Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Labor Relations - Jurisdiction and Procedure (Consolidated Case Digest)
Labor Relations - Jurisdiction and Procedure (Consolidated Case Digest)
Uy v Bueno
2
Peoples Boradcasting v. Secretary
Abad
Case title Peoples Broadcasting Association v. Sec. of Labor & Emp. (power to determine existence of E-ER)
GR number 179652
Date 6 March 2012
Ponente - VELASCO, JR., J
Facts - Private respondent Jandeleon Juezan filed a complaint against petitioner with the DOLE - Cebu City, for
illegal deduction, nonpayment of service incentive leave, 13th month pay, premium pay for holiday and rest day
and illegal diminution of benefits, delayed payment of wages and noncoverage of SSS, PAG-IBIG and Philhealth.
After the conduct of summary investigations, and after the parties submitted their position papers, the DOLE
Regional Director found that private respondent was an employee of petitioner, and was entitled to his money
claims.
This case stemmed from the first decision of the court where it was held that while the DOLE may make a
determination of the existence of an employer-employee relationship, this function could not be co-extensive with
the visitorial and enforcement power provided in Art. 128(b) of the Labor Code, as amended by RA 7730. The
NLRC was held to be the primary agency in determining the existence of an employer-employee relationship. This
was the interpretation of the Court of the clause in cases where the relationship of employer-employee still exists
in
Art.
128(b)
From this Decision, the Public Attorneys Office (PAO) filed a Motion for Clarification of Decision (with Leave of
Court). The PAO sought to clarify as to when the visitorial and enforcement power of the DOLE be not considered
as co-extensive with the power to determine the existence of an employer-employee relationship.
Issue - may the DOLE make a determination of whether or not an employer-employee relationship exists, and if so,
to what extent?
Ruling If a complaint is brought before the DOLE to give effect to the labor standards provisions of the Labor
Code or other labor legislation, and there is a finding by the DOLE that there is an existing employer-employee
relationship, the DOLE exercises jurisdiction to the exclusion of the NLRC. If the DOLE finds that there is no
employer-employee relationship, the jurisdiction is properly with the NLRC. If a complaint is filed with the DOLE,
and it is accompanied by a claim for reinstatement, the jurisdiction is properly with the Labor Arbiter, under Art.
217(3) of the Labor Code, which provides that the Labor Arbiter has original and exclusive jurisdiction over those
cases involving wages, rates of pay, hours of work, and other terms and conditions of employment, if accompanied
by a claim for reinstatement. If a complaint is filed with the NLRC, and there is still an existing employer-employee
relationship, the jurisdiction is properly with the DOLE. The findings of the DOLE, however, may still be
questioned through a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court.
In the exercise of the DOLEs visitorial and enforcement power, the Labor Secretary or the latters authorized
representative shall have the power to determine the existence of an employer-employee relationship, to the
exclusion of the NLRC.
3
Bernarte v. PBA
Abella
Bernarte v. PBA
G.R. No. 192084, September 14, 2011
Carpio, J.
Facts: Jose Mel Bernarte and Renato Guevarra were made to sign contracts on a year-to-year basis as PBA referees.
However, changes were made during the term of Commissioner Eala. Bernarte was only made to sign a one and a
half month during the second conference of the Filipino Cup. Later on, Bernarte was advised that his contract will
not be renewed due to his unsatisfactory performance on and off court. Bernarte cannot believe it for he was
awarded as Referee of the Year in 2003. He felt that his dismissal was due to his refusal to fix a game upon order of
one
of
the
officials.
On the other hand, Guevarra started as a trainee. Eventually, he was made to sign as a regular referee. However, he
was no longer made to sign a contract due to his questioning on the assignment of referees in out-of-town games.
Respondents contend that complainants were not illegally dismissed because they were not employees of the PBA.
They have entered a retainer contract wherein PBA had the prerogative whether or not to renew the same. The
Labor Arbiter declared petitioners an employee of respondent and that the former were illegally dismissed. NLRC
affirmed the same. However, on appeal, CA found petitioner an independent contractor since respondent did not
exercise any form of control over the means and method by which petitioners performed his work as a basketball
referee.
1
The Arbiter's Compendium
Piedad
Facts: ABS-CBN and Sonza signed an agreement, Sonza being the representative of MJMDC as talent for radio and
television. They were paid agreed talent fees. Later, Sonza resigned and ABS- CBN called for the rescission of the
contract. In this contract, Sonza renounced the recovery of the benefits. But Sonza filed a complaint thereafter for
non- payment of his salaries and other benefits. Respondent cintended that there was no benefits as there are no
employer- employee relationship to speak with. The Labor Arbiter denied Sonzas motion and and was seconded by
the
Court
of
Appeals.
Issue: Whether or not Sonza is entitled to the benefits he is asking.
Ruling: No. The entitlement of benefits is a question relating to employer- employee relationship. In this case,
Petitioner failed to prove its existence.
Sonza is an independent contracto. His unique skills, talent and celebrity status are not possessed by ordinary
employees. He is not bound by the ABS-CBNs control in the conduct of his work. He is paid talent fees and not
wages for ordinary employees. Whatever benefits that the omplainant enjoyed roe from specific agreements of the
parties and not by any reason of employer- employee relationship.
10
Fairley
Rigor
FULACHE VS. ABS-CBN BROADCASTING CORP
GR NO. 183810 JANUARY 21, 2010
BRION, J.
FACTS:
Regularization Case
Petitioners Fulache and Castillo (drivers and cameramen), Atinen, Lagunzad, Jabonero (drivers), Ponce and
Almendras (cameramen/editors), Bigno (PA/Teleprompter) and Cabas (VTR man/editor) filed complaints for
regularization, unfair labor practice, and several money claims against ABS. They alleged that ABSCBN and their
union entered into a CBA, and they learned that they had been excluded from its coverage as ABS-CBN considered
them temporary employees. They claimed they had already rendered more than a year of service in the company
and, therefore, should have been recognized as regular employees entitled to security of tenure and to the privileges
and benefits enjoyed by regular employees.To properly establish their side, ABS-CBN argue otherwise.To cope with
fluctuating business conditions, it contracts on a case-to-case basis the services of persons, also called talents
(considered independent contractors) who possess the necessary qualifications to meet the requirements of its
programs. These talents are paid a pre-arranged talent fee. They do not undergo probation and their services are
terminated at the completion of the program. ABSCBN alleged that the complainants in this case are off-camera
talents, hence not entitled to regularization.
LA ruling ONE petitioners are regular employees.
Illegal Dismissal Case
4
The Arbiter's Compendium
Piedad
Facts: The Central Philippine Union Mission Corporation of the Seventh day Adventist (SDA) is a religious
corporation to which Pastor Austria has worked as an evangelist. He advanced position under a propmotion until
10
The Arbiter's Compendium
Piedad
Tinga, J.:
Facts: Jandeleon Juezan filed a complaint against the petitioner for illegal deduction and non- payment of service
and other benefits before the DOLE. At a plant inspection made by a Labor Inspector, petitioner denied the
existence of an employer- employee relation and instead, characterized the complainant as a talent. The Regional
Director ruled that the respondent is the employer of Juenzan. Petitioner raised contention in the Court of Appeals
contending among others that the DOLE has no jurisdiction over respondent s claim and that it must be lodged in
the
NLRC.
Issue: Whether or not the DOLE has jurisdiction over respondents claim in the existence of an employer employee
relationship.
Ruling: No. In this case, the DOLE has no jurisdiction.
In Article 128 (b) of the Labor Code as amended by RA 7730, the clause in cases where the employer-employee
still exists signifies that the employer- employee relationship must have existed even before the emergence of the
controversy. It can be assumed that the DOLE in the exercise of visitorial and enforcement powers somehow has to
make a determination of EER but only for enforcing Labor Standards provisions. But the relationship questionis
still
lodged
in
the
NLRC.
