This case has been cited 1 times or more.
|
2003-03-10 |
VITUG, J. |
||||
| In the instant petition, Labor Arbiter Olairez claims that Article 254 of the Labor Code is a proscription against the filing of criminal cases against labor arbiters in matters involving or growing out of labor disputes. This contention has no legal basis. The provision of the law invoked merely states that no "temporary or permanent injunction or restraining order in any case involving or growing out of labor disputes shall be issued by any court or other entity, except as otherwise provided in Articles 218 and 264 of this Code." Clearly, the complaint filed by Tenoria against Olairez before the Office of the Ombudsman is not in the nature of an injunction contemplated under Article 254 of the Labor Code. The ruling in Deltaventures Resources, Inc., vs. Cabato,[6] cited by petitioner, refers to an instance where a Regional Trial Court, being a co-equal body, may not enjoin the execution of a decision of the NLRC. The case of Judge Dolalas vs. Office of the Ombudsman,[7] upon the other hand, deals with an administrative case against a judge filed with the Office of the Ombudsman in disregard of the Constitutional-mandate that the Supreme Court shall have exclusive administrative supervision over all courts and the personnel thereof.[8] Neither can Tenoria's complaint filed before the Ombudsman be considered as an act of forum shopping. The complaint with the Ombudsman is confined to an alleged act of malfeasance, misfeasance or nonfeasance committed by Olairez, which is well within its authority under the Ombudsman Act,[9] and it would not necessarily affect in any material way the outcome of the labor action pending before him. | |||||