Legal Updates

The National Labor Relations Commission (“NLRC”) issued En Banc Resolution No. 09-25 dated 1 December 2025, adopting the 2025 Rules of Procedure (“2025 Rules”). Published on 29 December 2025 and effective on 13 January 2026, the Rules supersede the 2011 NLRC Rules of Procedure, as amended (“2011 Rules”), and implement significant procedural changes in the filing, adjudication, appeal, and execution of labor cases.

The 2025 Rules represent more than a routine amendment. They reflect a deliberate recalibration of labor procedure in response to persistent delays, evolving work arrangements, and the increasing need for procedural accountability and efficiency. This article discusses the salient changes introduced by the 2025 Rules, as compared with the 2011 Rules, and highlights their implications for labor practice.

Filing of Complaints: Heightened Accountability at the Outset

One of the procedural reforms under the 2025 Rules concerns the filing of complaints. Unlike the 2011 Rules, which did not expressly require the personal signature of the complainant or emphasize verification and certification of non-forum shopping, the 2025 Rules now mandate that each of the complainants personally sign the complaints and execute the required verification and certification.

Modes of Filing and Service: Expanded but Regulated

Under the 2011 Rules, filing and service were largely confined to personal filing and registered mail. The 2025 Rules expand the recognized modes to include accredited courier services, alongside personal filing and service and registered mail. This amendment responds to contemporary logistical realities by enhancing access to NLRC processes, without compromising the fundamental requirements of procedural reliability, traceability, and due process.

Representation Before the NLRC: Tightened Standards and Clear Prohibitions

The 2025 Rules adopt a stricter regulatory framework governing representation in the proceedings. While the traditional limitations on non-lawyer appearances such as self-representation, representation by a duly authorized legitimate labor organization, or appearance through legal aid programs are retained, the revised rules articulate these exceptions with greater precision and enforce clearer boundaries.

Significantly, the Rules now categorically prohibit lawyers from delegating legal functions to non-lawyers and expressly bar non-lawyers from acting as de facto counsel. The scope of prohibited acts is clearly delineated and includes, among others, the acceptance of cases, the rendition of legal advice, independent negotiation on behalf of a party, appearance without proper authority, and the signing of correspondence containing legal opinions.

Unauthorized appearances are no longer treated as mere procedural irregularities. Instead, such acts may give rise to direct contempt proceedings and expose the non-lawyer to civil, criminal, or administrative liability. The Rules further underscore the regulatory intent by expressly prohibiting the recovery of attorney’s fees or any form of contingency fee arising from unauthorized legal representation.

Venue and Jurisdiction: Filing at the Complainant’s Residence

Another significant reform under the 2025 Rules concerns venue and jurisdiction. Under the 2011 Rules, labor complaints were required to be filed with the Regional Arbitration Branch (RAB) having jurisdiction over the complainant’s workplace, defined as the place where the employee was regularly assigned at the time the cause of action arose.

The 2025 Rules broaden the concept of “workplace” to reflect contemporary work arrangements, including telecommuting and flexible work setups. More importantly, the Rules now allow labor complaints, at the option of the complainant, to be filed in the RAB having jurisdiction over the complainant’s place of residence.

Strengthened Rules on the Service of Summons

To address chronic delays arising at the jurisdictional threshold and recognizing that effective acquisition of jurisdiction over the person of the respondent is indispensable to the orderly disposition of labor disputes, the 2025 Rules recalibrate procedural mechanisms to ensure that summons is timely, verifiable, and resistant to dilatory tactics

The 2025 Rules significantly broaden the recognized modes of service, expressly incorporating and adapting service methods under the Rules of Court. For corporations, in particular, summons may be served by leaving a copy at the regular/registered office or place of business with a competent person in charge thereof. A competent person includes, but is not limited to, one who customarily receives correspondences.

Moreover, the 2025 Rules introduce an institutional innovation by authorizing the Labor Arbiter to deputize a lawyer who enters a special appearance for the limited purpose of effecting personal service of summons. This mechanism is designed to neutralize evasive conduct by respondents and to prevent the weaponization of technical service requirements as a means of frustrating the early progress of proceedings.

Structured Two-Stage Mandatory Conciliation and Mediation

Under the 2025 Rules, the conciliation-mediation stage is no longer limited to exploring settlement. While the Labor Arbiter remains mandated to exert conciliation and mediation efforts all throughout the proceedings, should settlement efforts fail, the Labor Arbiter is then tasked with identifying the real parties-in-interest, narrowing and simplifying the issues, eliciting admissions and stipulations of fact, and resolving other preliminary matters necessary to frame the controversy.

Consequences of Non-Submission of Position Papers

The 2025 Rules explicitly articulate the procedural consequences of failure to submit a position paper, as follows:

1. Where the complainant fails to file a position paper despite due notice, while the respondent complies, the complaint may be dismissed without prejudice, unless the Labor Arbiter expressly provides otherwise. Failure to submit a position paper the second time shall result in dismissal with prejudice; and
2. When the respondent fails to file a position paper, such omission is deemed a waiver of the right to be heard at that stage of the proceedings. In such cases, the Labor Arbiter is directed to resolve the controversy based solely on the evidence on record.