Thus, the Dole may exercise its power under Art. 128 when: 1) Employer- Employee Relationship exists, and 2)
There are violations of any Labor Laws.
30
Meteoro
Rigor
METEORO VS. CREATIVE CREATURES
G.R. NO. 171275 JULY 13, 2009
NACHURA, J.:
FACTS:
Creative Creatures hired Victor Meteoro and the rest of the petitioners on various dates as artists, carpenters, and
welders, tasked to design, create, assemble, set-up, and dismantle props, and provide sound effects to Creatives
15
The Arbiter's Compendium
Whether
or
not
the
DOLE-NCR
properly
exercised
its
jurisdiction
over
the
case.
RULING: NO.
The DOLE Secretary and her authorized representatives, such as the DOLE-NCR Director, have jurisdiction to
enforce compliance with labor standards laws under the broad visitorial and enforcement powers conferred by
Article 128 of the Labor Code, and expanded by RA No. 7730. But this notwithstanding, the power of the Regional
Director to hear and decide money claims is not absolute. The last sentence of Article 128 (b) of the Labor Code,
otherwise known as the- exception clause, it provides an instance when the Regional Director or his representatives
may be divested of jurisdiction over a labor standards case. Under prevailing jurisprudence, the so-called exception
clause has the following elements, all of which must concur:
(a) That the employer contests the findings of the labor regulations officer and raises issues thereon;
(b) That in order to resolve such issues, there is a need to examine evidentiary matters; and
(c)
That
such
matters
are
not
verifiable
in
the
normal
course
of
inspection.
In the instant case, Creative registered its objection to the findings of the labor inspector at the earliest opportunity.
It is clear that Creative contested and continues to contest the findings and conclusions of the labor inspector. Also,
the question of whether or not petitioners were independent contractors/project employees/free-lance workers is a
question of fact that necessitates the examination of evidentiary matters not verifiable in the course of inspection.
Verily, the Regional Director and the Secretary of Labor are divested of jurisdiction to decide the case, and the
NLRC is the agency clothed with authority to do so. Petition denied for lack of merit. CA decision affirmed.
To contest means to raise questions as to the amounts complained of or the absence of violation of labor
standards laws; or, issues as to the complainants right to labor standards benefits. Raising lack of jurisdiction alone
is not the contest contemplated by the exception clause. It is necessary that the employer contest the findings of
the labor regulations officer during the hearing or after receipt of the notice of inspection results. More importantly,
the key requirement for the Regional Director and the DOLE Secretary to be divested of jurisdiction is that the
evidentiary matters be not verifiable in the course of inspection. Where the evidence presented was verifiable in the
normal course of inspection, even if presented belatedly by the employer, the Regional Director, and later the
DOLE Secretary, may still examine it; and these officers are not divested of jurisdiction to decide the case.
31
Norkis
Valera
NORKIS TRADING V BUENAVISTA
FACTS:
Respondents Buenavista, Fabroa, Cape, Tulod, Dondoyano and Villarista were skilled workers assigned in the
operation of industrial and welding machines owned by Norkis Trading for its business. They filed a complaint for
illegal suspension, illegal dismissal, unfair labor practice, and other monetary claims before the NLRC contending
that they were regarded by Norkis as members of PASAKA (Panaghuisa sa Kauswagar Corp), which was deemed as
independent contractor that merely deployed the respondents for Norkis. The respondents belived that they were
regular employees of Norkis.
Respondents filed before the DOLE a complaint against Norkis and PASAKA for labor only contacting and nonpayment of minimum wage and overtime pay. The filing of the complaint led to the suspension of respondents.
Later, the were informed by PASAKA that they were transferred to Norkis Tradings sister company, Porta Coeli
Industrial Corp as washers of multicab vehicles.
ISSUE:
16
The Arbiter's Compendium
was
concerned.
No. The law indubitably precludes the Labor Arbiter from enforcing money claims arising from the
implementation of the CBA, the CBA herein complementarily recognizes that it is the Voluntary Arbitrators which
have jurisdiction to hear the claim. The Labor Arbiter correctly refused to exercise jurisdiction over Del Montes
cross-claim, and the Court of Appeals would have no basis had it acted differently
In reconciling the grants of jurisdiction vested under Articles 261 and 217 of the Labor Code, the Court has
pronounced that the original and exclusive jurisdiction of the Labor Arbiter under Article 217(c) for money claims
is limited only to those arising from statutes or contracts other than a Collective Bargaining Agreement. The
Voluntary Arbitrator or Panel of Voluntary Arbitrators will have original and exclusive jurisdiction over money
claims arising from the interpretation or implementation of the Collective Bargaining Agreement and, those arising
from the interpretation or enforcement of company personnel policies, under Article 261. Thus, the Labor Arbiter
in the instant case could not properly pass judgment on the cross-claim is further strengthened by the fact that Del
Monte and ALU expressly recognized the jurisdiction of Voluntary Arbitrators in the CBA.
33
Estate
Abella
Estate of Nelson Dulay v. Aboitiz Jebsen Maritime, Inc.
G.R. No. 172642, June 13, 2012
Peralta, J.
Facts: Nelson Dulay worked as a seaman and, later on, as a bosun in General Charterers Inc., a subsidiary of Aboitiz
Jebsen Maritime, Inc. 25 days after the completion of his contract, Nelson died due to acute renal failure secondary
to septicaemia. His wife, Merridy Jane, claimed for death benefits through the grievance procedure of the CBA.
However, it was declared deadlocked as Aboitiz refused to grant the benefits. Merridy Jane then filed a complaint
with NLRC in General Santos City against respondents for death and medical benefits and damages. An amount of
P20 000 was released by respondent pursuant to the CBA. However, Merridy Jane contended that she is entitled
for $90 000. Respondent asserted that NLRC had no jurisdiction over the action on account of the absence of
employee-employer relationship between GCI and Nelson at the time of the latters death. The LA ruled in favor of
Nelson. The same was affirmed by NLRC. However, on appeal, CA ruled that it involves the interpretation and
application of the provisions of the CBA. As such, jurisdiction belongs to VA and not to the LA.
Issue: Whether the VA has jurisdiction over the case.
Ruling: Yes. The issue in the complaint clearly involves the interpretation or implementation of the CBA and thus,
jurisdiction belongs with VA. Articles 217(c) and 261 of the Labor Code provides that voluntary arbitrators have
jurisdiction over cases arising from the interpretation or implementation of collective bargaining agreements. In
any case, the Court agrees with petitioner's contention that the CBA is the law or contract between the parties.
Article13.1 of the CBA entered into by and between respondent GCI and AMOSUP, the union to which petitioner
belongs, provides that in case of conflict in the interpretation or application of the provisions of the CBA, or
enforcement of company policies, it shall be settled through negotiation, conciliation or voluntary arbitration.
From the foregoing, it is clear that the parties, in the first place, really intended to bring to conciliation or voluntary
arbitration any dispute or conflict in the interpretation or application of the provisions of their CBA. It is settled
that when the parties have validly agreed on a procedure for resolving grievances and to submit a dispute to
voluntary arbitration then that procedure should be strictly observed.
In the same manner, Section 29 of the prevailing Standard Terms and Conditions Governing the Employment of
Filipino Seafarers on Board Ocean Going Vessels, promulgated by the Philippine Overseas Employment
Administration (POEA), provides that in cases of claims and disputes arising from this employment, the parties
covered by a collective bargaining agreement shall submit the claim or dispute to the original and exclusive
jurisdiction of the voluntary arbitrator or panel of arbitrators. It is clear from the above that the interpretation of
the DOLE, in consultation with their counterparts in the respective committees of the Senate and the House of
Representatives, as well as the DFA and the POEA is that with respect to disputes involving claims of Filipino
seafarers wherein the parties are covered by a collective bargaining agreement, the dispute or claim should be
submitted to the jurisdiction of a voluntary arbitrator or panel of arbitrators. It is only in the absence of a collective
bargaining agreement that parties may opt to submit the dispute to either the NLRC or to voluntary arbitration.
