Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

INTERPHIL LABORATORIES EMPLOYEES UNION-FFW v. INTERPHIL LABORATORIES

This case has been cited 3 times or more.

	GR No. 190515 2011-06-06	CIRTEK EMPLOYEES LABOR UNION v. CIRTEK ELECTRONICS CARPIO MORALES, J.
The appellate court's ruling that giving credence to the "Pahavag" and the minutes of the meeting which were not verified and notarized would violate the rule on parol evidence is erroneous. The parol evidence rule, like other rules on evidence, should not be strictly applied in labor cases. Interphil Laboratories Employees Union-FFW v. Interphil Laboratories Inc.[8] teaches: [R]eliance on the parol evidence rule is misplaced. In labor cases pending before the Commission or the Labor Arbiter, the rules of evidence prevailing in courts of law or equity are not controlling. Rules of procedure and evidence are not applied in a very rigid and technical sense in labor cases. Hence, the Labor Arbiter is not precluded from accepting and evaluating evidence other than. and even contrary to, what is stated in the CBA. (emphasis and underscoring [supplied)
	GR No. 190515 2010-11-15	CIRTEK EMPLOYEES LABOR UNION-FEDERATION OF FREE WORKERS v. CIRTEK ELECTRONICS CARPIO MORALES, J.
The reliance on the parol evidence rule is misplaced. In labor cases pending before the Commission or the Labor Arbiter, the rules of evidence prevailing in courts of law or equity are not controlling. Rules of procedure and evidence are not applied in a very rigid and technical sense in labor cases. Hence, the Labor Arbiter is not precluded from accepting and evaluating evidence other than, and even contrary to, what is stated in the CBA.[16] (emphasis supplied)
	GR No. 167401 2010-07-05	BAGONG PAGKAKAISA NG MANGGAGAWA NG TRIUMPH INTERNATIONAL v. SECRETARY OF DEPARTMENT OF LABOR BRION, J.
On the other hand, the CA faulted the Labor Secretary for not ruling on the dismissal of the union officers. It took exception to the Labor Secretary's view that the dismissal question is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the labor arbiter pursuant to Article 217 of the Labor Code. It invoked the ruling of this Court in Interphil Laboratories Employees Union-FFW v. Interphil Laboratories, Inc.,[34] which, in turn, cited International Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Secretary of Labor,[35] where we held that the Labor Secretary has jurisdiction over all questions and controversies arising from an assumed dispute, including cases over which the labor arbiter has exclusive jurisdiction.