Peoples

FACTS
This is a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65questioning the Decision and Resolution of the
Court of Appeals
Private respondent JandeleonJuezan filed a coplaint against petitioner !ith the Departent
of "a#or and $plo%ent &D'"$( for illegal deduction) nonpa%ent of service incentive
leave) *+th onth pa%) preiu pa% for holida% and rest da% and illegal diinution of
#enefits) dela%ed pa%ent of !ages and noncoverage of SSS) PA,-./., and Philhealth0
After the conduct of suar% investigations) and after the parties su#itted their position
papers) the D'"$ Regional Director found that private respondent !as an eplo%ee of
petitioner) and !as entitled to his one% clais0Petitioner sought reconsideration of the
Director1s 'rder) #ut failed0 The Acting D'"$ Secretar% disissed petitioner1s appeal on the
ground that petitioner su#itted a Deed of Assignent of /an2 Deposit instead of posting a
cash or suret% #ond0 3hen the atter !as #rought #efore the CA) !here petitioner claied
that it had #een denied due process) it !as held that petitioner !as accorded due process as
it had #een given the opportunit% to #e heard) and that the D'"$ Secretar% had 4urisdiction
over the atter) as the 4urisdictional liitation iposed #% Article *56 of the "a#or Code on
the po!er of the D'"$ Secretar% under Art0 *57&#( of the Code had #een repealed #%
Repu#lic Act 8o0 &RA( 99+:
Petitioner argues that the 8"RC &not the D'"$ Secretar%( has 4urisdiction over Juezan1s
clai) in vie! of Arts0 5*9 and *57 of the "a#or Code0 .t adds that the Court of Appeals
coitted grave a#use of discretion !hen it disissed their appeal !ithout delving on the
issue of eplo%er-eplo%ee relationship0
.SS;$
<a% the D'"$ a2e a deterination of !hether or not an eplo%er-eplo%ee relationship
e=ists) and if so) to !hat e=tent>
R;".8,
?$S #ut if the D'"$ finds that there is no eplo%er-eplo%ee relationship) the 4urisdiction is
properl% !ith the 8"RC0
8o liitation in the la! !as placed upon the po!er of the D'"$ to deterine the e=istence of
an eplo%er-eplo%ee relationship0 8o procedure !as laid do!n !here the D'"$ !ould onl%
a2e a preliinar% finding) that the po!er !as priaril% held #% the 8"RC0 The la! did not
sa% that the D'"$ !ould first see2 the 8"RC1s deterination of the e=istence of an
eplo%er-eplo%ee relationship) or that should the e=istence of the eplo%er-eplo%ee
relationship #e disputed) the D'"$ !ould refer the atter to the 8"RC0 The D'"$ ust have
the po!er to deterine !hether or not an eplo%er-eplo%ee relationship e=ists) and fro
there to decide !hether or not to issue copliance orders in accordance !ith Art0 *57&#( of
the "a#or Code) as aended #% RA 99+:0
The deterination of the e=istence of an eplo%er-eplo%ee relationship #% the D'"$ ust
#e respected0 The e=panded visitorial and enforceent po!er of the D'"$ granted #% RA
99+: !ould #e rendered nugator% if the alleged eplo%er could) #% the siple e=pedient of
disputing the eplo%er- eplo%ee relationship) force the referral of the atter to the 8"RC0
The Court issued the declaration that at least a pria facie sho!ing of the a#sence of an
eplo%er-eplo%ee relationship #e ade to oust the D'"$ of 4urisdiction0 /ut it is precisel%
the D'"$ that !ill #e faced !ith that evidence) and it is the D'"$ that !ill !eigh it) to see if
the sae does successfull% refute the e=istence of an eplo%er-eplo%ee relationship0
.f the D'"$ a2es a finding that there is an e=isting eplo%er-eplo%ee relationship) it ta2es
cognizance of the atter) to the e=clusion of the 8"RC0 The D'"$ !ould have no 4urisdiction
onl% if the eplo%er-eplo%ee relationship has alread% #een terinated) or it appears) upon
revie!) that no eplo%er- eplo%ee relationship e=isted in the first place0
The Court) in liiting the po!er of the D'"$) gave the rationale that such liitation !ould
eliinate the prospect of copeting conclusions #et!een the D'"$ and the 8"RC0 The
prospect of copeting
conclusions could 4ust as !ell have #een eliinated #% according respect to the D'"$
findings) to the e=clusion of the 8"RC) and this 3e #elieve is the ore prudent course of
action to ta2e0
.t ust also #e ree#ered that the po!er of the D'"$ to deterine the e=istence of an
eplo%er- eplo%ee relationship need not necessaril% result in an affirative finding0 The
D'"$ a% !ell a2e the deterination that no eplo%er-eplo%ee relationship e=ists) thus
divesting itself of 4urisdiction over the case0 .t ust not #e precluded fro #eing a#le to reach
its o!n conclusions) not #% the parties) and certainl% not #% this Court0
;nder Art0 *57&#( of the "a#or Code) as aended #% RA 99+:) the D'"$ is full% epo!ered
to a2e a deterination as to the e=istence of an eplo%er-eplo%ee relationship in the
