Labrel Case Digests on Jurisdiction

PAQUITO V. V. ANDO VS. VS . ANDRESITO ANDRESI TO Y. Y. CAMPO ET. AL. G.R. No. 184007, February 16, 2011 2011 Ponente: J. Nachura FACTS: Campo and co-respondents were hired by Premier Allied Contracting Services, Inc. (PACSI), an independent labor contractor headed by Ando as its president. They filed an illegal dismissal case and some money claims with the NLRC against PACSI. The Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of Campo and his co-respondents. A writ of execution of personal property was issued to answer for the the monetary award. Ando filed an action for prohibition and damages with TRO before the RTC claiming that the property  belong to him and his wife wife and not to the corporation. corporation. RTC denied denied the petition petition holding holding that it it has no  jurisdiction  jurisdiction to to try and decide decide the case case and ruled ruled that the petitioner’s petitioner’s remedy is to file file a third third party complaint with the NLRC Sheriff.

ISSUE: Did RTC correctly rule that it has no jurisdiction over the case?

LAW:  NLRC Manual Manual in Execution Execution of of Judgment Judgment (in relation to Scope of Jurisdiction of Labor Tribunals under the Labor Code)

RULING: Yes, RTC correctly ruled that it has no jurisdiction over the case. The regular courts have no  jurisdiction  jurisdiction to to hear and decide questions questions which arise arise from from and are incidental incidental to the the enforcement enforcement of  decisions, orders and awards rendered in labor cases by appropriate officers and tribunals of DOLE. To hold otherwise is to sanction splitting jurisdiction which is obnoxious to the orderly administration of   justice.  justice.

It is the NLRC Manual on the Execution of Judgment that governs any question on the execution of judgment of that body. The Rules of Court apply only by analogy of in a suppletory character.

OPINION: I concur with the decision of the Supreme Court that the RTC has no jurisdiction over the case as the subject matter of the petition is the execution of judgment of the NLRC’s decision. We must take note that, jurisdiction once acquired, continues until the case is finally terminated and there can be no end to a case without the implementation of the decision which decision must be exercised by the body who rendered it and not the courts. Especially in this case, the NLRC Manual specifically provides for the  procedures  procedures to be followe followed d in the execution execution of of judgment judgment promulgated promulgated by NLRC. NLRC.

RENATO RENATO REAL VS. SANGU PHILIPPINES, INC AND/OR KIICHI ABE G.R. No. 168757, January 19, 2011 2011 Ponente: J. Del Castillo FACTS: Real was the manager Sangu Phils. Inc., which is engaged in providing manpower for general services. Petitioner was dismissed from employment due to alleged gross act of misconduct and for his  participation  participation in staging strike and and barricading barricading the the premises premises of the the respondent respondent company company.. The Labor Labor Arbiter  Arbiter  decided in favor of Real and ordered for his reinstatement with full backwages. On appeal, the NLRC dismissed the case holding that Real is a stockholder and corporate officer of the respondent company and therefore it is a intra-corporate dispute over which the Labor Arbiter has no jurisdiction.

ISSUE: Does the complaint constitutes an intra-corporate dispute and thus beyond the jurisdiction of the Labor  Arbiter?

LAW: Art. 217 of the Labor Code on Jurisdiction of Labor Arbiters and the Commission

RULING: This case is not intra-corporate dispute but rather is a termination dispute and, consequently falls under jurisdiction of the Labor Arbiter pursuant to Section 217 of the Labor Code.

The better policy to be followed in determining jurisdiction over a case should be to consider  concurrent factors such as status or relationship of the parties or the nature of the question that is subject of their controversy. In the absence of these factors RTC will not have jurisdiction

OPINION: The case at bar is a termination dispute not an intra-corporate dispute. Not all conflicts between the stockholders and the corporations are classified as intra-corporate dispute. There are factors to consider in determining whether the dispute involves corporate matters as to consider them, intracorporate controversies. The fact that Real is a stockholder does not automatically classifies the case as intra-corporate dispute, therefore Labor arbiter correctly assumed jurisdiction over over the case.

BERNADETH LONDONIO AND JOAN CORCORO VS. BIO RESEARCH, INC AND WILSON Y. ANG AN G G.R. No. 191459, January 17, 2011 2011 Ponente: J. Carpio-Morales FACTS: Londonio and Socorro were hired by Bio Research as graphic/visual artist. Their services were terminated due to alleged redundancy and to prevent losses. They filed a complaint for illegal dismissal and claimed that the company was tainted with malice and bad faith as the retrenchment was a retaliatory in nature following the filing of Londonio of a sexual harassment case against the manager of the company. Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of complainants and ordered their reinstatement with full  backwages  backwages which was later later on upheld upheld by NLRC. NLRC. The The Court of Appeals affirmed affirmed the decision decision of NLRC  but deleted deleted the award award of moral moral damages damages and absolved absolved Wilson Ang, CEO CEO of Bioresear Bioresearch ch from any liability. Complainants questioned the decision of the Court of Appeals by filing a petition for certiorari.

