Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Untitled

    Uploaded by

    kim broqueza
    12 views1 page
    Soco was engaged in union activities during work hours instead of delivering ice cream. He was suspended by his employer MERCO for violating company rules. Soco filed an unfair labor practice case against MERCO. The Regional Director affirmed MERCO's suspension of Soco. Soco petitioned for the labor arbiter to resolve the case first, arguing the Regional Director did not have authority over unfair labor practice cases. However, the Supreme Court ruled that Soco had accepted the Regional Director's jurisdiction by presenting evidence to the Director without challenging the Director's authority.

    Original Description:

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Soco was engaged in union activities during work hours instead of delivering ice cream. He was suspended by his employer MERCO for violating company rules. Soco filed an unfair labor practice case against MERCO. The Regional Director affirmed MERCO's suspension of Soco. Soco petitioned for the labor arbiter to resolve the case first, arguing the Regional Director did not have authority over unfair labor practice cases. However, the Supreme Court ruled that Soco had accepted the Regional Director's jurisdiction by presenting evidence to the Director without challenging the Director's authority.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf or txt
    12 views1 page

    Untitled

    Uploaded by

    kim broqueza
    Soco was engaged in union activities during work hours instead of delivering ice cream. He was suspended by his employer MERCO for violating company rules. Soco filed an unfair labor practice case against MERCO. The Regional Director affirmed MERCO's suspension of Soco. Soco petitioned for the labor arbiter to resolve the case first, arguing the Regional Director did not have authority over unfair labor practice cases. However, the Supreme Court ruled that Soco had accepted the Regional Director's jurisdiction by presenting evidence to the Director without challenging the Director's authority.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 1

    Soco vs. Mercantile Corp.

    G.R. No. 53364 March 16, 1987

    FACTS: Between working hours, Soco was engaged in union-related activities. He went
    to his coworker, who was off duty at the time, rather than delivering ice cream at the
    Imperial Hotel and Your Goody Mart. The personnel officer ordered Soco to come to his
    office and explain, but Soco refused. Soco also declined to attend a grievance
    conference because he felt it was needed. For violating Company Rule No. 19(a), Soco
    was suspended. Soco filed an Unfair Labor Practices case against MERCO. But MERCO
    submitted a "application for clearance to terminate Soco's services." The Regional
    Director affirmed MERCO. Soco petitionned that the case should be first resolved by the
    Labor Arbiter.
    ISSUE: Whether the Regional Director has no authority to decide the unfair labor practice
    cases.
    RULING: No. Supreme Court stated that it was agreed upon by the parties to consolidate
    the two cases being litigated. Petitioner obviously accepted the jurisdiction of the Regional
    Director by presenting his evidence. Without challenging the Regional Director's power to
    hear and try the complaint, he cannot rightfully now challenge the resolution made in said
    cases by the same Director, based on the latter's alleged lack of jurisdiction.

    You might also like