Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
163782
vs.
PERFECTO H. VENUS, JR., BIENVENIDO P. SANTOS, JR.,
RAFAEL C. ROY, NANCY C. RAMOS, SALVADOR A.
ALFON, NOEL R. SANTOS, MANUEL A. FERRER,
SALVADOR G. ALINAS, RAMON D. LOFRANCO,
AMADOR H.POLICARPIO, REYNALDO B. GENER, and
BIENVENIDO G. ARPILLEDA, Respondents.
x-----------------------------x
DECISION
PUNO, J.:
P247,724.36
3. Rafael C. Roy
247,724.36
254,282.62
5. Salvador A. Alfon
257,764.62
250,534.78
8. Salvador G. [Alinas]
253,454.88
9. Ramon D. Lofranco
253,642.18
256,609.22
255,094.56
TOTAL
P2,746,453.52
SO ORDERED.
SO ORDERED.
CORTES, J:
1.
Do the employees of the SSS have the right
to strike?
2.
Does the Regional Trial Court have
jurisdiction to hear the case initiated by the SSS and
to enjoin the strikers from continuing with the strike
and to order them to return to work?
MR. LERUM.
I think what I will try to say will not
take that long. When we proposed this amendment
providing for self-organization of government
employees, it does not mean that because they have
the right to organize, they also have the right to
strike. That is a different matter. We are only talking
about organizing, uniting as a union. With regard to
the right to strike, everyone will remember that in
the Bill of Rights, there is a provision that the right to
form associations or societies whose purpose is not
contrary to law shall not be abridged. Now then, if
the purpose of the state is to prohibit the strikes
coming from employees exercising government
functions, that could be done because the moment
that is prohibited, then the union which will go on
strike will be an illegal union. And that provision is
carried in Republic Act 875. In Republic Act 875,
workers, including those from the government-owned
and controlled, are allowed to organize but they are
.SECTION 13.
Terms and conditions of
employment or improvements thereof, except those
that are fixed by law, may be the subject of
negotiations between duly recognized employees'
organizations and appropriate government
authorities.
.SECTION 16.
The Civil Service and labor laws
and procedures, whenever applicable, shall be
followed in the resolution of complaints, grievances
and cases involving government employees. In case
any dispute remains unresolved after exhausting all
the available remedies under existing laws and
procedures, the parties may jointly refer the dispute
to the [Public Sector Labor- Management] Council for
appropriate action.
II
This being the case, the Regional Trial Court was not
precluded, in the exercise of its general jurisdiction
under B.P. Blg. 129, as amended, from assuming
jurisdiction over the SSS's complaint for damages
and issuing the injunctive writ prayed for therein.
Unlike the NLRC, the Public Sector Labor Management Council has not been granted by law
authority to issue writs of injunction in labor disputes
within its jurisdiction. Thus, since it is the Council,
and not the NLRC, that has jurisdiction over the
instant labor dispute, resort to the general courts of
law for the issuance of a writ of injunction to enjoin
the strike is appropriate.
III
10
SO ORDERED.
11
FELICIANO, J.:p
12
SO ORDERED.
xxx
xxx
xxx
13
xxx
xxx
xxx
14
(Emphasis supplied)
15
16
NOCON, J.:
17
1.
To pay complainant P126,458.89, plus legal
interest thereon computed from May 16, 1986 until
2.
To pay complainant actual damages in the
amount of P50,000, plus 10% attorney's fees.
18
1.
The Council shall be the supreme organ of
the Center and all powers of the Center shall be
vested in the Council.
4.
One of the basic immunities of an
international organization is immunity from local
jurisdiction, i.e., that it is immune from the legal writs
and processes issued by the tribunals of the country
where it is found. (See Jenks, Id., pp. 37-44) The
obvious reason for this is that the subjection of such
an organization to the authority of the local courts
would afford a convenient medium thru which the
host government may interfere in there operations or
even influence or control its policies and decisions of
the organization; besides, such subjection to local
jurisdiction would impair the capacity of such body to
discharge its responsibilities impartially on behalf of
its member-states. In the case at bar, for instance,
the entertainment by the National Labor Relations
Commission of Mr. Madamba's reinstatement cases
would amount to interference by the Philippine
Government in the management decisions of the
SEARCA governing board; even worse, it could
compromise the desired impartiality of the
organization since it will have to suit its actuations to
the requirements of Philippine law, which may not
necessarily coincide with the interests of the other
member-states. It is precisely to forestall these
possibilities that in cases where the extent of the
immunity is specified in the enabling instruments of
international organizations, jurisdictional immunity
from the host country is invariably among the first
accorded. (See Jenks, Id.; See also Bowett, The Law
of International Institutions, pp. 284-1285).
