Sim v. NLRC Digest

-------------------------------------------------033 SIM v. NLRC G.R. No. 157376 October 2, 2007 Digested By: Joyce Baylon -------------------------------------------------Petitioner: CORAZON C. SIM Respondents: NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION AND EQUITABLE PCI-BANK Petition: Illegal dismissal; Appeal by Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court Ponente: Austria-Martinez FACTS: 1. Corazon Sim filed a case for illegal dismissal with the Labor Arbiter, alleging that she was initially employed by Equitable PCI-Bank in 1990 as Italian Remittance Marketing Consultant to the Frankfurt Representative Office. 2. Eventually, she was promoted to Manager position, until September 1999, when she received a letter from Remegio David -- the Senior Officer, European Head of PCIBank, and Managing Director of PCIB- Europe -- informing her that she was being dismissed due to loss of trust and confidence based on alleged mismanagement and misappropriation of funds. 3. Equitable PCI Bank denied any employer-employee relationship between them, and sought the dismissal of the complaint. 4. The Labor Arbiter rendered its Decision dismissing the case for want of jurisdiction and/or lack of merit. According to the Labor Arbiter: It should be stressed at this juncture that the labor relations system in the Philippines has no extra-territorial jurisdiction. It is limited to the relationship between labor and capital within the Philippines. 5. Sim was accused of withdrawing P3,000,000.00 lire from the bank's account. 6. Sim does not deny withdrawing the said amount. What she submits is that she used said amount for the Radio Pilipinas sa Roma radio program of the company. 7. Equitable PCI-Bank countered that at the time Sim withdrew said amount, the radio program was already off the air. She is a managerial employee. Thus, loss of trust and confidence is a valid ground for her dismissal.

ISSUE/S: 1. Whether or not the Labor Relations System of the Philippines has extraterritorial jurisdiction 2. Whether or not the National Labor Relations Commission has jurisdiction over overseas Filipino workers RULING/RATIO: Yes to both issues. The Labor relations system in the Philippines has extra-territorial jurisdiction and the Labor Arbiters of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) have jurisdiction to hear and decide, within the claims arising out of an employer-employee relationship or by virtue of any law or contract involving Filipino workers for overseas deployment including claims for actual, moral, exemplary and other forms of damages. Article 217 of the Labor Code provides for the jurisdiction of the Labor Arbiter and the National Labor Relations Commission, viz.: ART. 217. Jurisdiction of Labor Arbiters and the Commission. – (a) Except as otherwise provided under this Code the Labor Arbiters shall have original and exclusive jurisdiction to hear and decide, within thirty (30) calendar days after the submission of the case by the parties for decision without extension, even in the absence of stenographic notes, the following cases involving all workers, whether agricultural or non-agricultural: 1. Unfair labor practice cases; 2. Termination disputes; 3. If accompanied with a claim for reinstatement, those cases that workers may file involving wage, rates of pay, hours of work and other terms and conditions of employment; 4. Claims for actual, moral, exemplary and other forms of damages arising from the employer-employee relations; 5. Cases arising from any violation of Article 264 of this Code, including questions involving the legality of strikes and lockouts; and 6. Except claims for Employees Compensation, Social Security, Medicare and maternity benefits, all other claims, arising from employeremployee relations, including those of persons in domestic or household service, involving an amount of exceeding five thousand pesos (P5,000.00) regardless of whether accompanied with a claim for reinstatement. (b) The commission shall have exclusive appellate jurisdiction over all cases decided by Labor Arbiters.

Moreover, Section 10 of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 8042, or the Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995, provides: SECTION 10. Money Claims. — Notwithstanding any provision of law to the contrary, the Labor Arbiters of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) shall have the original and exclusive jurisdiction to hear and decide, within ninety (90) calendar days after the filing of the complaint, the claims arising out of an employer-employee relationship or by virtue of any law or contract involving Filipino workers for overseas deployment including claims for actual, moral, exemplary and other forms of damages. Also, Section 62 of the Omnibus Rules and Regulations Implementing R.A. No. 8042 provides that the Labor Arbiters of the NLRC shall have the original and exclusive jurisdiction to hear and decide all claims arising out of employer-employee relationship or by virtue of any law or contract involving Filipino workers for overseas deployment including claims for actual, moral, exemplary and other forms of damages, subject to the rules and procedures of the NLRC. In Philippine National Bank v. Cabansag, the Court pronounced: “Whether employed locally or overseas, all Filipino workers enjoy the protective mantle of Philippine labor and social legislation, contract stipulations to the contrary notwithstanding. This pronouncement is in keeping with the basic public policy of the State to afford protection to labor, promote full employment, ensure equal work opportunities regardless of sex,

race or creed, and regulate the relations between workers and employers. For the State assures the basic rights of all workers to self-organization, collective bargaining, security of tenure, and just and humane conditions of work [Article 3 of the Labor Code of the Philippines; See also Section 18, Article II and Section 3, Article XIII, 1987 Constitution]. This ruling is likewise rendered imperative by Article 17 of the Civil Code which states that laws "which have for their object public order, public policy and good customs shall not be rendered ineffective by laws or judgments promulgated, or by determination or conventions agreed upon in a foreign country." DISPOSITIVE: Petition was denied due to procedural issues. The CA did not commit any error in dismissing the petition before it for failure to file a prior motion for reconsideration with the NLRC. The Labor Arbiter and the NLRC's factual findings as regards the validity of petitioner's dismissal are accorded great weight and respect and even finality when the same are supported by substantial evidence. DOCTRINE: Labor arbiters have original and exclusive jurisdiction over claims arising from employer-employee relations, including termination disputes involving all workers, among whom are overseas Filipino workers.