ISSUE: Did the Court of Appeals gravely abuse its discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction in modifying the decision of the NLRC?

LAW: Citing the case of Wyeth-Suico Laboratories, Inc. vs. NLRC (on finality of findings of fact of labor  tribunals), GR No. 100658, March March 2, 1993, 219 SCRA 356

RULING:  No, the Court Court of appeals did did not gravely gravely abuse abuse its discreti discretion on in deciding deciding the case. Absent any any showing that the appellate court ignored, misconstrued and misapplied the facts and circumstances of  substance, its affirmance of the NLRC decision holding that complainants were illegally dismissed stands.

The Labor Arbiter and the NLRC being the most equipped and having acquired expertise in the specific matters entrusted to their jurisdiction, their findings of fact are accorded not only respect but even finality if they are supported by substantial evidence.

OPINION: I concur with the ruling of the Supreme Court that the Court of Appeals correctly decided the case and that the findings of fact of Labor Arbiter and NLRC when supported with substantial evidence are valid, binding and accorded with great respect because if their findings, if done with regularity in the  performance  performance of their their duties, duties, will will not be upheld upheld by courts courts the purpose for their their creation creation and the the delegation delegation of quasi-judicial functions to them will be held nugatory.

PHIMCO INDUSTRIES, INC. IN C. VS. PHIMCO INDUSTRIES I NDUSTRIES LABOR ASSOCIATION ASSOCIATION (PILA) G.R. No. 170830, August 11, 11, 2010 Ponente: J. Brion FACTS: PHIMCO Industries is engaged in production of matches while PILA is the ABU of daily paid workers. There ensued a bargaining deadlock between the company and union due to disagreements on salary increases and benefits. The union staged a strike which prompted the Secretary of Labor to assume  jurisdiction  jurisdiction over over the case case and later later on issued issued a return return to work work order. order. The company company after after accepting accepting its its employees, terminated the services of 36 union members. Company also filed a complaint for illegal strike and claimed that strikers prevented egress and ingress from Phimco compound thereby paralyzing its operations. The Labor arbiter declared the strike illegal. The illegal dismissal case and illegal strike case were consolidated before the NLRC. The NLRC ruled in favor of the union which was later on upheld by the CA. The company assailed the decision of CA by way of petition for certiorari. The Union submitted that issues before the SC are factual in nature that cannot be touch in a petition for review.

ISSUE: What is the basic approach that should be followed in the review of decisions of Court of Appeals in labor cases?

LAW: Rule 45 of the Rules of Court Rule 65 of the Rules of Court Citing the case of Montoya vs. Transmed Manila Corp. 597 SCA 334 (2009)

RULING: The Supreme Court has to view the decision of the Court of Appeals in the same context that the  petition  petition for certiorar certiorarii it ruled ruled upon was was presented presented to it. The SC have have to examine examine the CA CA decision decision from the the  prism of of whether whether it correctly correctly determi determined ned the presence presence or absence absence of grave abuse abuse of discretion discretion in in the  NLRC decision decision before before it, it, not on the basis of of whether whether the NLRC NLRC decision decision on the merits merits of the the case was was correct. In this case the decision of Labor Arbiter in declaring the strike is illegal was upheld by the SC  but they were were awarded awarded with with nominal damages in pursuant pursuant to Agabon Doctrine Doctrine because they they were not accorder with due process.

OPINION: I adhere to the approach laid down by the Supreme Court in reviewing decisions of the Court of  Appeals in reviewing of labor cases. I agree that petition for review on certiorari before the CA, as governed by Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, is different from review on appeal and therefore the correct question to be answered by the CA is that “Did the NLRC gravely abuse its discretion in deciding the case?”. On appeal, the case is subject to review in the perspective that as if there is no decision previously rendered while if it is on review by Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, the decision will be premised on the findings on whether the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion in deciding the case.

