The Dual Nature of Unfair Labor Practices
A finding of an unfair labor practice is not to be taken lightly for the Labor Code has again criminalized these practices. (G.R. No. 116813; November 24, 1995)
The New Rules of Procedure of the NLRC prohibit parties from making new allegations or cause of action not included in the complaint or position papers, affidavits and other documents. In the instant case, private respondent raised the issue of unfair labor practice only after the parties have submitted their respective position papers. Thus, the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC gravely abused their discretion in taking cognizance of such issue. In Manebo v. NLRC, we held: ". . . while it is true that the Rules of the NLRC must be liberally construed and that the NLRC is not bound by the technicalities of law and procedure, the Labor Arbiters and the NLRC itself must not be the first to arbitrarily disregard specific provisions of the Rules which are precisely intended to assist the parties in obtaining just, expeditious and inexpensive settlement of labor disputes. One such provision is Section 3, Rule V of the New Rules of Procedure of the NLRC which requires the submission of verified position papers within fifteen days from the date of the last conference, with proof of service thereof on the other parties. The position papers ‘shall cover only those claims and causes of action raised in the complaint excluding those that may have been amicably settled, and shall be accompanied by all supporting documents including the affidavits of their respective witnesses which shall take the place of the latter’s testimony.’ After the submission thereof, the parties ‘shall . . . not be allowed to allege facts, or present evidence to prove facts, not referred to and any cause or causes of action not included in the complaint or position papers, affidavits and other document.’" We need only add that the procedural error of the public respondent resulted in its ruling condemning petitioners of unfair labor practice. A finding of an unfair labor practice is not to be taken lightly for the Labor Code has again criminalized these practices. Article 247 unequivocally provides that." . . unfair labor practices are not only violations of the civil rights of both labor and management but are also criminal offenses against the state which shall be subject to prosecution and punishment . . ." Petitioners cannot be found guilty of unfair labor practice on the basis of an allegation sneaked in the Reply of the private Respondent. Due process bars such an approach.
By the very nature of an unfair labor practice, it is not only a violation of the civil rights of both labor and management but is also a criminal offense against the State which is subject to prosecution and punishment. (G.R. No. 125038; November 6, 1997)
The New Rules of Procedure of the NLRC prohibit parties from making new allegations or cause of action not included in the complaint or position papers, affidavits and other documents. In the instant case, private respondent raised the issue of unfair labor practice only after the parties have submitted their respective position papers. Thus, the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC gravely abused their discretion in taking cognizance of such issue. In Manebo v. NLRC, we held: ". . . while it is true that the Rules of the NLRC must be liberally construed and that the NLRC is not bound by the technicalities of law and procedure, the Labor Arbiters and the NLRC itself must not be the first to arbitrarily disregard specific provisions of the Rules which are precisely intended to assist the parties in obtaining just, expeditious and inexpensive settlement of labor disputes. One such provision is Section 3, Rule V of the New Rules of Procedure of the NLRC which requires the submission of verified position papers within fifteen days from the date of the last conference, with proof of service thereof on the other parties. The position papers ‘shall cover only those claims and causes of action raised in the complaint excluding those that may have been amicably settled, and shall be accompanied by all supporting documents including the affidavits of their respective witnesses which shall take the place of the latter’s testimony.’ After the submission thereof, the parties ‘shall . . . not be allowed to allege facts, or present evidence to prove facts, not referred to and any cause or causes of action not included in the complaint or position papers, affidavits and other document.’" We need only add that the procedural error of the public respondent resulted in its ruling condemning petitioners of unfair labor practice. A finding of an unfair labor practice is not to be taken lightly for the Labor Code has again criminalized these practices. Article 247 unequivocally provides that." . . unfair labor practices are not only violations of the civil rights of both labor and management but are also criminal offenses against the state which shall be subject to prosecution and punishment . . ." Petitioners cannot be found guilty of unfair labor practice on the basis of an allegation sneaked in the Reply of the private Respondent. Due process bars such an approach.
By the very nature of an unfair labor practice, it is not only a violation of the civil rights of both labor and management but is also a criminal offense against the State which is subject to prosecution and punishment. (G.R. No. 125038; November 6, 1997)