e=ercise of its visitorial and enforceent po!er) su#4ect to 4udicial revie!) not revie! #% the
8"RC0
To recapitulate) if a coplaint is #rought #efore the D'"$ to give effect to the la#or standards
provisions of the "a#or Code or other la#or legislation) and there is a finding #% the D'"$ that
there is an e=isting eplo%er-eplo%ee relationship) the D'"$ e=ercises 4urisdiction to the
e=clusion of the 8"RC0 .f the D'"$ finds that there is no eplo%er-eplo%ee relationship) the
4urisdiction is properl% !ith the 8"RC0 .f a coplaint is filed !ith the D'"$) and it is
accopanied #% a clai for reinstateent) the 4urisdiction is properl% !ith the "a#or Ar#iter)
under Art0 5*9&+( of the "a#or Code) !hich provides that the "a#or Ar#iter has original and
e=clusive 4urisdiction over those cases involving !ages) rates of pa%) hours of !or2) and other
ters and conditions of eplo%ent) if accopanied #% a clai for reinstateent0 .f a
coplaint is filed !ith the 8"RC) and there is still an e=isting eplo%er-eplo%ee relationship)
the 4urisdiction is properl% !ith the D'"$0 The findings of the D'"$) ho!ever) a% still #e
questioned through a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court0
.n the present case) the finding of the D'"$ Regional Director that there !as an eplo%er-
eplo%ee relationship has #een su#4ected to revie! #% this Court) !ith the finding #eing that
there !as no eplo%er- eplo%ee relationship #et!een petitioner and private respondent)
#ased on the evidence presented0 Private respondent presented self-serving allegations as
!ell as self-defeating evidence0The findings of the Regional Director !ere not #ased on
su#stantial evidence) and private respondent failed to prove the e=istence of an eplo%er-
eplo%ee relationship0 The D'"$ had no 4urisdiction over the case) as there !as no
eplo%er- eplo%ee relationship present0 Thus) the disissal of the coplaint against
petitioner is proper0
70$@-/ATAA8 A$T$RA8S S$C;R.T? A,$8C?) .8C0)vs TB$ S$CR$TAR? 'F "A/'R
,0R0 8o0 *55+66 C 8ove#er 5:) 5::9 CARP.') J0C
FactsC This is a petition for revie! !ith pra%er for the issuance of a teporar% restraining
order or !rit of preliinar% in4unction of the Decision and the of the Court of Appeals affiring
the order of the Secretar% of "a#or0
$=-/ataan Aeterans Securit% Agenc%) .nc0 &$/ASA.( is in the #usiness of providing securit%
services !hile private respondents are $/ASA.Ds eplo%ees assigned to the 8ational Po!er
Corporation at A#u2lao B%dro $lectric Plant0 'n 5: Fe#ruar% *666) private respondents led
#% Ale=ander Pocding &Pocding( instituted a coplaint for underpa%ent of !ages against
$/ASA. #efore the Regional 'ffice of the D'"$0 The Regional 'ffice conducted a coplaint
inspection at the A#u2lao Plant !here the follo!ing violations !ere notedC &*( non-
presentation of recordsE &5( non-pa%ent of holida% pa%E &+( non-pa%ent of rest da%
preiuE &F( underpa%ent of night shift differential pa%E &5( non-pa%ent of service incentive
leaveE &6( underpa%ent of *+th onth pa%E &9( no registrationE &7( no annual edical reportE
&6( no annual !or2 accidental reportE &*:( no safet% coitteeE and &**( no trained first aider0
'n the sae date) the Regional 'ffice issued a notice of hearing requiring $/ASA. and
private respondents to attend the hearings0 The Director of the Regional 'ffice issued an
'rder to pa% the coputed deficiencies o!ing to the affected eplo%ees) other!ise) a 3rit of
$=ecution shall #e issued to enforce copliance of this 'rder0 $/ASA. filed a otion for
reconsideration and alleged that the Regional Director does not have 4urisdiction over the
su#4ect atter of the case #ecause the one% clai of each private respondent e=ceeded
P5):::0 $/ASA. pointed out that the Regional Director should have endorsed the case to the
"a#or Ar#iter0 The Regional Director denied $/ASA.Ds otion for reconsideration pursuant to
RA 99+:)** the liitations under Articles *56 and 5*9&6(of the "a#or Code no longer appl% to
the Secretar% of "a#orDs visitorial and enforceent po!ers under Article *57&#(0 The
Secretar% of "a#or or his dul% authorized representatives are no! epo!ered to hear and
decide) in a suar% proceeding) an% atter involving the recover% of an% aount of !ages
and other onetar% clais arising out of eplo%er-eplo%ee relations at the tie of the
inspection0 $/ASA. appealed to the Secretar% of "a#or !hich affired !ith odification the
Regional DirectorDs 'rder0 $/ASA. filed a petition for certiorari #efore the CA disissing the
petition and affired the Secretar% of "a#orDs decision0
.ssueC 3hether or not Secretar% of "a#or or his dul% authorized representatives have
4urisdiction over the one% clais of private respondents !hich e=ceed P5):::0
BeldC ?es0 .n Allied .nvestigation /ureau) .nc0 v0 Sec0 of "a#or) G!hile it is true that under
