Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 1

San Miguel Corp. v. NLRC Case No. 272 G.R. No.

80774 (May 31, 1988) Chapter V, Page 211, Foot ote No. 138 F!C"#$ Petitioner Corporation sponsored an Innovation Program which rewarded cash to SMC employees who will submit ideas and suggestions beneficial to the corporation. Rustico ega submitted his proposal entitled !Modified "rande Pasteuri#ation Process$ and claimed entitlement to the cash award. SMC denied utili#ing such proposal but ega alleged otherwise and filed a complaint with the NLRC which arbitrated against the Petitioner. %##&'$ %&N the money claim of ega falls within the 'urisdiction of the labor arbiter and the NLRC. (')*$ No( said money claim falls outside the 'urisdiction of said agencies. )he 'urisdiction of the NLRC is outlined in *rt. +,- of the Labor Code which includes in par. . !all money claims of wor/ers( including those based on nonpayment or underpayment of wages( overtime compensation( separation pay and other benefits provided by law or appropriate agreement0$ %hile par. . refers to !all money claims of wor/ers($ it is not necessary to suppose that the entire universe of money claims has been absorbed into the 'urisdiction of the NLRC. Par. . should not be read in isolation with the conte1t formed by par. , 2unfair labor practices3( par. + 2terms and conditions of employment3( par. 4 2household services3( par. 5 2prohibited activities3. )he unifying element of pars. ,65 is that they refer to cases or disputes arising out of or in connection with an employer6employee relationship. )he scope of par. . is clarified by its associated paragraphs wherein money claims falling within the original and e1clusive 'urisdiction of the NLRC are those which have some reasonable causal connection with the employer6employee relationship.