Sample Pleading 1

Republic of the Philippines
Department of Labor and Employment

NATIONAL CONCILIATION AND MEDIATION BOARD
Regional Conciliation and Mediation Branch No. IV-A
(South Tagalog Region)
IN RE: LABOR DISPUTE AT

XXX Inc.
LABOR ORGANIZATION
Complainant
AC-RCMB-IV-A-11-017-2019
-versus-
EMPLOYER
Respondent,
x------------------------------------------x
COMMENT ON THE COMPLAINANT’S

MOTION FOR THE ISSUANCE
OF WRIT OF EXECUTION
Comes now, the Respondent company/Management, EMPLOYER.,

through the undersigned counsel, to this Honorable Office, respectfully
submits this comment on the Complainant’s Motion for the issuance of Writ
of Execution further stating:
That on March 5, 2020 this honorable Office, through Voluntary

Arbitrator JUAN DELA CRUZ rendered judgment/Decision1 in the Above-
entitled case, to wit:
WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED,

Decision is Hereby Rendered:
1. FINDING the Respondent not guilty of unfair labor practice;
2. FINDING that the suspended employees were illegally

suspended from their work and ORDERING the payment of
their wages for the entire duration of their suspension; and
3. FINDING the Respondent to have abused its management

prerogative in implementing the Conflict-of-Interest
Declaration, and DECLARING the implementation illegal.
Other claims are dismissed for lack of merit.
1
Annex “A” hereof
SO ORDERED
That on October 27, 2020, the above cited decision was received by
the Respondent, through its counsel. Within 10 days from receipt of the said
Decision or on November 6, 2020, the Respondent filed a Motion for Partial
Reconsideration with this Honorable Office.
That having ex on December 16, 2020, the resolution dated November

7, 2020 denying the Motion for Partial Reconsideration was received by the
Respondent, through its undersigned counsel.
That the October 14, 2015 Supreme Court decision, ruled that
the proper remedy from such order [Decision of the Voluntary Arbitrator] is
to appeal to the CA by petition for review under Rule 43 of the Rules of
Court, whose Section 1 specifically provides:
Section 1. Scope. - This Rule shall apply to appeals from

judgments or final orders of the Court of Tax Appeals and from
awards, judgments, final orders or resolutions of or authorized
by any quasi-judicial agency in the exercise of its quasi-judicial
functions. Among these agencies are the Civil Service
Commission, Central Boards of Assessment Appeals, Securities
and Exchange Commission, Office of the President, Land
Registration Authority, Social Security Commission, Civil
Aeronautics Board, Bureau of Patents, Trademarks and
Technology Transfer, National Electrification Administration,
Energy Regulation Board, National Telecommunications
Commission, Department of Agrarian Reform under Republic
Act No. 6657, Government Service Insurance System,
Employees Compensation Commission, Agricultural Inventions
Board, Insurance Commission, Philippine Atomic Energy
Commission, Board of Investments, Construction Industry
Arbitration Commission, and voluntary arbitrators
authorized by law.
That the August 28, 2018 Supreme Court decision, entitled “Guagua
National Colleges v. CA” with G.R. No 188492, ruled that the 10-day period
stated in Article 276 [of the Labor Code] should be understood as the period
within which the party adversely affected by the ruling of the Voluntary
Arbitrators or Panel of Arbitrators may file a motion for reconsideration.
Only after the resolution of the motion for reconsideration may the
aggrieved party appeal to the CA by filing the petition for review under Rule
43 of the Rules of Court within 15 days from notice pursuant to Section 4 of
Rule 43.
That on December 29, 2020, having exhausted the available

administrative remedies and in consonance with the above cited Supreme
Court Ruling, herein respondent, through the undersigned counsel, filed a
Motion for Extension of Time with the Court of Appeals, praying that it be
granted an additional period of 15 days from December 31, 2020, or until
January 15, 2021 within which to file the desired petition for review.
That the motion with the Court of Appeals being GRANTED, the
Respondent, on January 15, 2021, a Petition for Review 2 through Rule 43 of
the Rules of Court has been filed with the Court of Appeals.
That on January 15, 2021 the Complainant, through its counsel, have
been personally served copies of the Petition for Review in the case entitled
“EMPLOYER. vs. LABOR ORGANIZATION” Docketed as CA G.R. No.
123456” by registered mail as evidenced by an affidavit of Service3.
That the respondent, through the undersigned counsel, received a

