Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Digested Cases
SET II Arts.213-222
- NLRC, jurisdiction, due process, injunction
from
the
Singapore
Ministry
of
Employment, Cabansag did not waive
Philippine labor laws, and that PNB
failed to establish a just cause for her
dismissal and failed to give her
sufficient notice and an opportunity to
be heard and to defend herself.
ISSUES:
1. WON NLRC has jurisdiction and is the
most convenient venue or forum to
hear and decide over the controversy;
and
2. WON the respondent was illegally
dismissed, and therefore, entitled to
recover backwages and other monetary
benefits
HELD:
1.
Jurisdiction:
As the petitioner
admitted that it is it is a Philippine
corporation doing business through a
branch office in Singapore, Cabansags
employment by the Singapore branch
office had to be approved by the PNB
President whose principal offices were
in Manila. This goes up against its
contention that Cabansag was locally
hired; and was totally governed by
and subject to the laws, common
practices and customs of Singapore,
not of the Philippines. Instead, with
more reason does this fact reinforce the
presumption that respondent falls under
the legal definition of migrant worker, in
this case one deployed in Singapore.
Hence, petitioner cannot escape the
application of Philippine laws or the
jurisdiction of the NLRC and the LA. (Art.
217, LC)
Proper Venue: Following Section 1(a)
of Rule IV of the NLRC Rules of
Procedure and under the Migrant
Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act of
1995 (RA 8042), Cabansag is given two
choices for the venue of her Complaint
against PNB for illegal dismissal:
(a) at the Regional Arbitration
Branch (RAB)
where she resides or
(b) at the RAB where the principal
office of her
employer is situated.
Since her dismissal by petitioner,
respondent has returned to the
Philippines -- specifically to her
residence at Filinvest II, Quezon City.
Thus, in filing her Complaint before the
RAB office in Quezon City, she has
made a valid choice of proper venue.
2. Illegal Dismissal: CA was correct in
holding that respondent was already a
regular employee at the time of her
dismissal, because her three-month
RATIO:
It is a basic policy that all Filipino
workers, whether employed locally or
overseas, enjoy the protective mantle
of
Philippine
labor
and
social
legislations. Our labor statutes may not
be rendered ineffective by laws or
judgments promulgated, or stipulations
agreed upon, in a foreign country.
ISSUES:
1. WON LA Canizares erred in approving
the motion to transfer venue of the
controversy; and
2. WON LA Canizares and NLRC erred in
issuing the disputed judgment and
erred in concluding that the workplace
of the complainants is in Cebu City.
HELD:
1.
No. The Court held that the
resolution to move the venue to Cebu
City was valid as Young seasonably
made representations to transfer the
venue of the action in the proper
motion. Such acts are in consonance
with Section 1(d) of the New Rules of
Procedure of the NLRC which provides
that:
The venue of an action may be
changed or transferred to a different
Regional Arbitration Branch other than
where the complaint was filed by
written agreement of the parties or
when the Commission or Labor Arbiter
before whom the case is pending so
orders, upon motion by the proper
party in meritorious cases.
2. Yes. The Court ordered the case
remanded to the AB of origin, ruling
that the resolution specifying the
NCRAB as the venue of the present
action cannot be considered oppressive
to Young. His residence in Corinthian
Gardens
also
serves
as
his
correspondent office.
Certainly, the
filing of the suit in the National Capital
Region Arbitration Branch in Manila will
not cause him as much inconvenience
as it would the petitioners, who are now
residents of Metro Manila, if the same
was heard in Cebu. Hearing the case in
Manila
would
clearly
expedite
proceedings and bring about the
speedy resolution of case.
RATIO:
RATIO:
Claims for unpaid wages and separation
pay involve a labor dispute. It does not
involve an intra-corporate matter, even
when it is between a stockholder and a
corporation. It relates to an ER-EE
relationship which is distinct from the
corporate relationship of one with the
other.
HELD:
Yes, NLRC has jurisdiction over the case.
The fact that the parties involved in the
controversy are a corporation and its
stockholders does not necessarily place
the dispute within the jurisdiction of
SEC. In order that the SEC can take
cognizance of a case, the controversy
must pertain to factors such as the
4 |
18.
PEPSI-COLA
BOTTLING
COMPANY,
ET
AL.
vs.
JUDGE
MARTINEZ AND TUMALA, JR.
G.R. No. L-58877 15 March
1982
FACTS:
Tumala was a salesman of the company
in Davao City from 1977 to 1980. In
1979, after winning an award for his
performance as top salesman of the
year in an annual contest held by the
company, he wsa entitled to a prize of
house and lot. Following the unjust
refusal to deliver the said prize and the
its oppressive, unlawful and arbitrary
termination of his employment, he filed
a case against the company and its
officers in 1980. He prayed that
petitioners be ordered, jointly and
severally, to deliver his prize of house
and lot or its cash equivalent, and to
pay his back salaries and separation
benefits, plus moral and exemplary
damages, attorney's fees and litigation
expenses
but
did
not
ask
for
reinstatement.
