LRTA favored in labor dispute

The Light Rail Transit Authority (LRTA) was spared from having nearly P42 million of its funds garnished by the courts after the National Labor Relations Commission reversed an earlier ruling on a labor dispute.

In a press statement, the LRTA said the NLRC had found merit in their argument that they were not under the jurisdiction of the labor suit adjudication body since the LRTA is a government-owned or controlled entity "with an original charter and which is subject to the jurisdiction of the Civil Service Commission."

As a result of the decision by labor arbiter Elias Salinas, the NLRC sheriffs were stopped from collecting P20,823,568.27 in monetary rewards and P20,823568.27 in attorney’s fees from the LRTA.

Salinas had reversed the NLRC’s Jan. 12 decision and recalled and lifted the notices of garnishments issued by sheriffs Antonio Masola and Jaime Pambuan against LRTA deposits with the Land Bank of the Philippines and the Philippine National Bank.

"Instead, complainants are hereby directed to coordinate with the NLRC sheriffs to cause or effect the implementation of the decision against the properties of respondent Metro Transit Organization Inc.," Salinas said in his decision favoring LRTA’s motion to quash.

Metro Transit was the original operator of the LRTA trains.

Salinas said the case of the complainants, former employees of LRTA, are not covered by the Labor Code but by civil service rules. It set aside the arguments of the complainants that NLRC’s initial decision was final and executory because the LRTA failed to perfect its appeal.

He quoted the ruling of the Supreme Court on the case of LRTA vs. Perfecto Venus Jr. et al, "there should be no dispute then that employment in petitioner LRTA should be governed only by civil service rules , and not the Labor Code, and beyond the reach of the Department of Labor and Employment."

Salinas, in his decision, noted "in this case, no other than the Honorable Supreme Court has decreed that the employees of respondent Metro cannot be considered as employees of respondent LRTA, which finding, in effect, is a pronouncement that no employer-employee relationship existed between herein complainants and respondent LRTA."

The suit was filed in connection with LRTA’s dismissal of several employees who participated in a strike at the LRT Line 1 where the striking workers had reportedly destroyed vital equipment and stopped operations for several days.