19
MEDIALDEA, J.:
20
21
xxx
xxx
xxx
(c)
All money claims of workers, involving nonpayment or underpayment of wages, overtime
compensation, separation pay, maternity leave and
other money claims arising from employee-employer
relations, except claims for workmen's
compensation, social security and medicare benefits;
(d)
xxx
xxx
xxx
22
(Emphasis supplied)
ART. 127.
Visitorial Powers. The Secretary
of Labor or his duly authorized representatives,
including, but not restricted, to the labor
inspectorate, shall have access to employers' records
and premises at any time of the day or night
whenever work is being undertaken therein, and the
right to copy therefrom, to question any employee
and investigate any fact, condition or matter which
may be necessary to determine violations or in aid in
the enforcement of this Title and of any Wage Order
or regulation issued pursuant to this Code.
xxx
xxx
xxx
(b)
The Secretary of Labor or his duly
authorized representatives shall have the power to
order and administer, after due notice and hearing,
compliance with the labor standards provisions of
this Code based on the findings of labor regulation
officers or industrial safety engineers made in the
course of inspection, and to issue writs of execution
to the appropriate authority for the enforcement of
their order.
xxx
xxx
xxx
xxx
xxx
xxx
(3)
All money claims of workers involving nonpayment or underpayment of wages, overtime or
premium compensation, maternity or service
incentive leave, separation pay and other money
claims arising from employer-employee relations,
except claims for employee's compensation, social
security and medicare benefits and as otherwise
provided in Article 127 of this Code.
xxx
xxx
xxx
(Emphasis supplied)
SUBJECT:
DISTRIBUTION OF JURISDICTION
OVER LABOR CASES
xxx
xxx
xxx
1.
The following cases are under the exclusive
original jurisdiction of the Regional Director.
a)
Labor standards cases arising from
violations of labor standard laws discovered in the
23
xxx
xxx
xxx
2.
The following cases are under the exclusive
original jurisdiction of the Conciliation Section of the
Regional Office:
a)
Labor standards cases where employeremployee relations no longer exist;
xxx
xxx
xxx
6.
The following cases are certifiable to the
Labor Arbiters:
a)
Cases not settled by the Conciliation Section
of the Regional Office, namely:
1)
labor standard cases where employeremployee relations no longer exist;
xxx
xxx
xxx
(Emphasis supplied)
TO:
SUBJECT:
1.
PD 1367 (5-1-78) gave Labor Arbiters
exclusive jurisdiction over unresolved issues in
collective bargaining, etc., and those cases arising
from employer-employee relations duly indorsed by
the Regional Directors. (It also removed his
jurisdiction over moral or other damages) In other
words, the Labor Arbiter entertained cases certified
to him. (Article 228, 1978 Labor Code.)
2.
PD 1391 (5-29-78) all regional units of the
National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) were
integrated into the Regional Offices Proper of the
Ministry of Labor; effectively transferring direct
administrative control and supervision over the
Arbitration Branch to the Director of the Regional
Office of the Ministry of Labor. "Conciliable cases"
which were thus previously under the jurisdiction of
the defunct Conciliation Section of the Regional
Office for purposes of conciliation or amicable
settlement, became immediately assignable to the
Arbitration Branch for joint conciliation and
compulsory arbitration. In addition, the Labor Arbiter
had jurisdiction even over termination and laborstandards cases that may be assigned to them for
compulsory arbitration by the Director of the
Regional Office. PD 1391 merged conciliation and
24
3.
MOLE Policy Instructions No. 37 Because
of the seemingly overlapping functions as a result of
PD 1391, MOLE Policy Instructions No. 37 was issued
on October 7, 1978, and provided in part:
b)
evidentiary matters not disclosed or verified
in the normal course of inspection by labor
regulations officers are required for their proper
disposition.
3.
Disposition of Cases.
TO:
xxx
All Concerned
SUBJECT:
ARBITERS
1.
Conciliable Cases.
2.
xxx
(Emphasis supplied)
4.
PD 1691(5-1-80) original and exclusive
jurisdiction over unresolved issues in collective
bargaining and money claims, which includes moral
or other damages.