Articles *56 and 5*9 of the "a#or Code) the "a#or Ar#iter has 4urisdiction to hear and decide
cases !here the aggregate one% clais of each eplo%ee e=ceeds P5):::0::) said
provisions of la! do not conteplate nor cover the visitorial and enforceent po!ers of the
Secretar% of "a#or or his dul% authorized representatives0H As set forth in Article *57&#( of the
"a#or Code) G&#(8ot!ithstanding the provisions of ArticleIsJ *56 and 5*9 of this Code to the
contrar%) and in cases !here the relationship of eplo%er-eplo%ee still e=ists) the Secretar%
of "a#or and $plo%ent or his dul% authorized representatives shall have the po!er to issue
copliance orders to give effect to Ithe la#or standards provisions of this Code and otherJ
la#or legislation #ased on the findings of la#or eplo%ent and enforceent officers or
industrial safet% engineers ade in the course of inspection0 The Secretar% or his dul%
authorized representatives shall issue !rits of e=ecution to the appropriate authorit% for the
enforceent of their orders) e=cept in cases !here the eplo%er contests the findings of the
la#or eplo%ent and enforceent officer and raises issues supported #% docuentar%
proofs !hich !ere not considered in the course of inspection0H
Bo!ever) if the la#or standards case is covered #% the e=ception clause in Article *57&#( of
the "a#or Code) then the Regional Director !ill have to endorse the case to the appropriate
Ar#itration /ranch of the 8"RC0 .n order to divest the Regional Director or his representatives
of 4urisdiction) the follo!ing eleents ust #e presentC &a( that the eplo%er contests the
findings of the la#or regulations officer and raises issues thereonE &#( that in order to resolve
such issues) there is a need to e=aine evidentiar% attersE and &c( that such atters are not
verifia#le in the noral course of inspection0 The rules also provide that the eplo%er shall
raise such o#4ections during the hearing of the case or at an% tie after receipt of the notice
of inspection results0 .n this case) the Regional Director validl% assued 4urisdiction over the
one% clais of
private respondents even if the clais e=ceeded P5)::: #ecause such 4urisdiction !as
e=ercised in accordance !ith Article *57&#( of the "a#or Code and the case does not fall
under the e=ception clause0
+0 "ocsin v0 8issan "ease Philippines
FACTSC
'n Januar% *) *665) "ocsin !as elected $=ecutive Aice President and Treasurer
&$APKTreasurer( of 8C"P.0 As $APKTreasurer) his duties and responsi#ilities includedC &*( the
anageent of the finances of the copan%E &5( carr%ing out the directions of the President
andKor the /oard of Directors regarding financial anageentE
*F0 "'CS.8 AS0 8.SSA8 "$AS$ PB."S ,0R0 8'0 *75569 E 'CT'/$R 5:) 5:*:
/R.'8) J0C TB.RD D.A.S.'8
and &+( the preparation of financial reports to advise the officers and directors of the financial
condition of 8C"P.0 "ocsin held this position for *+ %ears0 .n 5::5) he !as elected Chairan
of 8C"P.1s /oard of Directors0 Seven onths after his election as Chairan of the /oard) the
8C"P. agreed to have a ne! set of officers0 ;nfortunatel%) "ocsin !as neither re-elected
Chairan nor reinstated to his previous position as $APKTreasurer0 "ocsin filed a coplaint
for illegal disissal !ith pra%er for reinstateent) pa%ent of #ac2 !ages) daages and
attorne%1s fees #efore the "a#or Ar#iter against 8C"P. and /anson) !ho !as then President
of 8C"P.0
8C"P. and /anson filed a <otion to Disiss) on the ground that the "a#or Ar#iter did not
have 4urisdiction over the case since the issue of "ocsin1s reoval as $APKTreasurer involves
an intra-corporate dispute0 "ocsin su#itted his opposition to the otion to disiss)
aintaining his position that he is an eplo%ee of 8C"P.0 "a#or Ar#iter Concepcion issued an
'rder den%ing the <otion to Disiss) holding that her office acquired G4urisdiction to ar#itrate
andKor decide the instant coplaint finding e=tant in the case an eplo%er- eplo%ee
relationship0H 8C"P. appealed to the CA through a Petition for Certiorari0 The issue presented
!as !hether or not "a#or Ar#iter coitted grave a#use of discretion #% den%ing the <otion
to Disiss and holding that her office had 4urisdiction over the dispute0 According to CA)
"ocsin !as a corporate officer and the dispute !as an intra-corporate one0 CA concluded that
"ocsin does not have an% recourse !ith the "a#or Ar#iter or the 8"RC since the reoval of a
corporate officer) !hether elected or appointed) is an intra- corporate controvers% over !hich
the 8"RC has no 4urisdiction0
.SS;$C
3hether or not the CA has original 4urisdiction to revie! decision of the "a#or Ar#iter under
Rule 650
B$"DC Petition has no erit0 Supree Court agrees !ith "ocsin1s su#ission that the 8C"P.
