NLRC Appeals: Do You Need to Reply to a Rejoinder on Appeal?

Introduction

In the Philippine labor dispute resolution system, the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) plays a pivotal role as the appellate body reviewing decisions rendered by Labor Arbiters. Appeals to the NLRC are governed by the 2011 NLRC Rules of Procedure, as amended, which outline a structured process for submitting pleadings to ensure expeditious and fair resolution of labor cases. A common procedural question that arises during these appeals is whether a party is required—or even permitted—to file a reply to a rejoinder submitted by the opposing party. This article delves comprehensively into this topic, examining the relevant rules, procedural flow, implications of non-compliance, judicial interpretations, and practical considerations within the Philippine legal context.

Overview of the NLRC Appeal Process

To fully appreciate the role of a rejoinder and the question of replying to it, it is essential to understand the broader framework of NLRC appeals. Under Article 229 of the Labor Code of the Philippines (Presidential Decree No. 442, as amended), decisions, awards, or orders of a Labor Arbiter are appealable to the NLRC within ten (10) calendar days from receipt thereof. The appeal must be perfected by filing a verified Memorandum of Appeal, accompanied by proof of payment of the required appeal bond (if monetary awards are involved), proof of service on the other party, and compliance with other formal requirements.

The NLRC Rules of Procedure (Rule VI) detail the steps:

Filing the Memorandum of Appeal: The appellant initiates the appeal by submitting the memorandum, which must state the grounds relied upon, arguments, and supporting evidence. Failure to comply with procedural requisites, such as posting the bond, can lead to dismissal of the appeal.
Service and Receipt: The appellee receives a copy of the memorandum and has the opportunity to respond.
Reply by the Appellee: Within ten (10) days from receipt of the memorandum, the appellee may file a Reply (also called an Answer or Opposition), addressing the issues raised in the appeal.
Rejoinder by the Appellant: If a reply is filed, the appellant may submit a Rejoinder within ten (10) days from receipt of the reply. The rejoinder is intended to refute new matters raised in the reply, preventing the introduction of entirely new issues.
Resolution by the NLRC: After the exchange of these pleadings, the case is deemed submitted for decision. The NLRC Commission then reviews the entire record and renders a decision, which may affirm, modify, or reverse the Labor Arbiter's ruling.

This process is designed to be summary in nature, emphasizing speed and efficiency to protect workers' rights while ensuring due process for employers.

The Role of the Rejoinder in NLRC Appeals

The rejoinder serves as the appellant's final opportunity to address arguments presented in the appellee's reply. According to Section 8, Rule VI of the 2011 NLRC Rules:

"The appellant may file his/her rejoinder to appellee’s reply within ten (10) days from receipt thereof."

The rejoinder is not mandatory; it is discretionary and should only be filed if necessary to clarify or counter specific points not previously addressed in the memorandum of appeal. Philippine jurisprudence, such as in University of Santo Tomas v. Samahang Manggagawa ng UST (G.R. No. 184262, April 24, 2012), underscores that pleadings in labor appeals should be concise and focused, avoiding unnecessary prolongation of proceedings.

Importantly, the rejoinder must not raise new issues or evidence not presented before the Labor Arbiter, as NLRC appeals are generally limited to a review of the record (non-de novo). Introducing fresh matters could result in their disregard or even sanctions for delaying tactics.

Do You Need to Reply to a Rejoinder?

The short answer is no—parties are neither required nor generally permitted to file a reply to a rejoinder in NLRC appeals. This is explicitly provided under Section 9, Rule VI of the 2011 NLRC Rules:

"No motion or request for extension of period to file the memorandum of appeal, reply or rejoinder shall be entertained. No further pleadings or motions shall be entertained unless otherwise directed by the Commission."

This provision establishes the rejoinder as the terminal pleading in the appeal process. The rationale is to prevent an endless cycle of counter-pleadings, which could unduly delay the resolution of labor disputes—a core principle under the Labor Code, which mandates speedy disposition (Article 221).

