Carlos Ranara vs. NLRCG.R. No. 100969 August 14,
1992Facts:Petitioner filed a complaint with the Department of Labor
and Employment for illegaldismissal.
Theprivaterespondentsdeniedthecharges, contendingthat
thepetitionerhadnot beenillegally dismissed. Chang said that he had
not athori!ed Leonar, or even his mother who was
theofficer"in"chargedringhisabsence, toterminate#anara$semployment.
Thetrthwasthat it was#anara who abandoned his wor% when he stopped
reporting. The Labor &rbiter held that petitioner hadnot been
illegally dismissed.The 'olicitor (eneral disagreed with the )L#C
on the legality of the petitioner$s dismissal. *esaid that the
challenged decision was based on an event sbse+ent to the illegal
dismissal, to wit, theoffer of reinstatement, and that sch offer
did not validate the dismissal.The )L#C arged that the petitioner
had not filed a motion for reconsideration of its decisionand shold
therefore not be allowed to file his petition for certiorari with
this Cort.,sse: -hether or not procedral lapses may be disregarded
in labor cases.#ling:.es. The failreof thepetitionertofile amotion
forreconsideration ofthe)L#C decisionbeforecomingtothis Cort was
not afatal omission. ,ntheinterest of sbstantial /stice,
andespecially in cases involving the rights of wor%ers, the
procedral lapse may be disregarded to enablethe Cort to e0amine and
resolve the conflicting rights and responsibilities of the parties.
This liberalityis warranted in the case at bar, especially since it
has been shown that the intervention of the Cort wasnecessary for
the protection of the dismissed laborer.Amalgamated Laborers'
Assocaton vs. C!RGR No. L"2#46$ %arc& 2$, 196'Facts:Petitioner
won a case of nfair labor practice against 1iscom. 2pon motion of
the complainants,C,#sent the Chief E0aminer to go to 1iscomand
compte the bac%wages. #espondent &tty.Fernande!, inthesamecase,
fileda3)oticeof &ttorney4sLien5overtheamont
tobeawarded,alleging that he had been the attorney of record for
the said case since the inception of the preliminaryhearings of
saidcaseptothe'premeCort in &ppeal, aschief consel.
*eclaimedthat thelaborers have volntarily agreed to give him as
attorney4s fees on contingent basis 678 of the award.*e frther
averred that this is already a disconted fee ot of the plea of the
nion4s president to redceit from 9:8 for them to also satisfy
&tty. ;ose 2r Carbonell. C,# decided the appeals still in favor
ofthepetitionersandordered1iscomtodeposittheamont representing678
to beawardedto &tty.Fernande!. &tty. Carbonell and
&L&appealed fromthe decision contending that C,#is bereft
of/risdiction to ad/dicate contractal disptes over attorney4s fees
averring that a dispte arising fromcontracts for attorney4s fees is
not a labor dispte and is not one among the cases rled to be
withinC,#4s athority and to consider sch a dispte to be a mere
incident to a case over which C,# mayvalidly assme /risdiction is
to disregard the special and limited natre of said cort4s
/risdiction.,sse: -hether or not C,# has /risdiction over claims
for attorney4s fees.#ling:The Cort may be e0pressly granted the
incidental powers necessary to effectate its/risdiction. ,n the
absence of sch e0press grant, and in the absence of prohibitive
legislation, it shallalso be impliedly granted.,n this case, to
direct that the present dispte be lodged in another cort as
petitioners advocatewold only reslt in mltiplicity of sits, a
sitation abhorred by the rle. 'ince the cort of ,ndstrial#elations
obviosly had the /risdiction over the main cases, it li%ewise had
/risdiction to consider anddecide all matters collateral thereto,
sch as claims for attorney4s fees made by the members of the barwho
appeared therein.(a)sanan ng mga %aggaga*a sa %anla Ralroad Co. vs.
Att+. Gregoro ,a-ardoG.R. No. L"##49# August 1', 19''Facts:C,#
directed petitioner to pay attomey$s fees, which is 678 of the
money awarded, to &ttorney(regorio Fa/ardo for winning their
labor case. Petitioner filed a :F wor%ingdays. Ths,
privaterespondent$s latefilingof theappealnotwithstanding, the Cort
finds that pblic respondent did not commit grave abse of discretion
ingiving de corse to the appeal.1o&n Clement Consultants, !nc.
vs. NLRCG.R. No. $2096 1anuar+ 29, 19''Facts:Private respondent
wanted to resign bt failed to sbmit any resignation letter.
Petitioner isseda memorandm annoncing Flores$ resignation and
ordering the spervisors theretofore serving nderFlores to report
directly to him, in order to protect the competitive stats of the
firm. Flores thereponceased to come to the company premisesH and he
failed to appear at the meetings schedled to discssthe terms of the
severance of his ties with the ;CC,. *e also failed to retrn the
company car assignedfor his se, eventally doing so only after
receipt of a series of telegrams demanding sch retrn. Three months
after his resignation, Flores filed a complaint for illegal
dismissal against ;CC,and ED, with the
:Fdaysfromnotice.The)L#CreversedtheLabor&rbiter$s
decision.,sse: -hether or not the )L#C has /risdiction to an appeal
filed after >: calendar days.#ling:,n ta%ing cogni!ance of
Flores$ appeal, notwithstanding the recorded actality that it was
filed>7 days after notice of the /dgment soght to be appealed
and therefore, beyond the >:"day period ofappeal set bylaw,
the)L#Chadactedwithot/risdiction,
indeliberatedisregardofthisCort$sholding in the aforecited Air";en
case that the ten"day period of appeal set ot in &rticle 669 of
theLabor Code, as amended, meant calendar and not wor%ing
days.LA.2R R3LA0!2N4Case 5gests>. Carlos #anara vs. )L#C, (.#.
)o. >::JKJ, &gst >=, >JJ66. &malgamated Laborers$
&ssociation vs. C,#, (# )o. L"69=K?, JK@9. Lapisanan ng mga
JJ:7. Chong (an Trading vs. )L#C, (.#. )o. @>=?>, &pril
6K, >J@JK. ;ohn Clement Consltants, ,nc. vs. )L#C, (.#. )o.
?6:JK ;anary 6J, >J@@Submitted by: Celina