More Stringent and Formalist Stance on Appeals

The 2025 Rules adopt a more stringent stance toward appeals, underscoring the principle that the right to appeal is not a natural right but a statutory privilege that must be exercised strictly in accordance with prescribed requirements. To this end, the Rules categorically provide that non-compliance with any of the requisites for the perfection of an appeal results in its outright dismissal. Significantly, the filing of an appeal with the wrong office no longer interrupts or tolls the running of the appeal period, regardless of the appellant’s claim of good faith, thereby foreclosing reliance on equitable considerations to cure jurisdictional defects.

At the same time, the 2025 Rules temper this heightened rigor with measured procedural flexibility. In recognition of modern filing practices and access considerations, the payment of appeal and other lawful fees may now be made through NLRC-authorized banking institutions, streamlining compliance without diluting the mandatory character of appellate requisites.

Complementing these reforms is a reduction in documentary requirements. The Rules decrease the required number of copies of the Memorandum of Appeal and its attachments from three (3) to two (2), and remove the long list of supporting documents for appeal bonds.

Execution of Judgments: From Discretion to Ministerial Duty

Execution emerges as one of the most substantially reinforced stages under the 2025 Rules. The 2025 Rules affirm that the issuance of a writ of execution upon the finality of a judgment is a ministerial duty of the Labor Arbiter, leaving no room for discretion once the decision has become final and executory.

The 2025 Rules further expand the reach and efficiency of enforcement mechanisms by authorizing the nationwide service of writs of execution, thereby removing geographical limitations that have historically impeded the satisfaction of labor awards. In addition, the 2025 Rules expressly allow the execution of uncontested portions of a judgment notwithstanding the pendency of review over other aspects of the decision. This innovation ensures that portions of a labor award that are no longer in dispute may be immediately realized by the prevailing party.

Clarified Enforcement Against Bonding Company Escrow Deposits

The 2025 Rules introduce a clarification in the enforcement of monetary judgments involving bonding companies, particularly in situations where the losing party has no assets or possesses insufficient properties to satisfy the award.

Under the revised rules, execution shall first proceed against the bonding company’s escrow deposit in the event that the judgment obligor has no leviable assets and the bonding company fails or refuses to satisfy the writ. Only where the escrow deposit is insufficient may the sheriff thereafter levy upon the bonding company’s personal property, and if necessary, its real property.

Examination of Persons in Possession of the Losing Party’s Money or Property

The 2025 Rules introduce a significant enforcement mechanism allowing the prevailing party to examine any person whether natural or juridical, in possession of the losing party’s money or property when a writ of execution remains unsatisfied. Under Section 20 of the 2025 Rules, the Commission or Labor Arbiter may issue an order or subpoena compelling the person to appear, be sworn, and answer questions under oath regarding the property in question. The examined person is prohibited from transferring or disposing of such assets until the matter is resolved.

The provision establishes strict timelines wherein examinations must be concluded within ten working days, and ordinarily within a single day while non-compliance may trigger contempt proceedings. If it is established that the property belongs to the losing party, execution proceeds immediately.

Expanded Grounds for Piercing the Corporate Veil

The 2025 Rules strengthen enforcement by allowing the prevailing party to file a verified motion to pierce the veil of corporate fiction during execution proceedings when the Writ of Execution cannot be enforced or satisfied against the losing party and there is evidence that:

         (i)  The corporate fiction is used as a vehicle to evade payment satisfaction of a judgment award;

        (ii)  The corporation is a mere alter ego or business conduit of the losing party, or was organized to make it an instrumentality, agency or adjunct of another        corporation which is the losing party in a labor case;

        (iii) The corporate entity is used to justify a wrong, protect a fraud, or defend a crime; or

        (iv) Other analogous cases.

Mandatory Inclusion of All Objections in Verified Petitions

The 2025 Rules now explicitly require that a verified petition filed to challenge any order or resolution of the Labor Arbiter including writs of execution and other interlocutory orders must include all objections available at the time of filing. This amendment codifies the long-standing procedural principle that parties must present all grounds of challenge promptly, preventing piecemeal or successive objections that could delay proceedings. By deeming any objections not raised in the petition as waived, the Rules reinforce procedural finality and judicial efficiency.

Summary of Key Reforms Under the 2025 Rules

Taken as a whole, the 2025 Rules embody a deliberate institutional effort to render labor adjudication more efficient, structured, and effective. Through targeted procedural reforms that curtail dilatory practices, tighten compliance, and strengthen execution, the 2025 Rules directly confront systemic inefficiencies that have weakened enforcement and delay the proceedings.  At the same time, the reforms safeguard the system’s conciliatory and non-litigious character, ensuring that labor adjudication not only upholds the rights of workers but also delivers prompt, enforceable, and meaningful remedies.

This article is only for informational and educational purposes, and it is not intended as a legal advice or opinion. For assistance and legal queries, please contact general@srmo-law.com.