The Inadmissibility of Privileged Communication in Conciliation Proceedings: Absque Ulla Conditione
Francis V. Sobreviñas* In the 2007 Bar Examinations in Labor Law, the following questions were asked: “How sacrosanct are statements/data made at conciliation proceedings in the Department of Labor and Employment? What is the philosophy behind your answer?” The foregoing questions were answered by our Supreme Court, initially, in the twin cases of Nissan Motors Philippines, Inc. v. Secretary of Labor and Employment and Bagong Nagkakaisang Lakas sa Nissan Motors NMPI-OLALIA-KMU v. Court of Appeals[1] and, subsequently, in the very recent case of Pentagon Steel Corp. v. Court of Appeals decided only last June 26, 2009.[2] In those two labor cases, the highest court of the land had occasion to apply and interpret Article 233 of the Labor Code which...
“Reasonable Oppurtunity” is Time-Bound Says the Supreme Court
As an element of due process in administrative investigations, “reasonable opportunity” is time-bound, said the Supreme Court in the recent case of Genuino v. NLRC, G.R. Nos. 142732-33, 4 December 2007, and gave the employee facing disciplinary action “at least five (5) days” to present and explain his side. Previously, the Court allowed the employer a wider latitude by generally permitting its giving the employee anywhere from 24 to 72 hours to study the accusation, consult a union officer or lawyer, gather data and other evidence in his defense or otherwise decide on the defenses he can raise against the charge or complaint against him. Further, the Court directs that the employer should schedule and conduct hearing or conference to afford the employee...
Red-Letter Ruling in the Realm of Labor Relations
In another precedent-setting case, Sta. Rosa Coca-Cola Plant Employees Union v. Coca-Cola Bottlers Phils., Inc., GR No. 164302-03, January 27, 2007, 512 SCRA 437, the Supreme Court sustained the Firm’s petition for client Coca-Cola Bottlers Phils., Inc. when it expressly and unequivocally ruled for the first time that shop stewards are considered officers of the union, and for knowingly participating in an illegal strike, shop stewards, along with the other union members, may be terminated from employment. The shop stewards in the case argued that even if the strike is illegal, they should not have been dismissed because they were simple members and not union officers. In upholding the Firm’s contention that they are officers of the union, the Supreme Court...
