Sie sind auf Seite 1von 5

CONSOLIDATED BROADCASTING SYSTEM, INC. - versus - DANNY OBERIO G.R. No.

168424 FACTS: Respondents alleged that they were employed as drama talents by DYWB-Bombo Radyo, a radio station owned and operated by petitioner Consolidated Broadcasting System, Inc. They reported for work daily for six days in a week. Their drama programs were aired not only in Bacolod City but also in the sister stations of DYWB. Sometime in August 1998, petitioner reduced the number of its drama productions from 14 to 11, but was opposed by respondents. After the negotiations failed, the latter sought the intervention of the DOLE, conducted through its Regional Office, an inspection of DWYB station. The results thereof revealed that petitioner is guilty of violation of labor standard laws, such as underpayment of wages, 13th month pay, non-payment of service incentive leave pay, and non-coverage of respondents under the Social Security System. Petitioner contended that respondents are not its employees. Respondents were suspended for minor lapses and the payment of their salaries were purportedly delayed. Pending the outcome of the inspection case with the Regional Director, respondents were barred by petitioner from reporting for work; thus, the former claimed constructive dismissal.

Respondents complaint in the inspection case before the DOLE Regional Director alleged that they were under the employ of petitioner at the time of the filing of said complaint. Pending the resolution thereof, they claimed to have been dismissed; hence, the filing of the present illegal dismissal case before the Labor Arbiter.

ISSUE: WON respondents violate the rule on forum shopping. HELD: NO. Under Article 217[9] of the Labor Code, termination cases fall under the jurisdiction of Labor Arbiters. Whereas, Article 128[10] of the same Code vests the Secretary of Labor or his duly authorized representatives with the power to inspect the employers records to determine and compel compliance with labor standard laws. The exercise of the said power by the Secretary or his duly authorized representatives is exclusive to cases where employer-employee relationship still exists. Thus, in cases where the complaint for violation of labor standard laws preceded the termination of the employee and the filing of the illegal dismissal case, it would not be in consonance with justice to charge the complainants with engaging in forum shopping when the remedy available to them at the time their causes of action arose was to file separate cases before different fora. Besides, in the instant case, respondent Danny Oberio disclosed in the verification the pendency of the case regarding wage differential.[11] In addition, said case was discussed in detail in the position paper,[12] evincing the absence of any intention on the part of respondents to mislead the Labor Arbiter.

San Miguel Corporation vs. Semillano FACTS: It appears that AMPCO hired the services of respondents Semillano et al. on different dates. All of them were assigned to work in SMCs Bottling Plant in order to perform their respective. Respondents were required to work inside the premises of SMC using [SMCs] equipment. Respondents rendered service with SMC for more than 6 months. Subsequently, SMC entered into a Contract of Services with AMPCO designating the latter as the employer of Vicente, et al. As a result, Vicente et al. failed to claim the rights and benefits ordinarily accorded a regular employee of SMC. Respondents were not allowed to enter the premises of SMC. The project manager of AMPCO, Merlyn Polidario, told them to wait for further instructions from the SMCs supervisor after a month they never heard a word from SMC. Respondents filed a complaint for illegal dismissal with the Labor Arbiter against AMPCO, Merlyn V. Polidario, SMC and Rufino I. Yatar [SMC Plant Manager]. Respondents assert that they are regular employees of SMC. However, SMC utilized AMPCO making it appear that the latter was their employer, so that SMC may evade the responsibility of paying the benefits due them under the law. Petitioner SMC raised the defense that it is not the employer of the complainants. According to SMC, AMPCO is their employer because the latter is an independent contractor. Also SMC alleged that it was AMPCO that directly paid their salaries and remitted their contributions to the SSS. Finally, SMC assails the jurisdiction of the Labor Arbiter contending that the instant dispute is intracooperative in nature falling within the jurisdiction of the Arbitration Committee of the Cooperative Development Authority. ISSUE: WON SMC was the employer of respondents. HELD:YES. Despite the fact that the service contracts contain stipulations which are earmarks of independent contractorship, they do not make it legally so. The language of a contract is neither determinative nor conclusive of the relationship between the parties. Petitioner SMC and AMPCO cannot dictate, by a declaration in a contract, the character of AMPCO's business, that is, whether as labor-only contractor, or job contractor. AMPCO's character should be measured in terms of, and determined by, the criteria set by statute. petitioner SMC, as principal employer, is solidarily liable with AMPCO, the labor-only contractor, for all the rightful claims of respondents. Under this set-up, AMPCO, as the "labor-only" contractor, is deemed an agent of the principal (SMC). The law makes the principal responsible over the employees of the "labor-only" contractor as if the principal itself directly hired the employees.

Tanjay Water vs. Gabuton Facts: petitioner Tanjay Water District, represented by its manager, Joel B. Borromeo, filed in the Regional Trial Court of Negros Oriental, Dumaguete City, an action for injunction with preliminary mandatory injunction and damages, against respondent Municipality of Pamplona and its officials to prevent them from interfering in the management of the Tanjay Waterworks System. The respondents' questioned the court's jurisdiction over the case and asked for its dismissal of the complaint. Respondent Judge issued an order dismissing the complaint for lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter (water) and over the parties (both being government instrumentalities) by virtue of Art. 88 of PD No. 1067 and PD No. 242. G.R. No. 84300 Petitioner Josefino Datuin filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against respondent Tarlac Water District in the DOLE which decided in his favor. However, upon respondent's motion for reconsideration (which was treated as an appeal) the NLRC reversed the decision and dismissed the complaint "for lack of jurisdiction," holding that as the respondent Tarlac Water District is a corporation created by a special law (PD No. 198), its officers and employees belong to the civil service and their separation from office should be governed by Civil Service Rules and Regulations.

