250s. Amazing. I guess it only proved the old age adage that sexy girls sell. (Things you'll do just to pass the time waiting for the BAR results). ;-)

Monday, November 06, 2006

Series Of Birthdays

The months of "BER" does not only mean that Christmas is in the air but it usually starts a series of Birthdays in the Family. It starts with my Birthday on 8th of September and followed by these persons who are dear to me and my family:
My sister She-she on September 26,
My everdearest mom on October 11,
My sister-in-law Cecille on October 25,
My oldest brother Kuya Ednor on October 29,
My niece Elise on November 10, and
My nephew Rodne on November 17.
The last four has been in Chicago for five years now so we have not celebrated each birthdays together.
Of course, the Birthday List will not be complete unless we celebrate the Birth of Jesus Christ who is a member of each of our family. Happy Birthday and Merry Christmas to All Of You.

Wednesday, November 01, 2006

ARIS INC. vs. NLRC - Digest

G.R. No. 90501 August 5, 1991


On 11 April 1988, private respondents, who were employees of petitioner, aggrieved by management's failure to attend to their complaints concerning their working surroundings which had become detrimental and hazardous, requested for a grievance conference. As none was arranged, and believing that their appeal would be fruitless, they grouped together after the end of their work that day with other employees and marched directly to the management's office to protest its long silence and inaction on their complaints.

On 12 April 1988, the management issued a memorandum to each of the private respondents, who were identified by the petitioner's supervisors as the most active participants in the "rally", requiring them to explain why they should not be terminated from the service for their conduct. Despite their explanation, private respondents were dismissed for violation of company rules and regulations, more specifically of the provisions on security and public order and on inciting or participating in illegal strikes or concerted actions.

Private respondents lost no time in filing a complaint for illegal dismissal against petitioner and Mr. Gavino Bayan with the regional office of the NLRC at the National Capital Region, Manila. After due trial the labor arbiter ordered Aris (Phils.), Inc. to reinstate Leodegario de Guzman and company to their former respective positions or any substantial equivalent positions if already filled up, without loss of seniority right and privileges.

On 19 July 1989, de Guzman and company filed a Motion For Issuance of a Writ of Execution pursuant to Section 12 of R.A. No. 6715 which provides that “In any event, the decision of the Labor Arbiter reinstating a dismissed or separated employee, in so far as the reinstatement aspect is concerned, shall immediately be executory, even pending appeal. The employee shall either be admitted back to work under the same terms and conditions prevailing prior to his dismissal or separation or, at the option of the employer, merely reinstated in the payroll. The posting of a bond by the employer shall not stay the execution for reinstatement provided therein."

On 21 July 1989, petitioner filed its Appeal. On 26 July 1989, the complainants, except Flor Rayos del Sol, filed a Partial Appeal. On 10 August 1989, complainant Flor Rayos del Sol filed a Partial Appeal. On 29 August 1989, petitioner filed an Opposition to the motion for execution alleging that Section 12 of R.A. No. 6715 on execution pending appeal cannot be applied retroactively to cases pending at the time of its effectivity. Petitioner submitted a Rejoinder to the Reply on 5 September 1989. On 5 October 1989, the Labor Arbiter issued an Order granting the motion for execution and the issuance of a partial writ of execution "as far as reinstatement of herein complainants is concerned in consonance with the provision of Section 2 of the rules particularly the last sentence thereof."

Unable to accept the above Order, petitioner filed the instant petition on October 1989.


The main issue in this case is whether the NLRC gravely abused its discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction when it relied on the constitutionality of the amendment introduced by Section 12 of Republic Act No. 6715 to Article 223 of the Labor Code of the Philippines (PD. No. 442, as amended) and allowing execution pending appeal of the reinstatement aspect of a decision of a labor arbiter reinstating a dismissed or separated employee and of Section 2 of the NLRC Interim Rules on Appeals under R.A. No. 6715 implementing the same. It also questions the validity of the Transitory Provision (Section 17) of the said Interim Rules.


The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the NLRC and dismissed the petition for lack of merit. The SC held that execution pending appeal is interlinked with the right to appeal. One cannot be divorced from the other. The latter may be availed of by the losing party or a party who is not satisfied with a judgment, while the former may be applied for by the prevailing party during the pendency of the appeal. The right to appeal, however, is not a constitutional, natural or inherent right. It is a statutory privilege of statutory origin and, therefore, available only if granted or provided by statute. The law may then validly provide limitations or qualifications thereto or relief to the prevailing party in the event an appeal is interposed by the losing party. Execution pending appeal is one such relief long recognized in this jurisdiction. The Revised Rules of Court allows execution pending appeal and the grant thereof is left to the discretion of the court upon good reasons to be stated in a special order.
Before its amendment by Section 12 of R.A. No. 6716, Article 223 of the Labor Code already allowed execution of decisions of the NLRC pending their appeal to the Secretary of Labor and Employment. These provisions are the quintessence of the aspirations of the workingman for recognition of his role in the social and economic life of the nation, for the protection of his rights, and the promotion of his welfare. The charge then that the challenged law as well as the implementing rule is unconstitutional is absolutely baseless. Laws are presumed constitutional.