YSS EMPLOYEES UNION PHILIPPINE TRANSPORT TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS WORKERS ASSOCATION VS. YSS LABORATORIES, INC. G.R. No. 155125, December 4, 2009 Ponente: J. Chico-Nazario FACTS: YSS Laboratories, Inc is a domestic pharmaceutical company and the YSSEU is the SEBA of the rankand-file employees. The company in the implementation of its retrenchment program, dismissed some of  its employees and 9 of which are union officers and members of YSSEU. Union claimed that the company was guilty of discrimination and union-busting and later on decided to stage a strike. The Secretary of Labor assumed jurisdiction over the case and certified it to NLRC for compulsory arbitration and issued a return to work order. The company refused to comply with the directive of the Secretary of  Labor and sought for annulment of the certification and return to work order issued by the said secretary

ISSUE: Did the Secretary of Labor gravely abuse its discretion in certifying the labor dispute to NLRC for  compulsory arbitration?

LAW: Art. 263 of the Labor Code on Power of Secretary of Labor in cases on Strike, Picketing and Lockout

RULING:  No, the Secretar Secretary y of Labor Labor properly properly exercised exercised the power power vested vested to him him under Art. 263 263 of the Labor Code. The Secretary of Labor is afforded plenary and broad powers and is granted great breadth of  discretion to adopt the most reasonable and expeditious way of terminating terminating labor dispute. The labor  secretary’s certification for compulsory arbitration is not intended to interfere with the management’s

rights but is to obtain a speedy settlement of the dispute.

OPINION: I concur that the Secretary of Labor correctly assumed jurisdiction over the case ad properly acted within its authority in certifying the case for compulsory arbitration. The grant of plenary powers under  Art. 263 of the Labor Code to the Secretary of Labor makes it incumbent upon him to bring about fair  and just solution to the differences between employer and employees. In this case there was no showing that the Secretary of Labor abused his discretion or acted whimsically or capriciously as would invalidate his orders, therefore the unjustified refusal of the company to comply with theses orders is untenable.

PATRICIA HALAGUEÑA ET. AL. VS. PHILIPPINE AIRLINES, INC. G.R. No. 172013, October 2, 2009 Ponente: J. Peralta FACTS: Halagueña and co-petitioners were employed as female flight attendants of PAL and were members of  FASAP. ASAP. They filed fil ed a petition for nullification of a PAL-FASAP AL-FASAP CBA provision, specifically Sec. 144 thereof. This provision provides for compulsory retirement age of flight attendants, which is 60 years old for male and 55 years old for female employees. Petitioners assailed the constitutionality and legality of  said provision which according to them is in violation of their constitutional right to fundamental equality with men under Sec. 14, Art. II, 1987 Constitution and is contrary to Convention on the Elimination of all forms of Discrimination Discriminatio n Against Women Women (CEDAW Law). Law). PAL questioned the jurisdiction of RTC over  the case.

ISSUE: Does RTC has jurisdiction over a case involving nullification of a CBA provision?

LAW: Batas Pambansa Blg. 129 Jurisdiction of RTC Art. 217 Jurisdiction of the Labor Arbiters and the Commission

RULING: Yes. Actions between employers and employees where the employer-employee relationship is merely incidental and the cause of actions precedes from a different source of obligation, which in this case is the nullification of a CBA provision, is within the jurisdiction of regular courts. An action raising the issue as to whether a provision of a CBA is unlawful and unconstitutional is

 beyond the the jurisdiction jurisdiction of of labor tribunal tribunals. s. The jurisdiction jurisdiction of labor tribunals tribunals and NLRC under Art. 217 217 of  the Labor Code is limited to disputes arising from employer-employee relationship. Neither the grievance machinery nor the voluntary arbitrators have jurisdiction and competence to decide constitutional issues raised in this case.

OPINION: It is undisputed that this case was for nullification of a provision of a CBA provision due to its unconstitutionality and illegality, this case did not call for interpretation of the CBA as the same is clear  and free from ambiguity, it asked for fixing the terms and conditions of employment but rather this case is called for the determination of whether the assailed CBA provision is consistent with the Constitution and the CEDAW Law, therefore, the RTC correctly acquired jurisdiction over the case because the labor  tribunals have no jurisdiction and competence to decide constitutional issues relative to the questioned compulsory retirement age.

JETHRO INTELLIGENCE & SECUIRTY CORPORATION AND YAKULT PHILIPPINES, INC. VS. SECRETARY OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT ET. AL. G.R. No. 172537, AUGUST 14, 2009 Ponente: J. Carpio-Morales FACTS: Jethro Corporation is a security agency contracted by Yakult Phils, Inc. Respondent Garcia, one of the security guards deployed by Jethro Corporation filed a complaint for underpayment of wages and non payment of benefits benefits before before the DOLE. DOLE. The Regional Regional Director Director of DOLE ruled in favor of Garcia and was later on upheld by respondent Secretary of Labor. Petitioners filed a petition for certiorari assailing  jurisdiction  jurisdiction of Secretary Secretary of Labor Labor over the the case on the ground ground that the the money claims claims exceeded exceeded PHP5000. PHP5000.