ISSUE: WON water districts created under PD No. 198, as amended, are private corporations or government-owned or controlled corporations and the dismissal of those employees shall be governed by the civil service law. HELD: YES. They are quasi public corporations whose employees belong to the civil service, hence, the dismissal of those employees shall be governed by the civil service law, rules and regulations.The water districts are government instrumentalities and that their employees belong to the civil service, disposes of Datuin's petition in G.R. No. 84300. The National Labor Relations Commission has no jurisdiction over his complaint for illegal dismissal

Zamboanga Water District vs. Buat FACTS: The Zamboanga City Water District, petitioner herein, is a government-owned and controlled corporation engaged in the business of supplying water in the City of Zamboanga. Private respondents are all employees of petitioner. A strike occurred in the company. It was conducted and participated in by private respondents, for which reason they were separated from their employment. Petitioner thereafter filed a complaint. before the Labor Arbiter to declare the said strike illegal. The following day the Zamboanga Utilities

Labor Union (ZULU), to which private respondents belonged, filed before the Labor Arbiter, a complaint against petitioner for illegal dismissal and unpaid wages. The two cases were consolidated and heard together,a consolidated decision was rendered by the Executive Labor Arbiter declaring both the strike and the dismissal of private respondents illegal and ordering the reinstatement of private respondents to their former positions, without loss of seniority rights and privileges, but without back wages. Petitioner appealed to the NLRC. The NLRC, through respondent Commissioners, affirmed the decision of the Executive Labor Arbiter, with the sole modification that the strike leader, respondent Felix Laquio herein, be suspended from work without pay for a period of six months, effective ten days from receipt of the decision. Petitioner moved for a reconsideration, which the NLRC however denied. Petitioner contends that the NLRC had no jurisdiction to issue the resolutions in question because jurisdiction over labor disputes is vested in the Civil Service Commission. ISSUE: WON the NLRC has jurisdiction. HELD: YES. There is no dispute that petitioner, a water district with an original charter, is a government-owned and controlled corporation. The established rule is that the hiring and firing of employees of government-owned and controlled corporations are governed by the provisions of the Civil Service Law and Civil Service Rules and Regulations. Jurisdiction over the strike and the dismissal of private respondents is therefore lodged not with the NLRC but with the Civil Service Commission. Nevertheless, petitioner never raised the issue of lack of jurisdiction before the Executive Labor Arbiter, the NLRC or even this. In fact, petitioner itself filed the complaint before the Executive Labor Arbiter in NLRC, sought affirmative relief therefrom and even participated actively in the proceedings below. It is only now in this case before us, after the NLRC ordered payment of back wages, that petitioner raises the issue of lack of jurisdiction. Indeed, it is not fair for a party who has voluntarily invoked the jurisdiction of a tribunal in a particular matter to secure an affirmative relief therefrom, to afterwards repudiate and deny that very same jurisdiction to escape a penalty. Petitioner is thus estopped from assailing the jurisdiction of the NLRC and is bound to respect all the proceedings below.

BAEZ vs. VALDEVILLA and ORO MARKETING, INC FACTS: Petitioner was the sales operations manager of private respondent. In 1993, private respondent "indefinitely suspended" petitioner and the latter filed a complaint for illegal dismissal with the NLRC in Iligan City. In a decision, Labor Arbiter found petitioner to have been illegally dismissed and ordered the payment of separation pay in lieu of reinstatement, and of backwages and attorney's fees. The decision was appealed to the NLRC, which dismissed the same for having been filed out of time. Elevated by petition for certiorari before this Court, the case was dismissed

on technical grounds; however, the Court also pointed out that even if all the procedural requirements for the filing of the petition were met, it would still be dismissed for failure to show grave abuse of discretion on the part of the NLRC. On November 13, 1995, private respondent filed a complaint for damages before the Regional Trial Court ("RTC") of Misamis Oriental. Petitioner filed a motion to dismiss the above complaint. He interposed in the court below that the action for damages, having arisen from an employer-employee relationship, was squarely under the exclusive original jurisdiction of the NLRC under Article 217(a), paragraph 4 of the Labor Code and is barred by reason of the final judgment in the labor case. The court declaring itself as having jurisdiction over the subject matter of the instant controversy, respondent court stated: A perusal of the complaint which is for damages does not ask for any relief under the Labor Code of the Philippines. It seeks to recover damages as redress for defendant's breach of his contractual obligation to plaintiff who was damaged and prejudiced. The Court believes such cause of action is within the realm of civil law, and jurisdiction over the controversy belongs to the regular courts.

ISSUE: WON Labor arbiters had jurisdiction over claims for damages as between employers and employees. HELD: YES. Neither can we uphold the reasoning of respondent court that because the resolution of the issues presented by the complaint does not entail application of the Labor Code or other labor laws, the dispute is intrinsically civil. Article 217(a) of the Labor Code, as amended, clearly bestows upon the Labor Arbiter original and exclusive jurisdiction over claims for damages arising from employer-employee relations in other words, the Labor Arbiter has jurisdiction to award not only the reliefs provided by labor laws, but also damages governed by the Civil Code. Whereas this Court in a number of occasions had applied the jurisdictional provisions of Article 217 to claims for damages filed by employees, we hold that by the designating clause "arising from the employer-employee relations" Article 217 should apply with equal force to the claim of an employer for actual damages against its dismissed employee, where the basis for the claim arises from or is necessarily connected with the fact of termination, and should be entered as a counterclaim in the illegal dismissal case.

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen