Philippine Labor Law Glossary
Definition: Quasi-judicial describes a body that receives evidence and decides disputes between parties without being a court. In Philippine labor law, Labor Arbiters and the NLRC are the principal examples.
Sa Filipino · Filipino Explanation
Ano ang quasi-judicial?
Ang quasi-judicial ay tumutukoy sa isang tanggapan na tumatanggap ng ebidensiya at nagpapasya sa alitan ng magkabilang panig kahit hindi ito korte. Sa batas paggawa, ang Labor Arbiter at ang NLRC ang pangunahing halimbawa.
Dahil hindi korte, hindi mahigpit ang teknikal na patakaran sa ebidensiya. Ngunit hindi ibig sabihin nito na hindi na kailangan ng patunay — kailangan pa rin ng substantial evidence.
What Quasi-Judicial Means
The prefix does the work. A quasi-judicial body is not a court, but it does what courts do in one respect: it receives evidence from opposing parties and issues a binding decision.
The Supreme Court routinely describes the NLRC in exactly these terms — “[f]actual findings of quasi-judicial bodies like the NLRC, particularly when they coincide with those of the Labor Arbiter and if supported by substantial evidence, are accorded respect and even finality by this Court.”[1]
That sentence carries the practical consequence. Because the NLRC is a quasi-judicial body rather than a lower court, its findings of fact are not re-tried on review; they are respected where substantial evidence supports them.
Where the Authority Comes From
A quasi-judicial body has only the jurisdiction a statute gives it. For Labor Arbiters that grant is Article 224 [217] of the Labor Code, which provides that “the Labor Arbiters shall have original and exclusive jurisdiction to hear and decide… the following cases involving all workers, whether agricultural or non-agricultural.”[2]
The categories listed include unfair labor practice cases, termination disputes, claims involving wages and other terms of employment when accompanied by a claim for reinstatement, claims for damages arising from the employer-employee relationship, cases involving the legality of strikes and lockouts, and other claims arising from employer-employee relations above a stated amount.[2]
The NLRC itself is “attached to the Department of Labor and Employment solely for program and policy coordination,” composed of a Chairman and twenty-three members.[3] Attachment for coordination is not supervision of its adjudication.
Technical Rules of Evidence Do Not Control
This is the feature that most distinguishes a labor proceeding from a court trial. Article 227 [221] provides that “[i]n any proceeding before the Commission or any of the Labor Arbiters, the rules of evidence prevailing in courts of law or equity shall not be controlling.”[4]
Read that carefully, because it is regularly overread. Relaxed procedure does not mean relaxed proof. The quantum is still substantial evidence, and a party who brings no evidence at all does not benefit from the relaxation. What the rule removes is the technical machinery of admissibility, not the need to establish the facts.
How a Decision Becomes Final
Article 229 [223] provides that decisions, awards or orders of the Labor Arbiter “are final and executory unless appealed to the Commission by any or both parties within ten (10) calendar days from receipt of such decisions, awards, or orders.”[5]
Ten calendar days, not working days. After the NLRC stage there is no appeal at all — the remedy is a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 to the Court of Appeals.
Why the Term Matters
It explains three things a party will run into immediately.
First, why a labor hearing does not look like a courtroom trial: no jury, limited cross-examination, position papers rather than testimony as the main vehicle. Second, why evidence a court might exclude can still be considered. Third, why a losing party cannot simply ask a higher court to weigh the evidence again — the review is for grave abuse of discretion, not error.
Common Misunderstanding
Misunderstanding: “Technical rules do not apply, so I do not need documents.”
Correct approach: The rules of evidence are not controlling, but the substantial-evidence standard still is. Relaxed admissibility is not an exemption from proving your case.
Misunderstanding: “The NLRC is a court, so its decisions can be appealed like a trial court’s.”
Correct approach: It is a quasi-judicial body attached to DOLE. There is no appeal from it; the route is certiorari under Rule 65.
Related and Contrasting Terms
Broader term: National Labor Relations Commission
Related terms:
Do not confuse with:
- A regular court — which is bound by the technical rules of evidence and whose judgments are appealable
Related LaborCode.ph Guides
Sources and Legal Citations
- New City Builders, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission, G.R. No. 149281, 15 June 2005, LawPhil Project. Supports: the NLRC as a quasi-judicial body whose factual findings are accorded respect.
- Labor Code of the Philippines, Article 224 [217], as amended by Republic Act No. 6715, Section 9, Supreme Court E-Library. Renumbering confirmed in Tumaodos v. San Miguel Yamamura Packaging Corporation, G.R. No. 241865, 19 February 2020. Supports: original and exclusive jurisdiction of Labor Arbiters.
- Labor Code of the Philippines, Article 220, as amended by Republic Act No. 10741, LawPhil Project. Supports: NLRC attached to DOLE for program and policy coordination; composition.
- Labor Code of the Philippines, Article 227 [221], quoted in Sasan, Sr. v. NLRC 4th Division, G.R. No. 176240, 17 October 2008, LawPhil Project. Supports: rules of evidence not controlling.
- Labor Code of the Philippines, Article 229 [223], quoted in Manrique v. Delta Earthmoving, Inc., G.R. No. 229429, 9 November 2020, LawPhil Project. Supports: ten calendar days to appeal.
Sources rechecked as of: 9 September 2026
Disclaimer
This glossary entry is for general educational and legal-information purposes and is not legal advice. Labor disputes depend on specific facts and current law. LaborCode.ph is independent and is not a government website, tribunal or law firm.