5.
BP 130 (8-21-8l) strengthened voluntary
arbitration. The decree also returned the Labor
Arbiters as part of the NLRC, operating as Arbitration
Branch thereof.
6.
BP 227(6-1- 82) original and exclusive
jurisdiction over questions involving legality of strikes
and lock-outs.
a)
xxx
25
(b)
The Minister of Labor or his duly authorized
representatives shall have the power to order and
administer, after due notice and hearing, compliance
with the labor standards provisions of this Code
based on the findings of labor regulation officers or
industrial safety engineers made in the course of
inspection, and to issue writs of execution to the
appropriate authority for the enforcement of their
order, except in cases where the employer contests
the findings of the labor regulations officer and raises
issues which cannot be resolved without considering
evidentiary matters that are not verifiable in the
normal course of inspection. (Emphasis supplied)
ART. 217.
Jurisdiction of Labor Arbiters and
the Commission. (a) The Labor Arbiters shall have
the original and exclusive jurisdiction to hear and
decide within thirty (30) working days after
submission of the case by the parties for decision,
the following cases involving all workers, whether
agricultural or non-agricultural:
1.
2.
Those that workers may file involving
wages, hours of work and other terms and conditions
of employment;
3.
All money claims of workers, including those
based on non-payment or underpayment of wages,
overtime compensation, separation pay and other
benefits provided by law or appropriate agreement,
except claims for employees' compensation, social
security, medicare and maternity benefits;
(b)
THE PROVISIONS OF ARTICLE 217 OF THIS
CODE TO THE CONTRARY NOTWITHSTANDING AND IN
CASES WHERE THE RELATIONSHIP OF EMPLOYEREMPLOYEE STILL EXISTS, the Minister of Labor and
Employment or his duly authorized representatives
shall have the power to order and administer, after
due notice and hearing, compliance with the labor
standards provisions of this Code AND OTHER LABOR
LEGISLATION based on the findings of labor
regulation officers or industrial safety engineers
made in the course of inspection, and to issue writs
of execution to the appropriate authority for the
enforcement of their orders, except in cases where
the employer contests the findings of the labor
regulation officer and raises issues which cannot be
resolved without considering evidentiary matters
that are not verifiable in the normal course of
inspection. (Emphasis supplied)
26
Section 2.
Complaint inspection. All such
complaints shall immediately be forwarded to the
Regional Director who shall refer the case to the
appropriate unit in the Regional Office for assignment
to a Labor Standards and Welfare Officer (LSWO) for
field inspection. When the field inspection does not
produce the desired results, the Regional Director
shall summon the parties for summary investigation
to expedite the disposition of the case. . . .
Section 3.
Complaints where no employeremployee relationship actually exists. Where
employer-employee relationship no longer exists by
reason of the fact that it has already been severed,
claims for payment of monetary benefits fall within
the exclusive and original jurisdiction of the labor
arbiters. . . . (Emphasis supplied)
xxx
. . to assure the workers the rights and benefits due
to him under labor standard laws, without having to
go through arbitration. . .
xxx
xxx
(b)
Plant-level restitutions may be effected for
money claims not exceeding Fifty Thousand
(P50,000.00). . . .
so that
(c)
Restitutions in excess of the aforementioned
amount shall be effected at the Regional Office or at
the worksite subject to the prior approval of the
Regional Director.
Section 8.
Compromise agreement. Should
the parties arrive at an agreement as to the whole or
part of the dispute, said agreement shall be reduced
in writing and signed by the parties in the presence
of the Regional Director or his duly authorized
representative.
27
SECTION 6.
Coverage of complaint inspection.
A complaint inspection shall not be limited to the
specific allegations or violations raised by the
complainants/workers but shall be a thorough inquiry
into and verification of the compliance by employer
with existing labor standards and shall cover all
workers similarly situated. (Emphasis supplied)
Consesa Bautista
Teresita Agcopra
Felix Monleon
Teresita Salvador
Edgar Cataluna; and
10.