Petitioners moved to dismiss the
complaint on grounds of lack of
jurisdiction and cause of action, alleging
that Tumala was not entitled to the for
having misled the company into
declaring him top salesman for 1979
through
various
deceitful
and
fraudulent
manipulations
and
machinations in the performance of his
duties as salesman and depot in-charge
of the bottling company in Davao City,
which consisted of "unremitted cash
collections, fictitious collections of trade
accounts, fictitious loaned empties,
fictitious product deals, uncollected
loaned
empties,
advance
sales
confirmed as fictitious, and route
shortages which resulted to the damage
and prejudice of the bottling company
in the amount of P381,851.76." The
alleged commission of these fraudulent
acts was also advanced by petitioners
RATIO:
The legislative intent appears clear to
allow recovery in proceedings before
Labor Arbiters of moral and other forms
of damages, in all cases or matters
arising
from
employer-employee
relations.
This
would
include,
particularly,
instances
where
an
employee
has
been
unlawfully
dismissed. In such a case the Labor
Arbiter has jurisdiction to award to the
dismissed employee not only the reliefs
specifically provided by labor laws, but
also moral and other forms of damages
governed by the Civil Code. When he
institutes proceedings before the Labor
Arbiter, he should make a claim for all
said reliefs. He cannot institute
proceedings separately two forums:
one, before the Labor Arbiter for
reinstatement and recovery of back
wages, or for separation pay, upon the
theory that his dismissal was illegal;
and two, before a court of justice for
recovery of moral and other damages,
upon the theory that the manner of his
dismissal was unduly injurious, or
tortuous. Such constitutes splitting
causes
of
action,
engendering
multiplicity of actions. It is against such
mischief
that
the
Labor
Code
amendments are evidently directed,
and it is such duplicity which the Rules
of Court regard as ground for
abatement or dismissal of actions,
constituting either litis pendentia (auter
action pendant) or res adjudicata, as
the case may be.
ISSUES:
1. WON the RD has jurisdiction to hear
and decide the controversy; and
2. WON respondent Deputy Minister of
Labor erred in affirming the findings of
the RD and that such was violative of
the Constitution.
FACTS:
Domiciano Soco was a driver of
MERCO's delivery van and was at the
same time the President of the MERCO
Employees Labor Union (MELU), an
affiliate of the Federation of Free
Workers
(FFW).
Following
various
insSocos deviation on at one time from
his usual route and going to a different
place to speak with a co-employee who
was then off-duty and due to reports
that he was carrying on his unions
activities during his working hours for
the purpose of transferring his its
affiliation from FFW to the Southern
Philippines Federation of Labor (SPFL)
for which purpose he utilizes the
company vehicle, the personnel officer
of MERCO in 1979 conducted an
HELD:
1. Yes, the Ministry of Labor has
jurisdiction over the case. The
contention of Soco that the case should
first be resolved by the LA and not the
RD was found to be undeserving of the
Court's favour. It ruled that as it was
agreed upon by the parties to
consolidate the two cases being
litigated considering that both concern
the same parties and the issues
involved are interrelated, Soco
obviously accepted the jurisdiction of
the RD by presenting his evidence. By
having asked for affirmative relief and
without challenging the RDs power to
hear and try his complaint for unfair
labor practice, he cannot rightfully
challenge the resolution made in said
8 |
ISSUE:
WON the Labor Regional Office has
jurisdiction over breach of construction
contracts?
RATIO:
A rule prohibiting employees from using
company vehicles for private purpose
without authority from management is
reasonable. This regulation cannot be
faulted by Soco because this is proper
and necessary even if only for an
orderly conduct of MERCO's business. To
cap off his infractions, petitioners
stubbornly declined even to satisfy
MERCO's request for an explanation or
to attend a grievance conference to
discuss violations. Certainly, to condone
petitioner's own conduct will erode the
discipline that an employer should
uniformly apply so that it can expect
compliance to the same rules and
regulations by its other employees.
Otherwise, the rules necessary and
proper for the operation of its business,
would
be
gradually
rendered
ineffectual, ignored, and eventually
become meaningless.
has
no
HELD:
No. The Labor Regional Office and the
NLRC has no jurisdiction over Tamayos
claim as their jurisdiction is confined to
claims arising from Er-Ee relationship
which does not exist in this case.
Tamayo is an independent contractor,
not an employee of the petitioners. The
case is instead cognizable by the
regular courts of justice.
presented;
(3) the decision must have
something to
support itself;
(4) the evidence must be
substantial;
(5) the decision must be based on
the
evidence presented at the
hearing; or at
least contained in the record
and
disclosed to the parties
affected;
(6) the tribunal or body or any of its
judges
must act on its own
independent
consideration of the law and
facts of the
controversy, and not simply
accept the
views of a subordinate; and
(7) the Board or body should, in all
controversial questions, render
its
decision in such manner that
the parties
to the proceeding can know the
various
Issue involved, and the reason
for the
decision rendered. The
performance of
this duty is inseparable from
the authority
conferred upon it.
11 |