PONENTE:YNARES-SANTIAGO,J.

:
PLACE:MAKATI CITY

G.R. NO.121948, OCT. 08, 2001

PONENTE:SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ
PLACE:DUMAGUETE CITY, CEBU CITY

PONENTE:CARPIO J, NOV. 20,2007

Casino labor ASSOCIATION vs. CA,PCOC and PSSC

Ponente: PUNO C.J.:
JURISDICTION ON GOCC DISMISSAL CASE
Facts:
On July 20, 1987, the Labor Arbiter dismissed the consolidated cases for lack of jurisdiction as well
as the NLRC as the same over PAGCOR , PCOC and PSSC. The petitioner filed a motion for review on certiorari to
the CA which was denied, the same with the petition for reconsideration filed by the petitioner with finality dated
March 15, 1989 Resolution .
The resolution in part states:
xxx Any petitions brought against private companies will have to be brought before the appropriate agency or office
of the of the Department of Labor and Employment.
Petitioner filed a manifestation/ motion that the records of the case be remanded to the Arbitration
Branch for proper prosecution and disposition thereof which was granted on 30 th of June 1989 for further
proceedings. The petitioner appeals via certiorari on the grounds that NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion.
Issue: Whether the NLRC have jurisdiction over the E-ER REL problems over GOCC.
Held: NO. the NLRC has no jurisdiction over PAGCOR, PCOC and PSSC. In accordance with the Constitution and
jurisprudence, corporations with original charter fall under the jurisdiction of the Civil Service Commission and not
the Labor Department.
The petition was dismissed and the decision of the CA was affirmed.

MANILA HOTEL CORP. VS. NLRC, G.R. NO. 120077, OCT. 13,2000
PONENTE:PARDO.J.:
PLACE:HONGKONG AND MANILA

1.
2.

3.
4.
5.

In May 1988, Marcelo Santos was an overseas worker in Oman. In June 1988, he was recruited by Palace Hotel in
Beijing, China. Due to higher pay and benefits, Santos agreed to the hotels job offer and so he started working
there in November 1988. The employment contract between him and Palace Hotel was however without the
intervention of the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA). In August 1989, Palace Hotel notified
Santos that he will be laid off due to business reverses. In September 1989, he was officially terminated.
In February 1990, Santos filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against Manila Hotel Corporation (MHC) and Manila
Hotel International, Ltd. (MHIL). The Palace Hotel was impleaded but no summons were served upon it. MHC is a
government owned and controlled corporation. It owns 50% of MHIL, a foreign corporation (Hong Kong). MHIL
manages the affair of the Palace Hotel. The labor arbiter who handled the case ruled in favor of Santos. The
National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) affirmed the labor arbiter.
ISSUE: Whether or not the NLRC has jurisdiction over the case.
HELD: No. The NLRC is a very inconvenient forum for the following reasons:
The only link that the Philippines has in this case is the fact that Santos is a Filipino;
However, the Palace Hotel and MHIL are foreign corporations MHC cannot be held liable because it merely
owns 50% of MHIL, it has no direct business in the affairs of the Palace Hotel. The veil of corporate fiction cant be
pierced because it was not shown that MHC is directly managing the affairs of MHIL. Hence, they are separate entities.
Santos contract with the Palace Hotel was not entered into in the Philippines;
Santos contract was entered into without the intervention of the POEA (had POEA intervened, NLRC still does
not have jurisdiction because it will be the POEA which will hear the case);
MHIL and the Palace Hotel are not doing business in the Philippines; their agents/officers are not residents of the
Philippines;
Due to the foregoing, the NLRC cannot possibly determine all the relevant facts pertaining to the case. It is not
competent to determine the facts because the acts complained of happened outside our jurisdiction. It cannot
determine which law is applicable. And in case a judgment is rendered, it cannot be enforced against the Palace
Hotel (in the first place, it was not served any summons).
The Supreme Court emphasized that under the rule of forum non conveniens, a Philippine court or agency may
assume jurisdiction over the case if it chooses to do so provided:
(1) that the Philippine court is one to which the parties may conveniently resort to;
(2) that the Philippine court is in a position to make an intelligent decision as to the law and the facts; and
(3) that the Philippine court has or is likely to have power to enforce its decision.
None of the above conditions are apparent in the case at bar.

BANEZ VS. VALDEVILLA

TOPIC:CLAIMS OR COUNTER CLAIMS
PONENTE: GONZAGA-REYES, J.:
PLACE: ILIGAN CITY
FACTS:
Petitioner Banez was the sales manager of private respondent in its branch in Iligan City. Banez was
indefinitely suspended, thereafter Banez filed a complaint for illegal dismissal which the LA Nicodemus G. Palangan
favored, the same with the appeal to the NLRC. On appeal, CA denied the motion for expiration of the reglementary
period. Private respondents then filed a case with the RTC Misamis Oriental, to which the petitioner herein appeal
for motion to dismiss on the grounds that the case arose from an employer-employee relationship was squarely
under the exclusive jurisdiction of LA and NLRC under Art.217 (a) paragraph 4 of the Labor code.
ISSUE:Whether the LA has jurisdiction over the case
HELD: YES. The LA has jurisdiction over the case. Under Article 217 (a) paragraph 4 of the Labor Code:
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 decided within thirty (30)
calendar days after the submission of 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;
Xxx
4. Claims for actual, moral, exemplary and other forms of damages arising from the employeremployee relations:
Article 217 should apply with equal force to the claim of an employer for actual damages against its dismiss
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 with the illegal dismissal case.
Hence, the private respondent should have filed a counterclaim with the LA, however due to appeal of
untimeliness the decision of the LA was deemed final and executor. The petitioner was granted and the case with
the RTC was dismissed.