Pondoc v. National Labor Relations Commission
NEW DOCTRINEFacts
The Antecedents: Andres Pondoc was employed by respondent Eulalio Pondoc as a laborer from October 1990 to December 1991, working 12 hours daily, seven days a week, without premium pay for holiday and rest day services, and receiving less than the legal wage. Natividad Pondoc, wife of Andres, filed a complaint for salary differential, overtime pay, 13th month pay, holiday pay, and other money claims. Procedural History: The Labor Arbiter rendered a decision on June 17, 1993, ordering respondent Eulalio Pondoc to pay Natividad Pondoc P44,118.00 for salary differential, regular holiday and premium pay, premium pay for rest day services, and 13th month pay. The respondent filed a manifestation praying for set-off against an alleged indebtedness of the deceased employee. The Labor Arbiter denied the set-off and issued a writ of execution. Before execution, the respondent obtained a restraining order from the NLRC by filing a Petition for "Injunction and Damages." On February 28, 1994, the NLRC allowed the set-off, ordering respondent to pay only P3,066.65 after offsetting the P44,118.00 award against the alleged P41,051.35 indebtedness, and made the restraining order permanent. The Petition: Natividad Pondoc (later substituted by Hipolito Pondoc) filed a special civil action for certiorari seeking to annul the NLRC decision and resolution, arguing that the NLRC acted without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion by entertaining the independent petition for injunction and damages, adjudicating the alleged indebtedness, and ordering the set-off against a final and executory judgment. The Office of the Solicitor General concurred, emphasizing that the asserted indebtedness was not proven to have arisen from the employer-employee relationship.
Issue(s)
Whether the NLRC acted without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion in entertaining a separate petition for injunction and damages. Whether the NLRC had jurisdiction to receive evidence and adjudicate an alleged indebtedness of the deceased employee and set-off the same against a final and executory judgment of the Labor Arbiter. Whether the claim for set-off was deemed waived or barred for not having been pleaded as an affirmative defense or counterclaim before the Labor Arbiter.
Ruling
The petition is GRANTED. The challenged decision and resolution of the NLRC are ANNULLED and SET ASIDE. The judgment of the Labor Arbiter should be enforced with interest at 12% per annum from finality until full payment.
Ratio Decidendi
On the NLRC's jurisdiction to entertain an independent petition for injunction and damages: The NLRC should not have entertained the private respondent's separate petition for "Injunction and Damages" as it was a scheme to defeat the enforcement of a final and executory judgment. Article 218(e) of the Labor Code and Rule XI of the New Rules of Procedure of the NLRC indicate that injunction is an ancillary remedy in ordinary labor disputes, to be exercised only when the acts complained of arise from a labor dispute before the Commission and may cause grave or irreparable damage. Such a petition should have been filed as part of the appeal in the original labor case, not as an independent action. On the NLRC's jurisdiction over the alleged indebtedness and set-off: The NLRC was without jurisdiction, either original or appellate, to receive evidence on the alleged indebtedness of Andres Pondoc and render judgment thereon. Under Article 217(a) of the Labor Code, Labor Arbiters have exclusive and original jurisdiction over cases arising from employer-employee relations. The asserted indebtedness was not proven to have arisen out of or been incurred in connection with the employer-employee relationship between the private respondent and Andres Pondoc. Therefore, neither the Labor Arbiter nor the NLRC had jurisdiction over this claim. On the waiver or bar of the set-off claim: Even assuming arguendo that the claim for indebtedness fell within the exclusive original jurisdiction of the Labor Arbiter, it was deemed waived for not having been pleaded as an affirmative defense or barred for not having been set up as a counterclaim before the Labor Arbiter prior to the rendition of the decision. Under the Rules of Court, applicable suppletorily in labor cases, defenses not raised in a motion to dismiss or answer are deemed waived, and counterclaims not set up are barred. Set-off is an affirmative defense and a mode of extinguishing obligations.
Main Doctrine
The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) acted without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion when it entertained an independent petition for injunction and damages, received evidence on an alleged indebtedness of a deceased employee, and ordered such indebtedness to be set-off against a final and executory monetary award granted by a Labor Arbiter, as the claim for indebtedness did not arise from the employer-employee relationship and was deemed waived for not being pleaded before the Labor Arbiter.