You are on page 1of 3

Nacpil v. International Broadcasting Corp. Facts: Petitioner was Asst.

General Manager for Finance/Administration and Comptroller of respondent IBC. Alleging that he was forced to retire by the new IBC president, he filed with the NLRC a complaint for illegal dismissal and non-payment of benefits. IBC assailed the jurisdiction of the Labor Arbiter, insisting that the complainant was a corporate officer and that the dispute was for the SEC to take cognizance of.

Ruling: The Court has consistently held that there are two elements to be considered in determining whether the SEC has jurisdiction over the controversy, to wit: (1) the status or relationship of the parties; and (2) the nature of the question that is the subject of their controversy. (Saura v. Saura Jr.) As petitioners appointment as comptroller required the approval and formal action of the IBCs Board of Directors to become valid, it is clear therefore that petitioner is a corporate officer whose dismissal may be the subject of a controversy cognizable by the SEC [now RTC] under Sec. 5(c) of P.D. 902-A which includes controversies involving both election and appointment of corporate directors, trustees, officers, and managers. Had petitioner been an ordinary employee, such board action would not have been required.

7.5. When Bank Officer May be a Regular Employee - As Asst. Vice-President of the foreign department of the bank she performs tasks integral to the operations of the bank and her length of service with the bank totalling 28 years speaks volumes of her status as a regular employee of the bank. In fine, as a regular employee, she is entitled to security of tenure; that is, her services may be terminated only for a just cause. This being in truth a case of illegal dismissal, it is no wonder then that the bank endeavoured to the very end to establish loss of trust and confidence and serious misconduct on the part of private respondent but to no avail. (Prudential Bank and Trust Co. v. Reyes) 8. LABOR ARBITERS JURISDICTION: MONEY CLAIMS - A money claim arising from employer-employee relations, excepting SSS/ECC/Medicare claims, is within the jurisdiction of the labor arbiter (1) if the claim, regardless of amount, is accompanied with a claim for reinstatement; or (2) if the claim, whether or not accompanied with a claim for reinstatement, exceeds P5,000 per claimant. 8.1. Only Money Claims Not Arising from CBA

- The original and exclusive jurisdiction of the Labor Arbiter under Art. 217(c) for money claims is limited only to those arising from statutes or contracts other than a CBA. 8.2. Money Claims Must Have Arisen From Employment - Money claims of workers which do not arise out of or in connection with their employeremployee relationship fall within the general jurisdiction of regular courts of justice. Pepsi-cola Bottling Co. v. Martinez Facts: The complaint filed in the CFI of Davao averred that the annual Sumakwel contest conducted by the company in 1979, Tumala was declared winner of the Lapu-Lapu Award for his performance as top salesman of the year. The award entitled him to a prize of a house and lot, but petitioner company, despite demands, refused to deliver the prize.

Ruling: The claim for said prize unquestionably arose from an employer-employee relation and, therefore, falls within the coverage of Art. 217 of the Labor Code. Indeed, Tumala would not have qualified for the contest, much less won the prize, if he was not an employee of the company at the time of the holding of the contest.

San Miguel Corp. v. NLRC Facts: SMC sponsored an innovation program granting cash awards to employees who would submit ideas and suggestions beneficial to the corporation. Rustico submitted a proposal which, he alleged, was accepted and implemented by SMC; hence, he demanded the cash award of P60,000. But SMC refused to pay prompting Rustico to file with the NLRC a complaint claiming entitlement to cash award.

Ruling: NLRC had no jurisdiction over the subject matter of the case. Where the claim to the principal relief sought is to be resolved not by reference to the Labor Code or other labor relations statute or a CBA but by the general civil law, the jurisdiction over the dispute belongs to the regular courts of justice and not to the labor arbiter and the NLRC.

8.3. Money Claims of Coop Employees

- There is no evidence that private respondents are members of the cooperative, and even if they are, the dispute is about payment of wages, overtime pay, rest day and termination of employment. The disputes are within the original and exclusive jurisdiction of the Labor Arbiter. (Perpetual Help Credit Cooperative, Inc. v. Faburada, et al.) 8.4. Jurisdiction Over Claims for Damages Suario v. Bank of The Philippine Islands P.D. No. 1691 restored to the Labor Arbiters and the NLRC their jurisdiction to award all kinds of damages in cases arising from employer-employee relations. The legislative intent appears clear to allow recovery in proceedings before Labor Arbiters of moral and other forms of damages, in all cases arising from employeremployee relations. Moral damanges would be recoverable for example, where the dismissal of the employee was not only effected without authorized cause or due process for which relief is granted by the Labor Code but was attended by bad faith or fraud or constituted an act oppressive to labor or was done in a manner contrary to morals, good customs or public policy for which the obtainable relief is determined by the Civil Code.

You might also like