Mainland Construction Vs Movilla Facts: E r n e s t M o v i l l a , w h o w a s a C P A d u r i n g h i s l i f e t i m e , w a s h i r e d b y M a i n l a n d i n 1 9 7 7 . Thereafter, he was promoted to the p o s i t i o n o f Administrative Officer.

He has a monthly salary of P4,700 per month and he was registered with SSS as an employee of petitioner corporation I n 1 9 9 1 , T h e D O L E c o n d u c t e d a r o u t i n e inspection on petitioners corporation and found that it committed some irregularities in the conduct of i t s b u s i n e s s . O n t h e b a s i s o f i t s f i n d i n g s , D O LE o r d e r e d p e t i t i o n e r s c o r p o r a t i o n t o p a y i t s 1 3 e m p l o ye e s , w h i c h i n c l u d e d M o v i l l a , a n a m o u n t r e p r e s e n t i n g t h e i r s a l a r i e s , h o l i d a y p a y, service incentive leave pay differentials, unpaid wages and 13 th month pay. All the employees l i s t e d i n t h e D O L E s o r d e r w e r e p a i d b y petitioner except Movilla. Movilla filed a case against petitioner with the DOLE in Davao City. However, in 1992, Movilla died w h i l e t h e c a s e w a s b e i n g t r i e d . H e n c e , h e w a s s u b s t i t u t e d b y h i s h e i r s , p r i v a t e r e s p o n d e n t s herein. The Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint on the ground that the controversy is intracorporation nature hence it is the SEC who has jurisdiction over and not the Labor Arbiter. O n a p p e a l , t h e NLRC r e v e r s e d t h e La b o r A r b i t e r a n d r u l e d t h a t t h e case was one which i n v o l v e d a l a b o r d i s p u t e , t h u s t h e N L R C h a s jurisdiction to resolve the case Issue: Whether the NLRC has jurisdiction over the controversy and not the SEC Held: YES. The NLRC has jurisdiction over the case. The fact that t h e p a r t i e s i n v o l v e d i n t h e c o n t r o v e r s y a r e a l l stockholders and the corporation does not necessarily p l a c e t h e d i s p u t e w i t h i n t h e j u r i s d i c t i o n o f S E C . In order that the SEC can take cognizance of a case, the controversy must pertain to factors such as the status o r relationship of the parties or the nature of the question that is the subject o f t h e i r c o n t r o v e r s y. Furthermore, it does not necessarily follow that every conflict between corporation and its stockholders can only be resolve by the SEC. In the CAB, the claim for unpaid wages and separation pay involves a labor dispute. It does not involve an i n t r a - c o r p o r a t e m a t t e r , e v e n w h e n i t i s b e t w e e n a stockholder and a corporation. It relates to an ER-EE r e l a t i o n s h i p w h i c h i s d i s t i n c t f r o m t h e c o r p o r a t e relationship of one with the other. Therefore, since the complaint of Movilla involves a labor dispute, it is the NLRC which has jurisdiction over the CAB. WHEREFORE, PETITION IS DENIED

PAL vs NLRC Facts: Private respondent Dolina completed his training course with PAL as pilot. He was given temporary appointment for6 m o n t h s a s L i m i t e d F i r s t O f f i c e r . H e a p p l i e d f o r regularization as First Officer and undergoes the required p s y c h o l o g i c a l e x a m i n a t i o n wherein his "Adaptability Rating" was found to be "unacceptable" and the Pilots acceptance Qualifications Board finds him not qualified for regular employment in the Company. Dolina was placed under preventive suspension; hence he filed a complaint for illegal dismissal. The Labor Arbiter found the dismissal of Dolina justifie d, hence, PAL discontinued the payment of Dolinas salary. Dolina objected on the ground that the discontinuance an earlier agreement that he would be kept in the payroll u n t i l t h e c a s e was finally resolved by arbitration. On a p p e a l , t h e N L R C a f f i r m e d t h e d e c i s i o n o f t h e L a b o r Arbiter but o r d e r e d t h e c o m p a n y t o c o n t i n u e p a y i n g Dolinas salary since the arbitration case was not yet over. Issue: W h e t h e r t h e N L R C c o m m i t t e d g r a v e a b u s e o f d i s c r e t i o n i n h o l d i n g t h a t D o l i n a w a s e n t i t l e d t o h i s salaries "until this case is finally resolved." Held: YES. The order of the NLRC to continue paying Dolina his salary w a s a n a b u s e o f d i s c r e t i o n . T h e c l a u s e " p e n d i n g f i n a l resolution of the case by arbitration" should be understood t o b e l i m i t e d o n l y t o t h e p r o c e e d i n g s b e f o r e t h e L a b o r Arbiter, such that when the latter rendered his decision, the case was finally resolved by arbitration.