Exceptions to the No-Further-Pleadings Rule

While the rule is strict, there are limited circumstances where the NLRC may allow additional pleadings, including a reply to a rejoinder:

Direction by the Commission: The NLRC, in its discretion, may order the filing of additional pleadings if it deems them necessary for a just resolution. This could occur in complex cases involving novel legal issues or where clarifications are needed to avoid manifest injustice. For instance, if the rejoinder introduces inadvertent new evidence or misrepresentations, the Commission might solicit a response.
Manifest Error or Grave Abuse: In rare cases, parties may file a motion for leave to submit additional pleadings, but this is subject to approval. Denial of such motions is common, as seen in Philippine Airlines, Inc. v. NLRC (G.R. No. 123294, October 20, 2010), where the Supreme Court upheld the NLRC's refusal to entertain surplus pleadings to maintain procedural efficiency.
Amended Rules or Special Circumstances: Amendments to the NLRC Rules (e.g., the 2011 version was influenced by earlier reforms) or en banc resolutions may occasionally adjust procedures, but as of the latest known framework, the no-further-pleadings rule remains intact. During extraordinary events like the COVID-19 pandemic, temporary guidelines (e.g., NLRC En Banc Resolution No. 03-20) allowed electronic filings but did not alter the pleading sequence.

Consequences of Filing an Unauthorized Reply to a Rejoinder

Attempting to file a reply without Commission approval can have adverse effects:

Expungement: The NLRC may strike the pleading from the record, treating it as non-existent.
Dismissal or Sanctions: Persistent violations could lead to dismissal of the appeal or contempt charges, as they contravene the summary nature of proceedings.
Delay in Resolution: Even if filed, unauthorized pleadings do not toll the period for decision-making, potentially harming the filer's position by appearing obstructive.

In St. Martin Polyclinic, Inc. v. NLRC (G.R. No. 141294, March 18, 2005), the Supreme Court emphasized that procedural rules in labor cases are liberally construed but not to the extent of allowing abuses that prolong disputes.

Judicial Interpretations and Case Law

Philippine courts have consistently reinforced the no-reply-to-rejoinder rule:

Liberal Construction vs. Strict Adherence: In Garcia v. Philippine Airlines, Inc. (G.R. No. 164856, January 20, 2009), the Court noted that while labor laws favor workers, procedural rules like the pleading limits ensure balance and prevent forum shopping.
Due Process Considerations: Filing a rejoinder does not automatically entitle the appellee to respond, as due process is satisfied by the initial opportunity to reply. In Mendoza v. NLRC (G.R. No. 122447, March 25, 1998), the Court held that the NLRC's decision without additional pleadings did not violate due process where parties had ample chance to be heard.
Certiorari Appeals: If aggrieved by the NLRC's handling of pleadings, parties may elevate the matter to the Court of Appeals via Rule 65 (Certiorari), alleging grave abuse of discretion. However, courts rarely intervene unless the denial of additional pleadings results in clear prejudice.

Practical Considerations for Litigants

For employers, employees, or their counsel navigating NLRC appeals:

Strategic Filing: Only file a rejoinder if it adds value; otherwise, it may unnecessarily complicate the record. Focus on strengthening the initial memorandum.
Timeliness: Adhere strictly to the 10-day periods for replies and rejoinders, as extensions are prohibited.
Electronic Filing: Under current NLRC guidelines, e-filing via the NLRC's online portal is encouraged, but this does not change the no-further-pleadings rule.
Representation: Union representatives or counsel should advise clients that attempting to reply to a rejoinder without permission is futile and could backfire.
Common Pitfalls: Novice litigants often confuse NLRC procedures with civil court rules (e.g., under the Rules of Court, sur-rejoinders are sometimes allowed), leading to procedural errors.

Conclusion

In summary, under Philippine labor law, there is no requirement to reply to a rejoinder in NLRC appeals, and such filings are generally prohibited to uphold the expeditious nature of labor proceedings. The 2011 NLRC Rules clearly designate the rejoinder as the final pleading, with exceptions only at the Commission's discretion. Litigants should prioritize substantive arguments in earlier pleadings to avoid procedural entanglements. This framework not only streamlines appeals but also aligns with the Labor Code's goal of prompt justice, ensuring that labor disputes are resolved efficiently without sacrificing fairness. Understanding these nuances is crucial for effective advocacy in the NLRC.