Dear PAO,

I have been working as a hairdresser for the past five years in a local salon near my house. However, last week, my employment was terminated by the owner of the salon without any reason. As such, I was not allowed to come into the salon. Frustrated, I sought the help of our barangay officials and filed a complaint against her. However, when they issued a notice to her, she did not appear before the barangay. I feel so wronged, as I didn’t know what I had done wrong. What should I do?

July

Dear July,

|Section 408 of Republic Act (RA) 7160, otherwise known as the Revised Local Government Code of 1991, and Supreme Court Administrative Circular 14-93, dated July 15, 1993, provide that the lupon of each barangay shall have the authority to bring together the parties actually residing in the same city or municipality for amicable settlement of all disputes except:

“1. Where one party is the government, or any subdivision or instrumentality thereof; 2. Where one party is a public officer or employee, and the dispute relates to the performance of his official functions; 3. Where the dispute involves real properties located in different cities and municipalities, unless the parties thereto agree to submit their difference to amicable settlement by an appropriate Lupon; 4. Any complaint by or against corporations, partnership or juridical entities, since only individuals shall be parties to Barangay conciliation proceedings either as complainants or respondents (Sec. 1, Rule VI, Katarungang Pambarangay Rules); 5. Disputes involving parties who actually reside in barangays of different cities or municipalities, except where such barangay units adjoin each other and the parties thereto agree to submit their differences to amicable settlement by an appropriate Lupon; 6. Offenses for which the law prescribes a maximum penalty of imprisonment exceeding one (1) year or a fine over five thousand pesos (P5,000.00); 7. Offenses where there is no private offended party; 8. Disputes where urgent legal action is necessary to prevent injustice from being committed or further continued, specifically the following: a. Criminal cases where accused is under police custody or detention b. Petitions for habeas corpus by a person illegally deprived of his rightful custody over another or a person illegally deprived or on acting in his behalf; c. Actions coupled with provisional remedies such as preliminary injunction, attachment, delivery of personal property and support during the pendency of the action; and d. Actions which may be barred by the Statute of Limitations; 9. Any class of disputes which the President may determine in the interest of justice or upon the recommendation of the Secretary of Justice; 10. Where the dispute arises from the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (CARL); 11. Labor disputes or controversies arising from employer-employee relations; and 12. Actions to annul judgment upon a compromise which may be filed directly in court.” (Emphasis supplied)

The exclusion of labor disputes or controversies arising from employer-employee relations stemmed from Article 226 of the Labor Code of the Philippines, and in the Supreme Court case of Montoya v. Escayo, et al., GR 82211-12, March 21, 1989, which was held through Associate Justice Ameurfina Melencio-Herrera:

“The provisions of P.D. No. 1508 requiring the submission of disputes before the barangay Lupong Tagapayapa prior to their filing with the court or other government offices are not applicable to labor cases. xxx

“As correctly pointed out by the Solicitor General in his comment to the petition, even from the three ‘WHEREAS’ clauses of P.D. No. 1508 can be gleaned clearly the decree’s intended applicability only to courts of justice, and not to labor relations commissions or labor arbitrators’ offices. The express reference to ‘judicial resources’, to ‘courts of justice’, ‘court dockets’, or simply to ‘courts’ are significant. On the other hand, there is no mention at all of labor relations or controversies and labor arbiters or commissions in the clauses involved.”

In your case, the proper venue for filing your complaint against your employer is with the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), and not before the barangay lupon. Thus, the proper procedure in filing a complaint against your employer is through the Single Entry Approach (SEnA) prescribed by the Department of Labor and Employment’s (DOLE) Department Order 107-10 dated Nov. 3, 2010. Under Section 3 thereof, SEnA is an administrative approach to provide a speedy, impartial, inexpensive, and accessible settlement procedure of all labor issues or conflicts to prevent them from ripening into full-blown disputes. It utilizes conciliation-mediation process as immediate intervention to effect amicable settlement among the differing parties.

We hope that we were able to answer your queries. This advice was based solely on the facts you have narrated and our appreciation of the same. Our opinion may vary when other facts are changed or elaborated.

Thank you for your continued trust and support.

Editor’s note: Dear PAO is a daily column of the Public Attorney’s Office. Questions for Chief Acosta maybe sent to [email protected].