Wednesday, May 14, 2008 Speak out: Labor arbiter By Dominador A. Almirante
I WASs mentioned in the news item titled, “Trader sues labor arbiter for favoring ex-workers” (Sun.Star Cebu, May 8, 2008).
This was related to the case filed by my client William Tiu against Labor Arbiter Ricardo G. Barrios, Jr.
The labor arbiter’s answers to the reporter’s questions gave the impression that either I do not understand the procedures in the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) or I refused to understand it, specially the aspect of mandatory conference (despite my being a former labor arbiter myself).
He claimed that the case against him is being used merely as basis for an appeal.
I am constrained to reply if only to set the records straight.
Conscious of the rule on sub-judice, I state only the facts that are undisputed and being supported by evidence on record of the case or those from the office itself of Barrios.
Briefly, they are as follows:
1. Since the labor case against Rough Riders, Inc. and Tiu could not be settled in the last two mandatory conferences in which the labor arbiter was absent, the labor arbiter issued on Nov. 13, 2007 an order declaring the conference terminated and requiring the parties to submit their respective position papers within 10 days from receipt of a copy thereof.
Tiu received the copy on Dec. 12, 2007 and because of the number of holidays, the period would have expired on Dec. 26, 2007.
Motion
2. On Dec. 19, 2007 Tiu filed through counsel, a motion for extension of time to file a position paper asking for 10 days from Dec. 26, 2007 or up to Jan. 7, 2008 on the ground of difficulty in collecting and collating voluminous documents necessary for the defense that the 10 complainants therein committed various infractions.
3. On Jan. 7, 2008, my client through counsel timely filed his position paper consisting of voluminous documents supporting the theory that complainants committed numerous infractions.
4. Unknown to Tiu, the labor arbiter already rendered a decision of the case on Dec. 26, 2007, releasing it at 9:45 a.m. of the
same day, even before the full lapse of the ten-day period without waiting for his position paper.
The decision reinstated the complainants, who are drivers, conductors and a dispatcher, and granting them an enormous award totaling P4,506,000 gratuitously way beyond their claims, including P100,000 each for moral damages and P30,000 each for exemplary damages.
5. In the meantime, the petitioners for certification election also filed against Tiu before the Department of Labor and Employment (Dole 7) were already able to attach a copy of the decision dated Dec. 26, 2007 to their
manifestation/addendum to petitioners’ reply/answer dated Dec. 31, 2007 despite the fact that their union president, who prepared and signed the pleading, is based in distant Bacolod City which incidentally is the same home base of Ceres Liner, a business rival of Rough Riders Inc.
Speedy disposal
The labor arbiter chose to speedily dispose of my client’s case filed only on Sept. 27, 2007 while he had a case still pending decision filed as late as in 2003 and the following earlier cases to wit: 23 for 2004; 20 for 2005; 70 for 2006 and 33 for 2007 or a total of 147 cases.
Whereas, pursuant to the en banc Resolution No. 13-07 of the NLRC entitled “First-in-First-Out Policy,” older cases should be disposed earlier.
Moreover, he had 13 cases involving Overseas Filipino Workers, five of which were filed earlier that, according to the Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipino Act, should have been given priority in disposal.
The labor arbiter tried to justify his move by saying that the complainants followed it up.
Is there not something that more than meets the eye there?