28
SO ORDERED.
xxx
29
On 19 August 1987, the complainants filed an exparte motion for the issuance of a writ of execution
and appointment of special sheriff.
xxx
xxx xxx
xxx
xxx
SO ORDERED.[3]
30
xxx xxx
xxx
31
xxx xxx
xxx[8]
xxx xxx
xxx
32
xxx xxx
xxx[9]
In the other pleadings filed by petitioner in NCRLSED-C1-2047-87, such as the Urgent Omnibus
Motion to declare void the Writ of Execution for lack
of jurisdiction and the Oppositions it filed on the
Motions for Intervention questioning the legal
personality of the intervenors, questions as to the
33
xxx xxx
xxx[17]
34
xxx xxx
35
Proceeds of Sale....P228,750.00
Proceeds of Sale...........P98,000.00
36
Proceeds of Sale............P1,699,999.99
37
xxx xxx
xxx
(sgd)
JOSE C. SISON
SIR:
xxx xxx
xxx
xxx
xxx
xxx xxx
xxx
xxx xxx
xxx
xxx xxx
xxx
xxx
38
SO ORDERED.
39
DECISION
TINGA, J.:
I.
PEOPLES BROADCASTING
179652
G.R. No.
Present:
CARPIO
MORALES, J.,*
Acting Chairperson,
- versus -
TINGA,
VELASCO, JR.,
Promulgated:
May 8, 2009
Respondents.
x---------------------------------------------------------------------------x
Management representative informed that
complainant is a drama talent hired on a per drama
participation basis hence no employer-
40
41
II.
xxx
42
43
III.
44
(signed)
GREMAN B.
SOLANTE
Station
Manager
45
1.
This is to certify that the person whose picture
and signature appear hereon is an employee of
Bombo Radio Philippines.
2.
This ID must be worn at all times within
Bombo Radyo Philippines premises for proper
identification and security. Furthermore, this is the
property of Bombo Radyo Philippines and must be
surrendered upon separation from the company.
HUMAN RESOURCE
DEPARMENT
(Signed)
JENALIN D. PALER
HRD HEAD
46
IV.
47
(Signed)
GREMAN B.
SOLANTE
Station
Manager
48
V.
49
- versus -
SO ORDERED.
Present:
CORONA, C.J.,
CARPIO,
VELASCO, JR.,
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO,
BRION,
PERALTA,
BERSAMIN,
DEL CASTILLO,*
ABAD,
VILLARAMA, JR.,
50
PEREZ,
MENDOZA,
SERENO,
REYES, and
PERLAS-BERNABE, JJ.
Promulgated:
March 6, 2012
x----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
RESOLUTION
The Court found that there was no employeremployee relationship between petitioner and
private respondent. 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 National
Labor Relations Commission (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).[5]
51
52
SO ORDERED.
53
vs.
HON. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION
(Fourth Division), CEBU CITY, CENTRAL PHILIPPINE
UNION MISSION CORPORATION OF THE SEVENTH-DAY
ADVENTISTS, ELDER HECTOR V. GAYARES, PASTORS
REUBEN MORALDE, OSCAR L. ALOLOR, WILLIAM U.
DONATO, JOEL WALES, ELY SACAY, GIDEON BUHAT,
ISACHAR GARSULA, ELISEO DOBLE, PORFIRIO
BALACY, DAVID RODRIGO, LORETO MAYPA, MR. RUFO
GASAPO, MR. EUFRONIO IBESATE, MRS. TESSIE
BALACY, MR. ZOSIMO KARA-AN, and MR. ELEUTERIO
LOBITANA, respondents.
KAPUNAN, J.:
54
A.
B.
Allowance
C.
Service Incentive
3,461.85
25,000.00
Leave Pay
D.
Moral Damages
50,000.00
E.
Exemplary
Damages
F.
Attorney's Fee
22,012.27
4,770.83
SO ORDERED.12
SO ORDERED.13
55
SO ORDERED.14
SO ORDERED.15
1)
Whether or not the Labor Arbiter/NLRC has
jurisdiction to try and decide the complaint filed by
petitioner against the SDA;
2)
Whether or not the termination of the
services of petitioner is an ecclesiastical affair, and,
as such, involves the separation of church and state;
and
3)
56
57
58
59
SO ORDERED.
QUIASON, J.:
60
II
xxx
xxx
xxx
4.
Claims for actual, moral, exemplary and
other forms of damages arising from the employeremployee relations; (Emphasis supplied)
xxx
xxx
xxx
Petitioner does not ask for any relief under the Labor
Code of the Philippines. It seeks to recover damages
agreed upon in the contract as redress for private
respondent's breach of his contractual obligation to
its "damage and prejudice" (Rollo, p. 57). Such cause
of action is within the realm of Civil Law, and
jurisdiction over the controversy belongs to the
regular courts. More so when we consider that the
61
62
SO ORDERED.