NOTICE OF PRE-EXECUTION CONFERENCE4 without the respondent
having been furnished the corresponding Motion for Issuance of Writ of
Execution
That on the supposed pre-execution conference or on February 22,

2021, the Respondent, through its counsel, was furnished a copy of the
Complainant’s Motion for Issuance of Writ of Execution5 and this honorable
office has given an order6 a ten-day Period to comment on the said Motion.
That Sec. 1, Rule III of the PROCEDURAL GUIDELINES IN THE

EXECUTION OF VOLUNTARY ARBITRATION
AWARDS/DECISIONS states that:
“SECTION 1. Execution Upon Final Awards/Decisions.
— Execution shall issue only upon a judgment or order that
finally disposes of an action or proceeding, except in specific
instances where the law provides for execution pending
appeal.”
That Art. 223, Phar. 3 or Art. 229 as renumbered states:

Art. 223. Appeal -
xxxx
In any event, the decision of the Labor Arbiter reinstating a
dismissed or separated employee, insofar as the
reinstatement aspect is concerned, shall immediately be
executory, even pending appeal. The employee shall either be
admitted back to work under the same terms and conditions
prevailing prior to his dismissal or separation or, at the option
of the employer, merely reinstated in the payroll. The posting of
a bond by the employer shall not stay the execution for
reinstatement provided herein.
2
Annex “B” hereof
3
Annex “C” hereof
4
Annex “D” hereof
5
Annex “E” hereof
6
Annex “F” hereof
That there being no order for reinstatement was issued in this
Honorable Office’s Decision and an appeal, having been timely filed by the
Respondent, with the Court of Appeals under Rule 43 of the Rules of Court
thus there is no need for the issuance of writ of execution pending appeal.
PRAYER
Wherefore, Premises considered, it is respectfully prayed that:
1. The motion for Issuance of Writ of Execution to satisfy the

Award/Decision of the Voluntary Arbitrator be DENIED.
Other just and equitable remedies are likewise prayed for.
City of Sta. Rosa, Laguna for Calamba City ___ February 2020
LAW OFFICES
Counsel for Respondent Company
Address
1243 Quezon Avenue, Quezon City
BY:
Counsel
IBP No. 12345/1-2-2022/QC
PTR NO. 1234567/1-2-2022/Mla
Attorney’s Roll No. 12345
MCLE Exemption No. VI-000123/Oct. 10, 2018
Mobile No. 09123456
Email: --------
Copy Furnished:
COUNSEL OF EMPLOYER
EMPLOYER
Address
Manila
UNION
Counsel for Complaining Union
Address
Manila

Sample Pleading 1

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Sample Pleading 1

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Sample Pleading 1

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Republic of the Philippines

Department of Labor and Employment

IN RE: LABOR DISPUTE AT

COMMENT ON THE COMPLAINANT’S

Comes now, the Respondent company/Management, EMPLOYER.,

That on March 5, 2020 this honorable Office, through Voluntary

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED,

2. FINDING that the suspended employees were illegally

3. FINDING the Respondent to have abused its management

Other claims are dismissed for lack of merit.

That having ex on December 16, 2020, the resolution dated November

Section 1. Scope. - This Rule shall apply to appeals from

That on December 29, 2020, having exhausted the available

That the respondent, through the undersigned counsel, received a

That on the supposed pre-execution conference or on February 22,

That Sec. 1, Rule III of the PROCEDURAL GUIDELINES IN THE

That Art. 223, Phar. 3 or Art. 229 as renumbered states:

Wherefore, Premises considered, it is respectfully prayed that:

1. The motion for Issuance of Writ of Execution to satisfy the

Other just and equitable remedies are likewise prayed for.

You might also like