34
Primero
Borlas
G.R. No. 72644 December 14, 1987
ALFREDO F. PRIMERO, petitioner, vs.INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT and DM TRANSIT, respondents.
NARVASA, J.:
Facts: Petitioner Primero was discharged, for no reason or cause was given, from his employment as bus driver of
DM Transit Corporation (DM) after having been employed therein for over 6 years. For 23 days, he was given a
run-around from one management official to another, pleading that he be allowed to work as his family was in dire
need of money and at the same time inquiring (why) he was not allowed to work or drive a bus of the company
however got negative results and given cold treatment. He was advised by Munoz, Jr., Corporate President, that he
18
The Arbiter's Compendium
Piedad
Facts: Jocelyn Galera is an American Citizen recruited by the WPP chairman to work in the Philippines. They
signed the contract providing for the benefits of housing and full maintenance of the company car. She was
designated as Vice President for WPP but on the following year, she was advised that her services were terminated.
Galera filed a complaint for illegal dismissal plus the benefits accorded her as an employee. The Labor Arbiter ruled
in favor of Galera but was reversed by the NLRC in lieu of her being a corporate officer and subject to the SEC rules.
Issue:
Whether
or
not
Galera
is
an
employee
or
corporate
officer
Ruling: She is an employee. Thus, this case is subject to the jurisdiction of the NLRC and the Labor Arbiter.
Corporate officers are given such character either by a corporation Code or by the corporations by-laws. Under
Sec. 25 of the Corporate Code, te corporate officers are the president, secretary and other officers as may be
provided by the by-laws. Other officers are sometimes created by the charter or by-laws of a corporation, or the
board of directors may be empowered under the by-laws to create additional offices as may be necessary.
In this case, it is found out that by the corporate by laws, only one Vice President position is created which is taken
and unamended during Galeras employment. Hence, with no corporate office to speak of but there is a valid
employment, Galera is an employee of the corporation.
40
Galera
Rigor
WPP VS. GALERA
G.R. NO. 169207
GALERA VS. WPP
G.R. NO. 169239
MARCH 25, 2010
CARPIO, Acting C.J.:
FACTS:
Petitioner is Jocelyn Galera, an American citizen who was recruited from the US by private respondent John
Steedman, Chairman-WPP Worldwide and Chief Executive Officer of Mindshare, Co., a corporation based in Hong
Kong, China, to work in the Philippines for private respondent WPP Marketing Communications, Inc. (WPP). On
December 14, 2000, GALERA alleged she was verbally notified by private STEEDMAN that her services had been
terminated from private respondent WPP. A termination letter followed the next day. On 3 January 2001, Galera
filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, holiday pay, service incentive leave pay, 13th month pay, incentive plan,
actual and moral damages, and attorney's fees against WPP and/or John Steedman (Steedman), Mark Webster
(Webster) and Nominada Lansang (Lansang). The Labor Arbiter's Ruling for illegal dismissal and damages in favor
of GALERA. The First Division of the NLRC reversed the ruling of Arbiter Madriaga. Yet it was reversed again by
CA.
ISSUE:
Whether Galera is an Employee or a Corporate Officer?
RULING: EMPLOYEE.
Galera, on the belief that she is an employee, filed her complaint before the Labor Arbiter. On the other hand, WPP,
Steedman, Webster and Lansang contend that Galera is a corporate officer; hence, any controversy regarding her
dismissal is under the jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Court. We agree with Galera. Corporate officers are given
such character either by the Corporation Code or by the corporation's by-laws. Galera's appointment as a corporate
officer (Vice-President with the operational title of Managing Director of Mindshare) during a special meeting of
WPP's Board of Directors is an appointment to a non-existent corporate office. At the time of Galera's appointment,
WPP already had one Vice-President in the person of Webster and all five directorship positions provided in the bylaws are already occupied. Another indicator that she was a regular employee and not a corporate officer is Section
14 of the contract, which clearly states that she is a permanent employee not a Vice-President or a member of the
Board of Directors. Another convincing indication that she was only a regular employee and not a corporate officer
is the disciplinary procedure, which states that her right of redress is through Mindshare's Chief Executive Officer
for the Asia-Pacific. This implies that she was not under the disciplinary control of private respondent WPP's Board
of Directors (BOD), which should have been the case if in fact she was a corporate officer because only the Board of
Directors
could
appoint
and
terminate
such
a
corporate
officer.
21
The Arbiter's Compendium
Whether
Reals
complaint
for
illegal
dismissal
constitutes
an
intra-corporate
controversy.
Ruling: No. The case does not involve an intra-corporate controversy. Not all conflicts between the stockholders
and the corporation are classified as intra-corporate. There are other factors to consider in determining whether the
dispute involves corporate matters as to consider them as intra-corporate controversies.
To determine whether a case involves an intra-corporate controversy, and is to be heard and decided by the
branches of the RTC specifically designated by the Court to try and decide such cases, two elements must concur:
(a) the status or relationship of the parties, and (2) the nature of the question that is the subject of their
controversy.
The first element requires that the controversy must arise out of intra-corporate or partnership relations between
any or all of the parties and the corporation. The second element requires that the dispute among the parties be
intrinsically connected with the regulation of the corporation. If the nature of the controversy involves matters that
23
The Arbiter's Compendium
Borlas
COMPANY,
petitioner,
vs.
CLARITA
T.
REYES,
respondent.
Facts: Clarita Tan Reyes was appointed Accounting Clerk by Prudential Bank and Trust Company (bank) and rose
to become supervisor. She was appointed Assistant Vice-President in the foreign department of the Bank, tasked
with the duties, among others, to collect checks drawn against overseas banks payable in foreign currency and to
ensure the collection of foreign bills or checks purchased, including the signing of transmittal letters covering the
same, until her illegal dismissal. Her length of service with the bank was equivalent to 28 years. The auditors of the
Bank discovered that two checks, received by the Bank were not sent out for collection to Hong Kong Shanghai
Banking Corporation (HSBC) on her order until the said checks became stale. After thorough investigation, the
Board has resolved not to re-elect her position here services were terminated. She filed a complaint for illegal
suspension and illegal dismissal and alleged that alleged that the real reason for her dismissal was her filing of the
criminal cases against the bank president, the vice president and the auditors of the Bank, such filing not being a
valid ground for her dismissal. LA ruled in favor of Reyes however NLRC reversed the said decision and ruled that
dismissal was valid. CA reinstated LAs decision hence this petition. The bank argued that the dispute is an intracorporate controversy as it does the non-election of private respondent to the position of Assistant Vice-President
of the Bank which falls under the exclusive and original jurisdiction of the Securities and Exchange Commission
(now
the Regional Trial Court)
under Section 5
of Presidential Decree No.
902-A.
Issue: Whether the dispute is an intra-corporate controversy?
Ruling: The banks contention that she merely holds an elective position and that in effect she is not a regular
employee is belied by the nature of her work and her length of service with the Bank. It has been stated that the
primary standard of determining regular employment is the reasonable connection between the particular activity
performed by the employee in relation to the usual trade or business of the employer. Additionally, an employee is
regular because of the nature of work and the length of service, not because of the mode or even the reason for
hiring them. As Assistant Vice-President of the Foreign Department of the Bank she performs tasks integral to the
operations of the bank and her length of service with the bank totaling 28 years speaks volumes of her status as a
regular employee of the bank. In fine, as a regular employee, she is entitled to security of tenure; that is, her
services
may
be
terminated
only
for
a
just
or
authorized
cause.