ISSUE: Did respondent Secretary of Labor correctly assume jurisdiction over the case?

OPINION: The Secretary of Labor correctly assumed jurisdiction over the case. The applicable provision in this case is Art. 128 of the Labor Code because the complaint is for underpayment of wages and non payment of benefits benefits which which are violations violations of labor standard standard laws, the the amount of money money claims although although it exceeded PHP5,000 is immaterial and it does not divest the Secretary of Labor of jurisdiction over the case. The case does not fall under the exception provided in Art. 128 although Jethro Corporation appealed in the inspection results, it later on failed to submit competent proof that it was paying its

employees and benefits as mandated by law.

BAY HAVEN, INC, JOHNNY T. CO AND VIVIAN TE-FERNANDEZ VS. FLORENTINO ABUAN ET. AL. G.R. No. 160859, July 30, 2008 Ponente: J. Austria-Martinez FACTS: Abuan and his co-respondents were employees of New Bay Haven, Inc. who filed a complaint of  underpayment of wages and holiday pays and non-payment of night shift differential before the Regional Director of DOLE-NCR. The Regional Director in the exercise of its visitorial, inspection and enforcement powers issued an order corresponding to the claims of underpayment. The Company assailed the decision for lack of due process and lack jurisdiction of Regional Director over the dispute due to the amount involved.

ISSUE: Did Regional Director correctly assume jurisdiction over the case?

LAW: Art, 128 of the Labor Code on Visitorial and Enforcement Powers

RULING: Yes, the Regional Director correctly assumed jurisdiction over the case. The Secretary of Labor  and his authorized representatives have jurisdiction to enforce compliance with labor standard laws under  the broad visitorial and enforcement powers conferred by Art. 128 of the Labor Code as amended by RA 7730. The visitorial and enforcement powers of the Secretary, exercised through his representatives, encompass compliance with all labor standard laws and other legislation, regardless of the amount of the claims involved.

NESTOR J. BALLADARES, ET. AL. VS. PEAK VENTURES CORPORATION AND YANGCO MARKET OWNERS ASSOCIATION G.R. No. 161794, June 16, 2009 Ponente: J. Nachura

FACTS: Balladares and co-petitioners were hired as security guards by Peak Ventures and were assigned at the  premises  premises of Yangco Market. Market. They filed filed a complaint complaint for for underpayment underpayment of of wages against Peak Peak Ventures Ventures with the DOLE. The Regional Director of DOLE rendered judgment in favor of petitioners and ruled that Peak Ventures and Yangco Market are solidarily liable to petitioners, said decision was upheld by Secretary of Labor. On certiorari, the Court of Appeals, ruled that Regional Director has no jurisdiction over the case because the claims of each petitioners exceeded PHP5,000, therefore power to adjudicate such claims belong to the Labor Arbiter.

ISSUE: Did the Regional Director correctly assume jurisdiction over the case?

LAW: Art. 128 of the Labor Code on Visitorial and Enforcement Powers

RULING: Yes, the Regional Director correctly assume jurisdiction over the case. The complaint involved underpayment of wages. In order to verify the allegations in the complaint, DOLE conducted an inspection which yielded proof of violations of labor standards. By nature of the complaint and from the result of the inspection the authority of the DOLE under Art. 128 of Labor Code came into play regardless of monetary value of claims involved.

The Secretary of Labor or his duly authorized representatives is now empowered to hear and decide in summary proceeding, any matter involving the recovery of amount of wages and other  monetary claims arising out of employer-employee relationship at the time of inspections, even if the amount of money claims exceed PHP5000.

OPINION: The Regional Director correctly assumed jurisdiction over the money claims of petitioners even if  the claims exceeded PHP5,000. Said jurisdiction was in accordance with Art. 128(b) of the Labor Code and the case does not fall under the exception clause. We must take note that the doctrine in the Servando case is no longer controlling upon the amendment of Art. 128 by RA 7730, Secretary of Labor or his duly authorized representative is now empowered to hear and decide money claims arising out of employeremployee relationship at the time of inspection.

In this case, Peak Ventures did not contest the findings of Regional Director, it even admitted  before the the Court of of Appeals that petitioner petitionerss were not not paid correct correct wages wages and as a defense defense tried tried to pass the  buck to Yangco Market, Market, therefore therefore the the case does does not fall fall under the exceptions exceptions provided provided in Art. 128 128 (b) of 

the Labor Code which would have divested Regional Director of jurisdiction over the case.