63
SYLLABUS
1.
LABOR AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION; LABOR
ARBITER; EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION THEREOF UNDER
P.D. NO. 1367; SCOPE. Section 1 of Presidential
Decree No. 1367, which provided as follows: "Section
1. Paragraph (a) of Article 217 of the Labor Code, as
amended, is hereby further amended to read as
follows: a) The Labor Arbiter shall have exclusive
jurisdiction to hear and decide the following cases
involving all workers, whether agricultural or non
agricultural: 1) Unfair labor practice cases; 2)
Unresolved cases in collective bargaining, including
those which involve wages, hours of work and other
terms and conditions of employment; and 3) All other
cases arising from employer-employee relations duly
indorsed by the Regional Directors in accordance
with the provisions of this code; Provided, that the
Regional Directors shall not indorse and Labor
Arbiters shall not entertain claims for moral or other
forms of damages."cralaw virtua1aw library
2.
ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; BEING A CURATIVE STATUTE
SHOULD BE GIVEN RETROSPECTIVE APPLICATION TO
PENDING PROCEEDINGS. The question now is
whether or not Presidential Decree No. 1691 has a
retroactive effect was resolved in the case of Atlas
Fertilizer Corp. v. Navarro, (149 SCRA 432) wherein
We ruled: "In conflicts of jurisdiction between the
courts and the labor agencies arising from the
amendments effected by P.D. 1691 on P.D. 1367, this
Court held in various cases that P.D. 1691 is a
curative statute which corrected the lack of
jurisdiction of the Labor Arbiter at the start of the
proceedings and, therefore, should be given a
restrospective application to the pending
proceedings. P.D. 1691 merely restored a jurisdiction
earlier vested in Labor Arbiters before the enactment
of P.D. 1367. It was intended to correct a situation
where two tribunals would have jurisdiction over
separate issues arising from the same labor
conflict . . . This construction of law is not new. It
must be noted that the amendatory provision of P.D.
1367 itself was given retroactive application, for also
being curative in nature. P.D. 1691 should, therefore,
be given a retroactive application to this pending
case as the precise purpose of the amendment was
to hopefully settle once and for all the conflict of
3.
ID.; ID.; ID.; CLAIM FOR DAMAGES ARISING
FROM EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE RELATIONSHIP; DOES
NOT MAKE IT A CIVIL DISPUTE FOR THE REASON
THAT EMPLOYEE DOES NOT SEEK REINSTATEMENT.
The petition is, therefore, unmeritorious for the
complaint clearly shows that the petitioners claim
for damages arose from the acts attributed to his
employer, while he was still an employee thereof.
Thus, the action for damages arose from an
employer-employee relationship. We do not agree
with petitioner that the case is a civil dispute simply
because he did not ask for reinstatement, for an
employee need not seek reinstatement in order to
file a complaint before the labor arbiter (A. Consteel
Construction Co., Inc. v. Intermediate Appellate
Court, G.R. No. 64673, Oct. 21, 1988). More so,
estoppel cannot attach by virtue of Section 2, Rule 9
of the Revised Rules of Court, inasmuch as the
question of compentencia maybe raised even for the
first time on appeal, apart from the fact that
jurisdiction issues can never be waived. Besides, the
issue of jurisdiction was raised even before the
answer was filed.
DECISION
MELO, J.:
64
Commission.chanrobles virtualawlibrary
chanrobles.com:chanrobles.com.ph
"Section 1.
Paragraph (a) of Article 217 of the
Labor Code, as amended, is hereby further amended
to read as follows:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
a)
The Labor Arbiter shall have exclusive
jurisdiction to hear and decide the following cases
involving all workers, whether agricultural or non
agricultural:chanrobles virtual lawlibrary
1)
3)
All other cases arising from employeremployee relations duly indorsed by the Regional
Directors in accordance with the provisions of this
code; Provided, that the Regional Directors shall not
indorse and Labor Arbiters shall not entertain claims
for moral or other forms of damages."cralaw
virtua1aw library
2)
Unresolved cases in collective bargaining,
including those which involve wages, hours of work
and other terms and conditions of employment; and
65
SO ORDERED.
66
The Facts
67
The Issue
Sole Issue:
Suspension Proceedings
68
xxx
xxx
xx
xxx
xxx
xx
69
SO ORDERED.
70
71