Nestle v NLRC

G.R. No. 85197

March 18, 1991

NESTLÉ PHILIPPINES, INC.,  petitioner, vs.

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, EUGENIA C. NUNEZ, LIZA T. ILLANUEA, ILLANUEA, EMMANUEL S. ILLENA, RU!OLPH C. ARMAS, RO!OL"O M. #UA a$% RO!OL"O A. SOLI!UM, respondents.

"ACTS The pri privat vate e res respon ponden dents ts wer were e emp employ loyed ed by the NES NESTLE TLE PHILIP PHI LIPPIN PINES ES eit either her as sal sales es rep repres resent entati atives ves or med medica icall representa repre sentatives tives.. By reason of the natre of their wor! they were each allowed to avail of the company"s car loan policy. #nder that policy, the company advances the prchase price of  a ca carr to be pa paid id ba bac! c! by th the e em empl ploy oyee ee th thro ro$ $h h mo mont nthl hly y ded de dct ctio ions ns fr from om hi his s sa sala lary ry,, th the e co comp mpan any y re reta tain inin in$ $ th the e ownership of the motor vehicle ntil it shall have been flly paid for. %ll %ll of the private respondents availed of the petitioner"s car  loan policy.

The private respondents, respondents, in their comment comment on the petition, petition, alle$ed that there is a labor dispte between the petitioner and the private respondents and that their defalt in payin$ the amorti'at amort i'ations ions for their cars was bro$ bro$ht ht abot by their ille$al ille$al dismissal dismi ssal from wor! by the petitioner petitioner as pnishment pnishment for their  participation in the ille$al stri!e If they had not participated in the stri!e, they wold not have been dismissed from wor! and they th ey wo wol ld d no nott ha have ve de defa fal lte ted d in th the e pa paym ymen entt of th thei eir  r  amor am orti ti'a 'ati tion ons. s. Pr Priv ivat ate e re resp spon onde dent nts s ad admi mitt tted ed th thei eirr ci civi vill obli$ation to the petitioner.

ISSUE &h'(h'r or $o( (h' )**+a$c' o a r'*o-+()o$ / (h' NLRC 0ra$()$0 (h' r'*o$%'$(* '()()o$ or )$2+$c()o$ )* ro'r  a$% (h'or' 3a-)% o$ (h' 0ro+$% (ha( )( )* o$' o )(* o4'r  a* a$%a('% / (h' Laor Co%'. HEL! NO. The NL)+ $ravely absed its discretion and e5ceeded its

Private respo Private respondent ndents s N&e' N&e',, (il (illane laneva, va, (il (illena lena and %r %rmas mas were dismissed from the service for havin$ participated in an ille il le$a $all st stri ri!e !e.. )e )esp spon onde dent nts s * *a a an and d So Soli lid dm m we were re al also so dismissed for certain irre$larities. %ll the private respondents filed complaints for ille$al dismissal in the %rbitration Branch of  the NL)+. The Labor %rbiter dismissed their complaints and pheld the le$ality of their dismissal. They appealed to the NL)+ where their appeals are still pendin$. In the Notices of ismissal which they received from Nestl-, the private respondents had been directed to either settle the remainin$ balance of the cost of their respective cars, or retrn them to the company for proper disposition.  %s they failed and refsed to avail of either option, the company filed in the )e$ional Trial +ort of a!ati a civil sit to recover possession of the cars. The +ort issed an /rder  dated arch 0, 1233 directin$ the epty Sheriff to ta!e the motor vehicles into his cstody cstody.. The private respondents so$ht a temporary restrainin$ order  in the NL)+ to stop the company from cancellin$ their car  loans and collectin$ their monthly amorti'ations pendin$ the final resoltion of their appeals in the ille$al dismissal case. The NL)+ en banc , issed a resoltion $rantin$ their petition for in4nction.

 4risdiction by issin$ issin$ the writ of in4nction in4nction to stop the company from enforcin$ the civil obli$ation of the private respondents nder the car loan a$reements and from protectin$ its interest in the cars which, by the terms of those a$reements, belon$ to it 6the company7 ntil their prchase price shall have been flly paid by the employee. The terms of the car loan a$reements are not in isse in the labor case. The ri$hts and obli$ations of  the parties parties nd nder er tho those se con contra tracts cts may be enf enforc orced ed by a separate civil action in the re$lar corts, not in the NL)+. NestlNes tl-"s "s dem demand and for pay paymen mentt of the pri privat vate e res respon ponden dents" ts" amorti'at amort i'ations ions on their car loans loans,, or, in the alternative, alternative, the retrn of the cars to the company, is not a labor, bt a civil, dispt dis pte. e. It inv involv olves es deb debtor tor8cr 8credi editor tor rel relati ations ons,, rat rather her tha than n employee8employer relations.  %rt. 913 Powers of the Commission . : The +ommission shall have the power and athority;  6e7 To en4oin or restrain any actal or threatened commission of any or all prohibited or nlawfl acts or  to re