Edited - Boy Scout vs. Nlrc

January 26, 2019 | Author: Agustin EP | Category: Jurisdiction, Complaint, Arbitration, Corporations, Society
Share Embed Donate


Short Description

Edited - Boy Scout vs. Nlrc...

Description

BOY SCOUTS vs. NLRC G.R. No. 80767 April 22, 1991 FACTS: Private respondents Fortunato C. Esquerra, Esquerra, Roberto O. Malaborbor, Malaborbor, Estanislao M. Misa, Vicente N. Evangelista Evangelista and Marc Marceli elino no P. Garci Garcia, a, had had all all been been ran ran!an !and!" d!"le le e#plo$ee e#plo$ees s o% petition petitioner er &o$ 'couts 'couts o% the Philippi Philippines nes ()&'P) ()&'P)*. *. +t the ti#e ti#e o% ter#in ter#inati ation on o% their their servic services, es, private respondents ere stationed at the &'P Ca#p in Mailing, -os &aos, -aguna.

 /he 'ecretar$!General 'ecretar$!General o% petitioner &'P issued 'pecial Orde Orders rs %or %or the the "ve "ve (0* (0* priv privat ate e resp respon onde dent nts, s, to be trans%er trans%erred red %ro# the &'P Ca#p in Mailin Mailing g to the &'P -and Grant in +suncion, 1avao del Norte. /he$ ere there assured that their trans%er to 1avao del Norte ould not involve involve an$ di#inutio di#inution n in salar$ salar$.. /hese /hese Orders Orders ere ere opposed opposed b$ private private respon respondent dents s and the$ re%used re%used to abandon their posts in -aguna. Private Private respond respondents ents continue continued d to disobe$ disobe$ the disputed disputed trans%er orders despite arning that their re%usal could result in the ter#ination o% their e#plo$#ent. Petit etitio ione nerr &'P &'P cons conseq eque uent ntl$ l$ i#po i#pose sed d a "ve! "ve!da da$ $ suspension on the "ve (0* private respondentsand later on their services ere ordered ter#inated. + co#plaint %or illegal trans%er, illegal dis#issal and 2-P as "led against &'P. Private respondents there sought to en3oin i#ple#entation o% 'pecial Orders alleging, a#ong other things, that said orders ere pre3udicial not onl$ to the# but to their %a#ilies and ould seriousl$ a4ect their econo#ic stabilit$. Petit Petitio ioner ner &'P &'P alleg alleged ed be%or be%ore e the -abor -abor +rbite +rbiterr that that petitione petitionerr is a )civic )civic service, service, non!sto non!stoc c and non!pro non!pro"t "t organi organi5ati 5ation, on, rel$ing rel$ing #ostl$ #ostl$ on govern# govern#ent ent and public public support, existing under and by virtue of Commonwealth  Act No. 111, as amended, amended, by Presidential Presidential Decree Decree No. 4! 4! . Private respondents stated in their +ppeal Me#orandu# ith the N-RC that petitioner &'P is ) by mandate of law a Public Cor"oration.  /he -abor +rbiter dis#issed the co#plaint co#plaint %or lac o%  #erit. 6t as reversed b$ N-RC hich held that private respondents have been illegall$ dis#issed.  /he central issue is hether or not &'P is e#braced ithin the Civil 'ervice. /he anser to the central issue ill deter#ine private respondent N-RC had 3urisdiction to render the decision SSU!:7hether or not petitioner &'P is in a govern#ent! oned or controlled corporation.

7hethe 7hetherr or not not &'P8s &'P8s e#plo e#plo$ee $ees s are are sub3e sub3ect ct o% Civil Civil 'ervice -a.

RULNG: Y!S. Whil While e the the BSP BSP may may be seen seen to be a mixe mixed d type type of enti entity ty,, combining aspects of both public and private entities, we believe that considering the character of its purposes and its functions, the statutory designation of the BSP as "a public corporation" and the substantial participation of the Government in the selection of  members of the National xecutive Board of the BSP, the BSP, as presently constituted under its charter, is a government!controlled government!controlled corporation within the meaning of rticle #$% &B' &(' &)' of the *onstitution% +he dministrative *ode of )-. designates the BSP as one of  the attached agencies of the /epartment of ducation, *ulture and Sports &"/*S"'%  n "agency of the Government" is defined as referr referring ing to any of the the variou various s units units of the Governm Government ent incl includ udin ing g a depa depart rtme ment nt,, bure bureau, au, offi office ce,, instr instrum ument ental ality ity,, government!owned government!owned or!controlled corporation, or local government or distinct unit therein% "Gover "Governme nment nt instru instrumen mental tality ity"" is in turn turn define defined d in the )-. )-.  dministrative *ode in the following following manner0 Instrumentality  11   11 refers to any agency of the National Govern Governmen ment, t, not integr integrate ated d within within the depart departmen ment  t  framework, vested framework, vested with special functions or 2urisdiction by law, endowed with some if not all corporate powers , administe administering ring special funds, and enjoying operational  autonomy usually through a charter. This term includes regulatory agen agenci cies es,, char charte tere red d inst instit itut utio ions ns and  and  government-owned or controlled corporations% corporations % +he same *ode describes a "chartered institution" in the following terms0 Chartered institution 11 institution  11 refers to any agency organized  or operating under a special charter, and vested by law  with functions relating to specific constitutional policies or objectives.  objectives.  +his term includes the state universities and colleges, and the monetary authority of the State% We beli believ eve e that that the the BSP BSP is appr approp opri riat ately ely rega regard rded ed as "a government instrumentality" under the )-. dministrative *ode% #t thus thus appe appear ars s that that the the BSP BSP may may be rega regard rded ed as both both a "government controlled corporation with an original charter" and as an "instrumentality" of the Government within the meaning of   rticle #$ &B' &(' &)' of the *onstitution. *onstitution . It follows follows that that the employees of petitioner BSP are embraced within the Civil Service and are accordingly governed by the Civil Service Law and Regulations.

T"# L$%or Ar%i&#r $'( p)%li* r#spo'(#'& NLRC "$( 'o +)ris(i*&io' ov#r &"# *opl$i'& -l#( % priv$&# r#spo'(#'&s r#spo'(#'&s// '#i&"#r '#i&"#r l$%or $#'* "$( %#or# %#or# i& $' $&&#r "i*" *o)l( v$li(l "$v# %##' p$ss#( )po' % i& i' &"# #3#r*is# o orii'$l or $pp#ll$&#  +)ris(i*&io'.

 /he appealed appealed 1ecision 1ecision and Resolution Resolution in this this case, having having been rendered ithout 3urisdiction, vested no rights and

i#posed no liabilities upon an$ o% the parties here involved. /hat neither part$ had e9pressl$ raised the issue o% 3urisdiction in the pleadings poses no obstacle to this ruling o% the Court, hich #a$ motu"ro"rio  tae

cogni5ance o% the issue o% e9istence or absence o%   3urisdiction and pass upon the sa#e.

View more...

Comments

Copyright ©2017 KUPDF Inc.
SUPPORT KUPDF