Petitioner Bank can no longer raise the issue of jurisdiction under the principle of estoppel. The Bank participated
in the proceedings from start to finish. It was only when the Court of Appeals ruled in favor of private respondent
did it raise the issue of jurisdiction. The Bank actively participated in the proceedings before the Labor Arbiter, the
NLRC and the Court of Appeals. . Hence, a party may be estopped or barred from raising the question of
jurisdiction for the first time in a petition before the Supreme Court when it failed to do so in the early stages of the
proceedings.
45
Rural
Gubantes
Rural Bank of Coron vs Cortes
A corporate officer may also be an employee whose dismissal may vest jurisdiction on the LA
FACTS
Annalisa Cortes was hired as the Corporate Secretary and Personnel Officer of the Rural Bank of Coron, and a
Personnel Officer of both Empire Cold Storage and Development Corporation, and Citizens Development Inc. Upon
inspection of the books of the said corporations where Annalisa was hired as a personnel officer, it was discovered
that the latter was involved in several anomalies, prompting them to terminate her services from the corporations.
Annalisa stated her willingness to abide the decision regarding her termination but stressed her right to separation
pay. When her demand went unheeded, she filed a complaint for illegal dismissal and non-payment of salaries and
other benefits. The petitioners moved for the dismissal of the complaint on the ground that it was an intracorporate controversy involving the removal of a corporate officer. The LA found that Annalisa was not a corporate
officer, and thus the case falls within the ambit of the jurisdiction of the LA.
ISSUE
WON Cortes is a corporate officer of the said corporations.
RULING
No. While Cortes was the Corporate Secretary of the Rural Bank of Coron, she was also its Financial Assistant and
the Personnel Officer of the two other petitioner corporations. Jurisprudence instructs that a corporation can
engage its corporate officers to perform services under a circumstance which would make them employees. The
Labor Arbiter has thus jurisdiction over Cortes' complaint.
46
Feliciano
Jimenez
24
The Arbiter's Compendium
its
employees)
Facts:
COA assessed Leyte Metropolitan Water District (LMWD) auditing fees. Petitioner Feliciano, as General Manager
of LMWD, contended that the water district could not pay the said fees on the basis of Sections 6 and 20 of P.D. No.
198 as well as Section 18 of R.A. No. 6758. He primarily claimed that LMWD is a private corporation not covered by
COA's jurisdiction. Petitioner also asked for refund of all auditing fees LMWD previously paid to COA. COA
Chairman denied petitioners requests. Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration which COA denied. Hence, this
petition.
Issue: Whether a Local Water District (LWD) created under PD 198, as amended, is a government-owned or
controlled corporation subject to the audit jurisdiction of COA or a private corporation which is outside of COAs
audit jurisdiction.
Ruling:
Petition lacks merit. The Constitution under Sec. 2(1), Article IX-D and existing laws mandate COA to audit all
government agencies, including government-owned and controlled corporations with original charters. An LWD is
a GOCC with an original charter. The COA audit jurisdiction extends not only to government agencies or
instrumentalities but also to government owned and controlled corporation with original charters as well as
other government-owned or controlled corporations wthout original charters.
The determining factor of COAs audit jurisdiction is government ownership or control of the corporation.
47
Luzviminda
Jurado
Luzviminda Ang V. PNB
GR 178762. June 16,10
Ponente. Abad
Facts PNB, then a GOCC, hired Ang as a probationary clerk, eventually became an Asst. Manger. When the PNB
was privatized, she was deemd automatically retired. But the PNB re- employed her and assigned her in
Tuguegarao. Subsequently, PNB administratively charged her with serious misconduct and willful breach of trust
for taking part in a scam called " kiting operwtion. " where a depositor used a conduit account for depositing several
unfunded checks drawn against the same depositor's other current accounts and from which the conduit bank
account he later withdrew those checks. Ang contended that the bank did not suffer loss and alos pointed out that
th causes for her terminationtook place when she was yet a government official, that the PNB had ceased to be
government owned.
Issue. whether the contetion of Ang is meritorious?
Held. No. When PNB began as a Government Corporation, it did not mean that its corporate being ceased, and
was subsequently re-established when it was privatized.
It remained th same corporate entity before, during, and after the change over with no break in its life as a
corporation. The offenses that Ang committed against the bank before its privatization continued to be offenses
against the bank after privatization.
48
Casino
Casino labor ASSOCIATION vs. CA,PCOC and PSSC
Ponente: PUNO C.J.:
JURISDICTION ON GOCC DISMISSAL CASE
Otsuka
Facts: On July 20, 1987, the Labor Arbiter dismissed the consolidated cases for lack of jurisdiction as well as the
NLRC as the same over PAGCOR , PCOC and PSSC. The petitioner filed a motion for review on certiorari to the CA
which was denied, the same with the petition for reconsideration filed by the petitioner with finality dated March
15,
1989
Resolution
.
The resolution in part states:
xxx Any petitions brought against private companies will have to be brought before the appropriate agency or
office
of
the
of
the
Department
of
Labor
and
Employment.
Petitioner filed a manifestation/ motion that the records of the case be remanded to the Arbitration Branch for
proper prosecution and disposition thereof which was granted on 30th of June 1989 for further proceedings. The
petitioner appeals via certiorari on the grounds that NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion.
Issue:
Whether
the
NLRC
have
jurisdiction
over
the
E-ER
REL
problems
over
GOCC.
Held: NO. the NLRC has no jurisdiction over PAGCOR, PCOC and PSSC. In accordance with the Constitution and
25
The Arbiter's Compendium
Whether
or
not
Petitioners
are
entitled
to
the
benefits
of
the
Retirement
Pay
Law.
Ruling: Yes. The respondent was incorporated as a non-profit, benevolent and non-stock corporation under the
Corporation Code. Having been created under the general corporation law instead of a special charter, we hold that
the
respondent
is
a
private
and
not
a
governmental
corporation.
The Philippine Tuberculosis Society, Inc. (PTSI) belongs to the latter category and, therefore, covered by Rep. Act
No. 7641 which is an amendment to the Labor Code. Extant on the records is the respondents admission that
although its employees are compulsory members of the GSIS, said employees are not governed by the Civil Service
Law. If the respondent is truly a government-owned or controlled corporation, and petitioners are employees in
the public sector, then, they should have been covered by said law. The truth, however, is that, the respondent is a
non-profit but private corporation organized under the Corporation Code, and the petitioners are covered by the
Labor Code and not by the Civil Service Law.
Employees of government-owned and controlled corporations with special charters are covered under the Civil
Service. On the other hand, employees of government-owned and controlled corporations under the Corporation
Code are governed by the provisions of the Labor Code.
50
Camporedondo
Rigor
BALTAZAR CAMPOREDONDO VS. NLRC
G.R.
NO.
129049
AUGUST
6,
1999
PARDO, J.:
FACTS:
Petitioner was employed with the Philippine National Red Cross (PNRC) since 1980, and until his early
retirement on December 15, 1995, he was administrator of the Surigao del Norte Chapter, Philippine National
Red Cross. Then field auditor of the PNRC conducted an audit of the books of account of the Surigao del Norte
Chapter headed by petitioner and found him short in the total sum of P109,000.00. Dr. Celso Samson, Secretary
General of the PNRC wrote petitioner requiring him to restitute within seventy two hours from notice, the total sum
of P135,927.78 representing cash shortage, technical shortage and unremitted collections. Upon filing his early
retirement he wrote a letter to Dr. Samson requesting for a re-audit by an independent auditor of his accounts.
However, Dr. Samson denied the request. Because of denying his request petitioner filed with the National Labor
Relations Commission complaint for illegal dismissal, damages and underpayment of wages against the Philippine
National Red Cross and its key officials. Respondent Philippine National Red Cross filed with the Surigao del Norte
provincial office, Department of Labor and Employment, a motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of jurisdiction
over the subject matter of the case because the PNRC is a government corporation whose employees are members
of the Government Service Insurance System, and embraced within the Civil Service Law and regulations.
