Professional Documents
Culture Documents
*
G.R. No. 142506. February 17, 2005.
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.:
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016a49afb7be573c7eb5003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/8
4/23/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 451
_______________
* THIRD DIVISION.
690
1 2
the Decision dated December 10, 1999 and Resolution
dated March 14, 2000 rendered by the Court of Appeals in
CA-G.R. SP No. 51361, entitled “Schering Employees Labor
Union (SELU) and Lucia Sereneo vs. National Labor
Relations Commission, Schering Plough Corporation,
Epitacio Titong, Jr., Jose L. Estingor, Danny T. Yu, Leo
Loquinario, and Roberto Tada.”
The facts are:
The instant controversy stemmed from a complaint for
unfair labor practice and illegal dismissal filed with the
Labor Arbiter by Schering Employees Labor Union (SELU)
and Lucia P. Sereneo, SELU’s president, petitioners,
against Schering Plough Corporation, Epitacio Titong, Jr.,
Jose L. Estingor, Danny T. Yu, Leo Loquinario, and
Roberto Tada, respondents, docketed as NLRC NCR Case
No. 00-10-06497-96.
Petitioners, in their complaint, alleged that sometime in
January 1977, petitioner Lucia P. Sereneo was employed as
a professional medical representative by respondent
company. Eventually, she became a field sales training
manager with a monthly salary of P22,200.00. During her
employment, she received several awards from respondent
in recognition of her remarkable marketing excellence.
However, on January 22, 1996, when she was elected
president of SELU and started the re-negotiation with
respondent company on the collective bargaining
agreement (CBA), respondents suddenly became
dissatisfied with her sales performance. On August 12,
1996, respondent company sent her a notice asking her to
submit an explanation why she failed to implement
marketing projects. Again, on September 13, 1996, she was
required to comment on the complaint charging her with
misappropriation of com-
_______________
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016a49afb7be573c7eb5003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 2/8
4/23/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 451
691
_______________
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016a49afb7be573c7eb5003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 3/8
4/23/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 451
692
_______________
4 G.R. No. 130866, September 16, 1998, 295 SCRA 494. In this case, we
held that appeal from the NLRC should be initially filed with the Court of
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016a49afb7be573c7eb5003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 4/8
4/23/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 451
693
694
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016a49afb7be573c7eb5003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 5/8
4/23/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 451
_______________
695
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016a49afb7be573c7eb5003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 6/8
4/23/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 451
_______________
G.R. No. 123276, August 18, 1997, 277 SCRA 680, 687, cited in
6
696
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016a49afb7be573c7eb5003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 7/8
4/23/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 451
——o0o——
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016a49afb7be573c7eb5003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 8/8