Petitioner filed an opposition to motion to dismiss arguing that there was between the PNRC and its duly appointed
paid staff, an employer-employee relationship, governed by the Labor Code of the Philippines. The Labor Arbiter
issued an order dismissing the complaint for lack of jurisdiction, finding that the Philippine National Red Cross is a
government corporation with an original charter, having been created by Republic Act No. 95. Petitioner filed an
appeal but the NLRC denied the petition and upheld Labor arbiters decision that dismissed petitioners complaint
for lack of jurisdiction.
ISSUE: Whether the Philippine National Red Cross is a government owned and controlled corporation or it has
26
The Arbiter's Compendium
whether
the
LA
and/or
the
NLRC
has
jurisdiction
over
the
case.
Ruling - The Labor Arbiter and the NLRC do not have jurisdiction over LRTA. Petitioners themselves admitted in
their complaint that LRTA is a government agency organized and existing pursuant to an original charter
(Executive Order No. 603), and that they are employees of METRO. Light Rail Transit Authority v. Venus, Jr., 485
SCRA 361 (2006), which has a similar factual backdrop, holds that LRTA, being a government-owned or controlled
corporation created by an original charter, is beyond the reach of the Department of Labor and Employment which
has jurisdiction over workers in the private sector, viz:
. . . [E]mployees of petitioner METRO cannot be considered as employees of petitioner LRTA. The employees hired
by METRO are covered by the Labor Code and are under the jurisdiction of the Department of Labor and
Employment, whereas the employees of petitioner LRTA, a government-owned and controlled corporation with
original charter, are covered by civil service rules. Herein private respondent workers cannot have the best of two
worlds, e.g., be considered government employees of petitioner LRTA, yet allowed to strike as private employees
under our labor laws. x x x.
53
Pakistan
Abella
Pakistan International Airlines Corp. v. Ople
GR No. 61594, September 28, 1990
Feliciano, J.
Facts: Pakistan International Airlines Corporation (PIA), a foreign corporation, executed in Manila two separate
contracts of employment with private respondents, Farrales and Mamasig. The contract provides the following:
5. DURATION OF EMPLOYMENT AND PENALTY
This agreement is for a period of 3 years, but can be extended by the mutual consent of the parties.
6. TERMINATION
Notwithstanding anything to contrary as herein provided, PIA reserves the right to terminate this agreement at any
time by giving the EMPLOYEE notice in writing in advance one month before the intended termination or in lieu
thereof,
by
paying
the
EMPLOYEE
wages
equivalent
to
one
months
salary.
10. APPLICABLE LAW
This agreement shall be construed and governed under and by the laws of Pakistan, and only the Courts of Karachi,
Pakistan shall have the jurisdiction to consider any matter arising out of or under this agreement.
Private respondents were hired as flight attendants after undergoing training. Sometime prior to the expiration of
the contracts of employment, PIA sent separate letters informing them that they will be terminated. Private
respondents jointly instituted a complaint for illegal dismissal and non-payment of company benefits and bonuses
against PIA with the Ministry of Labor and Employment. PIA claimed that the services of both private respondents
were terminated pursuant to the provisions of the employment contract. Private respondents had a favourable
decision stating that private respondents had attained the status of regular employees after they had rendered more
than a year of continued service; that the stipulation limiting the period of the employment contract to 3 years was
null and void as violative of the provisions of the Labor Code and its implementing rules and regulations on regular
and casual employment; and that the dismissal, having been carried out without the requisite clearance from the
MOLE, was illegal. The decision was sustained on appeal.
Issue: Whether Pakistan law should be applied in the case as provided in the contract.
Ruling: The Sc held that PIA cannot take refuge in paragraph 10 of its employment agreement which specifies,
firstly, the law of Pakistan as the applicable law of the agreement and, secondly, lays the venue for settlement of any
dispute arising out of or in connection with the agreement only in courts of Karachi, Pakistan. The first clause of
paragraph 10 cannot be invoked to prevent the application of Philippine labor laws and regulations to the subject
matter of this case, , i.e., the employer-employee relationship between petitioner PIA and private respondents. It
has already been pointed out that relationship is much affected with public interest and that the otherwise
applicable Philippine laws and regulations cannot be rendered illusory by the parties agreeing upon some other law
28
The Arbiter's Compendium
Whether
SEAFDEC
is
an
international
agency
enjoying
diplomatic
immunity?
Ruling: It is beyond question that petitioner SEAFDEC is an international agency enjoying diplomatic immunity.
Furthermore, Section 2 of the same decree had provided for the autonomous character of SEAFDEC. Anent the
issue of waiver of immunity, suffice it to say at the moment that the petitioner has timely raised the issue of
jurisdiction. While the petitioner did not question the public respondent's lack of jurisdiction at the early stages of
the proceedings, it, nevertheless, did so before it rested its case and certainly well before the proceedings thereat
had terminated.
55
Department
Gubantes
DFA vs NLRC
Cases involving entities immune from suit
Private respondent initiated NLRC-NCR case for his alleged illegal dismissal by ADB and the latter's violation of the
labor-only contracting law. ADB and the DFA notified respondent Labor Arbiter that the ADB, as well as its
President and Office, were covered by an immunity from legal process. The LA took cognizance of the complaint on
the impression that the ADB had waived its diplomatic immunity from suit and ruled in favor of the employee. ADB
did not appeal the decision. DFA referred the matter to the NLRC and sought a formal vacation of the void
judgment. NLRC ruled that the defense of immunity could have been raised before the LA by a special appearance,
which may not be considered as a waiver of the very defense being raised. According to NLRC, any decision
thereafter is subject to legal remedies, including appeals to the appropriate division of the Commission. They
suggested that an appropriate complaint be lodged with Ombudsman if the DFA feels that the action of LA was
misconduct.
ISSUE
WON diplomatic immunity is extended to the ADB.
RULING
Yes. Article 50(1) of the Charter provides that the Bank shall enjoy immunity from every form of legal process,
except in cases arising out of or in connection with the exercise of its powers to borrow money, to guarantee
obligations, or to buy and sell or underwrite the sale of securities. The stipulations of both the Charter and
29
The Arbiter's Compendium
Ebro
59
Pacific
Pacific Consultant International, Asia, Inc. V. Schofeld
GR 166920. Feb 19, 07
Ponente. Callejo, Sr.
Carpio
Jurado
Facts.
Respondent is a Canadian Citizen and was a resident of British Columbia, Canada. He had been a
consultant in the field of environmenta, engineering. The petitioner was engaged in the business of providing
specialty and technical services. Eventually, Schonfeld was hired as a Sector Manager for water and sanitation woth
a condition that any questions regarding the conditions of mplyment between the employee and the company is to
be settled by the Courtof Arbitration in London. Unfortunately, respondent was terminated for the reason that the
company was not successful in the water and sanitation business. the respondent filed a complaint for illegal
dismissal against the petitioner before the Labor Arbiter. petitioner contended that the venue was improperly laid
under the conditions on employment, the parties had agreed that any employment related dispute be brought
before the London Clurt of Arbitration.
Issue. whether the contetion of the petitioner is valid?
Held. No. The rule on stipulations regakrding the venue qre considered valid and enforceable, venue stipualtion
in a contrqct do not supersede the general rule set forth in rule 4 of the rules of court in the absence of qualifying or
restrictive words. they should be consijdered merely as an agreement or additonal forum, not as limitng venur to
30
The Arbiter's Compendium
Aleman
Carpio
65
Rubberworld
RUBBERWORLD INC V NLRC
Valera
FACTS:
Petitioner filed a petition for suspension of payments praying that it be declared in a state of suspension of
payments and that the SEC accordingly issue an order restraining its creditors from enforcing their claims against
petitioner
corporation.
The
SEC
favorably
ruled
the
petition.
Private respondents who claim to be employees of the petitioner filed against the latter for complaints of illegal
dismissal, unfair labor practice, damages and payment of separation pay, retirement benefits, 13th month pay and
service incentive pay.
Petitioners moved to suspend the proceedings by virtue of the SEC order but the LA denied the said motion holding
that the said order did not include the suspension of proceedings involving claims against petitioner which have yet
to be ascertained. Hence this petition.
ISSUE:
Whether the NLRC acted in grave abuse of its discretion in affirming the order of LA denying the motion to
suspend proceeding despite the order of the SEC.
RULING:
Yes. Labor claims included in suspension order.
Upon the creation of management committee or the appointment of a rehabilitation receiver, ALL claims for
actions shall be suspended accordingly. No exception in favor of labor claims is mentioned in the law. Since the
law
makes
no
distinction,
neither
should
the
copurt.
Allowing the labor cases to proceed clearly defeats the purpose of automatic stay and severely encumbers the
management committees time and resources.
66
Central
Abad
Case title Central Pangasinan Electric Coop., Inc v. Macaraeg
GR number 145800
Date 22 January 2003
33
The Arbiter's Compendium
Abella
Facts: Private respondents Faburada et al. filed a complaint against PHCCI for illegal dismissal, premium pay,
separation pay, wage differential, moral damages and attorneys fees. Petitioner PHCCI filed a motion to dismiss
the complaint on the ground that there is no employer-employee relationship between them as private respondents
are all members and co-owners of the cooperative. Furthermore, private respondents have not exhausted the
remedies provided in the cooperative by-laws. Petitioner filed a supplemental motion to dismiss alleging that
Article 121 of R.A. No. 6939, otherwise known as the Cooperative Development Authority Law which requires
conciliation or mediation within the cooperative before a resort to judicial proceeding. The Labor Arbiter denied
petitioners motion to dismiss, holding that the case is impressed with employer-employee relationship and that the
law on cooperatives is subservient to the Labor Code. NLRC affirmed the same.
Issue: Whether respondent judge committed grave abuse of discretion in ruling that there is an employer-employee
relationship between the parties and that private respondents were illegally dismissed.
Ruling: No. The SC supports the findings of the respondent court. In determining the existence of an employeremployee relationship, the following elements are considered: (1 ) the selection and engagement of the worker or
the power to hire; (2) the power to dismiss; (3) the payment of wages by whatever means; and (4) the power to
control the workers conduct, with the latter assuming primacy in the overall consideration. No particular form of
proof is required to prove the existence of an employer-employee relationship. Any competent and relevant
evidence may show the relationship.
The above elements are present in the case . Petitioner PHCCI, through Mr. Edilberto Lantaca, Jr., its Manager,
hired private respondents to work for it. They worked regularly on regular working hours, were assigned specific
duties, were paid regular wages and made to accomplish daily time records just like any other regular employee.
They worked under the supervision of the cooperative manager. But unfortunately, they were dismissed. That an
employer-employee exists between the parties is shown by the averments of private respondents in their respective
affidavits.
Article 121 of Republic Act No. 6938 (Cooperative Code of the Philippines) provides the procedure how cooperative
disputes are to be resolved, thus:
ART. 121. Settlement of Disputes. Disputes among members, officers, directors, and committee members, and
intra-cooperative disputes shall, as far as practicable, be settled amicably in accordance with the conciliation or
34
The Arbiter's Compendium
J.:
37
Valera
FACTS:
Petitioners were employees as flight attendants of respondent PAL. They were members of Flight Attendants and
Stewards Association of the Phils (FASAP). The petitioners manifested that the CBA provision on the compulsory
retirement (female 55 y.o; male 60 y.o) was discriminatory. They filed a special civil action for declaratory relief
with a prayer for the issueance of TRO and writ of preliminary injunction with the RTC. The RTC issued an order
enjoining the respondent for implementing Sec 144 of the CBA
.
Respondents filed a petition for certiorari before the CA praying that the order of RTC be annulled and set aside for
having issued without and/or grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. The CA granted,
declaring RTC to have no jurisdiction over the case. Hence this petition.
ISSUE:
Whether the RTC has jurisdiction over petitioners action challenging the legality or constitutionality of the
provisions on compulsory retirement age contained in the CBA between PAL and FASAP.
RULING:
Yes. From the petitioners allegations and relief prayed for its clear that the issue raised is whether the Sec 144 part
A of the PAL-FASAP CBA is unlawful and unconstitutional. Here, the petitoners primary relief is the annulment of
the Sec 144 Part A which allegedly discriminates against them for being female flight attendants. The subject of the
litigation is incapable of pecuniary estimation, exclusively cognizable by the RTC, pursuant to Sec 19 of BP 129, as
amended. Being an ordinary action, the same is beyond the jurisdiction of labor tribunals. The said issue cannot be
solved solely applying the LC. Rather, it requires the application of Constitution, labor statues, law on contracts and
the convention on the elimination of all forms of discrimination against women, and the power to apply and
interpret the constitution and CEDAW is within the jurisdiction of trial court, a court of general jurisdiction.
76
Georg
Abad
Case title Georg Grotjahn GMBH & Co. v. Isnani
GR number 109272
Date 10 August 1994
Ponente - PUNO, J
Facts - Petitioner is a multinational company organized and existing under the laws of the Federal Republic of
Germany. Private respondent Lanchinebre was a sales representative of petitioner. Sometime on March 1992, she
secured a loan from petitioner and made additional cash advances. Despite demand, private respondent Romana
failed
to
settle
her
obligation
with
petitioner.
Private respondent Lanchinebre filed with the Arbitration Branch of the NLRC in Manila, a Complaint for illegal
suspension, dismissal and non-payment of commissions against petitioner. On August 18, 1992, petitioner in turn
filed against private respondent a Complaint for damages. Petitioner filed another Complaint for collection of sum
of money against private respondents spouses Romana and Teofilo Lanchinebre. Instead of filing their Answer,
38
The Arbiter's Compendium
Piedad
Cruz, J.:
Facts: Private respondents were employees of the petitioner who were suspected of complicity in the irregular
disposition of empty bottles of Pepsi Cola.Petitioners filed a criminal complaint against this employees but was
later withdrawn and substituted with the criminal complaint of falsification of private documents. After a
preliminary investigation was conducted, it was dismissed. After the Administrative investigation, the respondents
were dismissed by the petitioner. Aggrieved, respondents filed a civil complaint for malicious proseuion in the RTC
of TAnauan, Leyte. Petitioner cried lack of jurisdiction by the Trial Court.
Issue: Whether or not the Trial court has jurisdiction of the civil complaint.
Ruling: Yes. It must be stressed that not every controversy involving workers and their employers can be resolved
only by the Labor Arbiter.
This will be so only if there is a reasonable causal connection between the claim asserted and the employeeemployer relations to put the case under the provision of Article 217. Absent such a link, the complaint will be
cognizable by the regular courts of justice in the exercise of their civil and criminal jurisdiction.
The case now before the court involves a complaint for damages for malicious prosecution which was filed with the
RTC of Leyte by the employees of the defendant. It does not appear that there is a reasonable causal connection
between the complaint and the employer- employee relationship that will warrant the jurisdiction of the Labor
Arbiter.
84
Bright Maritime
Carpio
85
Pioneer
86
Garcia
GARCIA VS. PAL
G.R.
NO.
CARPIO MORALES, J.:
Rigor
164856
JANUARY
20,
2009
FACTS:
This case stemmed from an administrative charge filed by PAL against employees, herein petitioners after allegedly
42
The Arbiter's Compendium
Valera
FACTS:
Velasco was employed by Pfizer as professional health care representative. Due to her pregnancy, she was advised
bed rest which resulted to her leave of absence. While on leave, she was advised upon the investigation of her
possible company violations. On the 2nd and 3rd show cause notice she refused to answer and later she was advised
that the petitioner already terminated her services. Velasco filed a complaint before the LA which declared the
dismissal illegal ordering her reinstatement with backwages further awarding moral and exemplary damages plus
attys fees. The petitioner appealed to the NLRC but was denied and deleted the respondents award for damages.
Petitioner then filed with the CA a special civil action for issuance of writ of certiorari under rule 65. CA upheld the
validity of respondents dismissal.
CA later modified its earlier decision ordering Pfizer to pay respondent her wages from the date of LAs decision up
to CAs decision. Pfizer contend that there was no unjustified refusal on its part because It was respondent who
refused to return to work. Hence this petition.
ISSUE:
RULING:
The petition is without merit. Under Art 223 of the LC, an employee entitled to reinstatement shall either be
entitled back to work under the same terms and conditions prevailing prior to his dismissal or separation or at the
option of the employer, merely reinstated in the payroll. It is established in jurisprudence that reinstatement
means restoration to a state or condition from which had been removed or separated. The person reinstated
assumes the position he had occupied. In the present case, the petitioner did not comply with the rule on
reinstatement, under the same terms and conditions because they sent a letter informing respondent of her
transfer of work assignment form Baguio City to Makati City.
88
Aboc
Abad
Case title Aboc v. Metrobank
GR number 170542-43
Date 13 December 2010
Ponente - MENDOZA, J
Facts - These two cases stemmed from a complaint for illegal dismissal and damages filed by Aboc against
Metrobank. Aboc, the Regional Operations Coordinator of Metrobank in Cebu City alleged that he received an
inter-office letter, requiring him to explain in writing the charges that he had actively participated in the lending
activities of his immediate supervisor, Chua the Branch Manager of Metrobank where he was assigned.
Metrobank, on the other hand, replied that, Chua, Judith Eva Cabrido (assistant manager), Arthur Arcepi
(accountant), and Aboc organized a credit union known as Cebu North Road Investment (CNRI). Said officers and
employees used Metrobanks premises, equipment and facilities in their lending business.
Metrobank then required Aboc to submit a written explanation why he should not be dismissed for cause and
attend a conference in which he was allowed to bring a counsel of his own choice.
Thereafter, Metrobank found that Abocs actions constituted serious misconduct and a breach of trust and
confidence. Metrobank then terminated his services.
LA rendered her decision, finding that Aboc was illegally dismissed from the service by Metrobank. Consequently,
Metrobank was ordered to reinstate complainant Aboc to his former position or to a substantially equivalent
position without loss of seniority rights and other privileges, and to pay said complainant.
NLRC set aside the decision of the LA but ordered Metrobank to pay Aboc reinstatement wages. Aggrieved,
Metrobank challenged the grant of monetary award in a petition before the CA to which the latter affirmed decision
of the NLRC.
Issue - Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in ruling that the Metrobank was liable to pay the monetary
award claimed by Aboc.
Ruling - The monetary award granted to Aboc was warranted under the law and jurisprudence. In the case at
bench, it cannot be denied that Metrobank opted to reinstate Aboc in its payroll. Since Metrobank chose payroll
reinstatement for Aboc, the Court agrees with the CA that he then became a reinstated regular employee. This
means that he was restored to his previous position as a regular employee without loss of seniority rights and other
privileges appurtenant thereto. His payroll reinstatement put him on equal footing with the other regular
44
The Arbiter's Compendium
Abella
Facts: An anonymous e-mail was sent to the General Manager of Amkor Technology Philippines detailing
allegations of malfeasance on the part of its supervisory employees Lunesa Lansangan and Rosita Cendaa for
"stealing company time." Respondent thus investigated the matter, requiring petitioners to submit their written
explanation. Petitioners admitted their wrongdoing. Respondent thereupon terminated petitioners for "extremely
serious offenses" as defined in its Code of Discipline, prompting petitioners to file a complaint for illegal dismissal
against it. The labor arbiter Arthur L. Amansec dismissed petitioners complaint, he having found them guilty of
swiping another employees I.D. card or requesting another employee to swipe ones I.D. card to gain personal
advantage and in the interest of cheating, an offense of dishonesty punishable as a serious form of misconduct and
fraud or breach of trust under Article 282 of the Labor Code, which allows the dismissal of an employee for a valid
cause.
The Arbiter, however, ordered the reinstatement of petitioners to their former positions without backwages
"as a measure of equitable and compassionate relief". On appeal, the NLRC granted
Respondents appeal by deleting the reinstatement aspect of the Arbiters decision. CA while affirming the finding
that petitioners were guilty of misconduct and the like, ordered respondent to pay petitioners their corresponding
backwages without qualification and deduction for the period covering October 20, 2004 (date of the
Arbiters decision) up to June 30, 2005 (date of the NLRC Decision) citing Article 223 of the Labor Code and
Roquero v. PAL.
Issue: Whether petitioner is entitled to backwages under Ativle 223 of the Labor Code.
Ruling: No. Roquero, as well as Article 223 of the Labor Code on which the appellate court also relied, finds no
application in the present case. Article 223 concerns itself with an interim relief, granted to a dismissed or
separated employee while the case for illegal dismissal is pending appeal, as what happened in Roquero. It does
not apply where there is no finding of illegal dismissal, as in the present case. The Arbiter found petitioners
dismissal to be valid. Such finding had, as stated earlier, become final, petitioners not having appealed it.
Following Article 279 which provides: In cases of regular employment, the employer shall not terminate
the services of an employee except for a just cause or when authorized by this Title. An employee who is unjustly
dismissed from work shall be entitled to reinstatement without loss of seniority rights and other privileges and to
his full backwages, inclusive of allowances, and to his other benefits or their monetary equivalent computed from
the time his compensation was withheld from him up to the time of his actual reinstatement petitioners are not
entitled to full backwages as their dismissal was not found to be illegal. Agabon v. NLRC so states, payment of
backwages and other benefits is justified only if the employee was unjustly dismissed.
90
Alcantara
Borlas
G.R. No. 155109/G.R. No. 155135/G.R. No. 179220, September 29, 2010
C. Alcantara & Sons, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals / Nagkahiusang Mamumuno sa Alsons-SPFL (NAMAAL-SPFL), et al.
vs. C. Alcantara & Sons, Inc., et al. / Nagkahiusang Mamumuno sa Alsons-SPFL (NAMAAL-SPFL), et al. vs. C.
Alcantara & Sons, Inc., et al.,
ABAD, J.:
Facts: C. Alcantara & Sons, Inc., (the Company) is a domestic corporation engaged in the manufacture and
processing of plywood. Nagkahiusang Mamumuo sa Alsons-SPFL (the Union) is the exclusive bargaining agent of
the Companys rank and file employees. The other parties to these cases are the Union officers and their striking
members. The Company and the Union filed a notice of strike when their negotiation regarding the economic
provisions of their CBA ended in a deadlock. The Union went on strike and the Company filed a petition for the
issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction with NLRC to enjoin the strikers from intimidating, threatening,
45
The Arbiter's Compendium
Gubantes
FACTS
Virgilio Magallanes started working in 1988 as a utility man for Laurencito Tiu, Chief Executive Officer of
Millennium Erectors Corporation. He was assigned to different construction projects undertaken by petitioner in
Metro Manila, the last of which was for a building in Libis, Quezon City. In July of 2004, he was told not to report
for work anymore allegedly due to old age, prompting him to file an illegal dismissal complaint before the LA. The
LA rule in favor of the petitioner and dismissed the complaint, holding that respondent knew of the nature of his
46
The Arbiter's Compendium
Auza
Carpio
95
Opinaldo
Carpio
96
Carpio
97
Flores
98
SAntos
Flores
47
The Arbiter's Compendium
Intertanz
Flores
101
Maynilad
Flores
102
Sapitan
Flores
103
Andrew
Jurado
ANDREW JAMES MCBURNIE V. EULALIO GANZON, EGI-MANAGERS, INC. and E. GANZON, INC.
G.R. Nos. 178034 & 178117 G R. Nos. 186984-85 October 17, 2013
Ponente. REYES, J
Facts: McBurnie, an Australian national, signed a five-year employment agreement5 with the company EGI as an
Executive Vice-President who shall oversee the management of the companys hotels and resorts within the
Philippines. When he figured in an accident that compelled him to go back to Australia while recuperating from his
injuries. While in Australia, he was informed by respondent Ganzon that his services were no longer needed
because their intended project would no longer push through. He instituted a complaint for illegal dismissal and
other monetary claims against the respondents. The respondents opposed and contended that their agreement was
to jointly invest in and establish a company for the management of hotels. They did not intend to create an
employer-employee relationship, and the execution of the employment contract that was being invoked by
McBurnie was solely for the purpose of allowing McBurnie to obtain an alien work permit in the Philippines. The
LA declared McBurnie as having been illegally dismissed from employment. The respondents appealed the LAs
Decision to the NLRC. They filed Motion to Reduce Bond, and posted an appeal bond in the amount of
P100,000.00 and contended that the monetary awards of the LA were null and excessive, allegedly with the
intention of rendering them incapable of posting the necessary appeal bond considering petitioner is a single
foreigner who had no work permit and who left the country for good one month after the purported
commencement of his employment" was a patent nullity and respondents lacked the capacity to pay the bond of
almost P60 Million due to business losses. The said motion was denied as well as their motion for reconsideration.
Petition for certiorari was filed and CA ruled that the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion in immediately
denying the motion without fixing an appeal bond in an amount that was reasonable, as it denied the respondents
of their right to appeal from the decision of the LA.29 The CA explained that "(w)hile Art. 223 of the Labor Code
requiring bond equivalent to the monetary award is explicit, Section 6, Rule VI of the NLRC Rules of Procedure, as
amended, recognized as exception a motion to reduce bond upon meritorious grounds and upon posting of a bond
in a reasonable amount in relation to the monetary award.
Issue:
Whether
NLRC
erred
in
denying
the
motion
to
reduce
appeal
bond
by
respondents?
Ruling: The posting of a bond is indispensable to the perfection of an appeal in cases involving monetary awards
from the decision of the Labor Arbiter. The word "only" in Section 6, Rule VI of the 2011 NLRC Rules of Procedure
makes it clear that the posting of a cash or surety bond by the employer is the essential and exclusive means by
which
an
employers
appeal
may
be
perfected.
The prevailing jurisprudence on the matter provides that the filing of a motion to reduce bond, coupled with
compliance with the two conditions emphasized in Garcia v. KJ Commercial for the grant of such motion, namely,
(1) a meritorious ground, and (2) posting of a bond in a reasonable amount, shall suffice to suspend the running of
the period to perfect an appeal from the labor arbiters decision to the NLRC. To require the full amount of the
bond within the 10-day reglementary period would only render nugatory the legal provisions which allow an
appellant to seek a reduction of the bond.
Jurisprudence tells us that in labor cases, an appeal from a decision involving a monetary award may be perfected
only upon the posting of cash or surety bond. The Court, however, has relaxed this requirement under certain
exceptional circumstances in order to resolve controversies on their merits. These circumstances include: (1)
fundamental consideration of substantial justice; (2) prevention of miscarriage of justice or of unjust enrichment;
and (3) special circumstances of the case combined with its legal merits, and the amount and the issue involved.
Furthermore, on the matter of the filing and acceptance of motions to reduce appeal bond, as provided in Section 6,
Rule VI of the 2011 NLRC Rules of Procedure, the Court hereby RESOLVES that henceforth, the following
guidelines shall be observed:
(a) The filing o a motion to reduce appeal bond shall be entertained by the NLRC subject to the following
conditions: (1) there is meritorious ground; and (2) a bond in a reasonable amount is posted;
(b) For purposes o compliance with condition no. (2), a motion shall be accompanied by the posting o a provisional
cash or surety bond equivalent to ten percent (10,) of the monetary award subject o the appeal, exclusive o damages
48
The Arbiter's Compendium
Wilgen
Piedad
106
Banahaw
BANAHAW VS. CAYETANO
G.R. No. 171673 MAY 20, 2011
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.:
Rigor
FACTS:
Respondents in the case at bar, Cayetano , and others (collectively, the DXWG personnel), are supervisory and
rank and file employees of the DXWG-Iligan City radio station which is owned by petitioner Banahaw Broadcasting
Corporation (BBC), a corporation managed by Intercontinental Broadcasting Corporation (IBC). The DXWG
personnel filed with the Sub-regional Arbitration Branch No. XI, Iligan City a complaint for illegal dismissal, unfair
labor practice, reimbursement of unpaid Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) benefits, and attorneys fees
against IBC and BBC. The labor arbiter rendered a decision in favor of the employees. A Motion to Dismiss,
Release, Waiver and Quitclaim, was jointly filed by IBC and the DXWG personnel based on the latters admission
that IBC is not their employer as it does not own DXWG-Iligan City. This was granted. BBC later on was held as the
person who must be the only liable. Both BBC and respondents appealed to the NLRC anew, for the insufficient
satisfaction of the awarded monetary worth to DXWG. The NLRC issued an Order denying the Motion for the
Recomputation of the Monetary Award. According to the NLRC, such recomputation would result in the premature
resolution of the issue raised on appeal. The NLRC ordered BBC to post the required bond within 10 days from
receipt of said Order, with a warning that noncompliance will cause the dismissal of the appeal for non-perfection.
Instead of complying with the Order to post the required bond, BBC filed a Motion for Reconsideration, alleging
this time that since it is wholly owned by the Republic of the Philippines, it need not post an appeal bond.
The NLRC dismissed the joint petition.
Upon review by Rule 65 to the Court of Appeals, it rendered the assailed Decision denying BBCs Petition for
Certiorari. The Court of Appeals held that BBC, though owned by the government, is a corporation with a
personality distinct from the Republic or any of its agencies or instrumentalities, and therefore do not partake in
the latters exemption from the posting of appeal bonds.
ISSUE: Whether or not BBC is exempt from posting an appeal bond?
RULING: NO.
As a general rule, the government and all the attached agencies with no legal personality distinct from the former
are exempt from posting appeal bonds, whereas government-owned and controlled corporations (GOCCs) are not
similarly exempted. This distinction is brought about by the very reason of the appeal bond itself: to protect the
presumptive judgment creditor against the insolvency of the presumptive judgment debtor. When the State
litigates, it is not required to put up an appeal bond because it is presumed to be always solvent. [36] This
exemption, however, does not, as a general rule, apply to GOCCs for the reason that the latter has a personality
distinct from its shareholders. Thus, while a GOCCs majority stockholder, the State, will always be presumed
solvent, the presumption does not necessarily extend to the GOCC itself. However, when a GOCC becomes a
government machinery to carry out a declared government policy, it becomes similarly situated as its majority
stockholder as there is the assurance that the government will necessarily fund its primary functions. Thus, a
GOCC that is sued in relation to its governmental functions may be, under appropriate circumstances, exempted
from
the
payment
of
appeal
fees.
In the case at bar, BBC was organized as a private corporation, sequestered in the 1980s and the ownership of
which was subsequently transferred to the government in a compromise agreement. Further, it is stated in its
Amended Articles of Incorporation that BBC has the following primary function:
To engage in commercial radio and television broadcasting, and for this purpose, to establish, operate and maintain
such stations, both terrestrial and satellite or interplanetary, as may be necessary for broadcasting on a network
49
The Arbiter's Compendium
50
The Arbiter's Compendium