incorrectl% elevated the "a#or Ar#iter1s denial of the <otion to Disiss to the CA0 "ocsin is
correct in positing that the denial of a otion to disiss is unappeala#le0 As a general rule) an
aggrieved part%1s proper recourse to the denial is to file his position paper) interpose the
grounds relied upon in the otion to disiss #efore the la#or ar#iter) and activel% participate
in the proceedings0 Thereafter) the la#or ar#iter1s decision can #e appealed to the 8"RC) not
to the CA0 The denial #% the la#or ar#iter of the otion to disiss is not appeala#le #ecause
the denial is erel% an interlocutor% order0 The reed% of the aggrieved part% in case of
denial of the otion to disiss is to file an ans!er and interpose) as a defense or defenses)
the ground or grounds relied upon in the otion to disiss) proceed to trial and) in case of
adverse 4udgent) to elevate the entire case #% appeal in due course0 .n order to avail of the
e=traordinar% !rit of certiorari) it is incu#ent upon petitioner to esta#lish that the denial of the
otion to disiss !as tainted !ith grave a#use of discretion0
.n the la#or la! setting) a plain) speed% and adequate reed% is still open to the aggrieved
part% !hen a la#or ar#iter denies a otion to disiss0 This is Article 55+ of Presidential
Decree 8o0 FF5) as aended &"a#or Code() !hich statesC Decisions) a!ards) or orders of the
"a#or Ar#iter are final and e=ecutor% unless appealed to the Coission #% an% or #oth
parties !ithin ten &*:( calendar da%s fro receipt of such decisions) a!ards) or orders0 Such
appeal a% #e entertained if there is pria facie evidence of a#use of discretion on the part
of the "a#or Ar#iter0 the 8"RC is clothed !ith sufficient authorit% to correct an% claied
Gerroneous assuption of 4urisdictionH #% la#or ar#iters0 Since the legislature had clothed the
8"RC !ith the appellate authorit% to correct a claied Gerroneous assuption of 4urisdictionH
on the part of the la#or ar#iter L a case
of grave a#use of discretion - the reed% availed of #% petitioner in this case is patentl%
erroneous as recourse in this case is lodged) under the la!) !ith the 8"RC0
CA clearl% erred in the application of the procedural rules #% disregarding the relevant
provisions of the 8"RC Rules) as !ell as the requireents for a petition for certiorari under
the Rules of Court0 To reiterate) the proper action of an aggrieved part% faced !ith the la#or
ar#iter1s denial of his otion to disiss is to su#it his position paper and raise therein the
supposed lac2 of 4urisdiction0 The aggrieved part% cannot iediatel% appeal the denial since
it is an interlocutor% orderE the appropriate reedial recourse is the procedure outlined in
Article 55+ of the "a#or Code) not a petition for certiorari under Rule 650
----------------------------------------------------
SC holds that e=ceptional circustances e=ist in the present case to erit the rela=ation of
the applica#le rules of procedure0 A strict ipleentation of the 8"RC Rules and the Rules of
Court !ould cause in4ustice to the parties #ecause the "a#or Ar#iter clearl% has no 4urisdiction
over the present intra-corporate dispute0 Due to e=isting e=ceptional circustances) the ruling
on the erits that "ocsin is an officer and not an eplo%ee of 8issan ust ta2e precedence
over procedural considerations0 CA correctl% ruled that no eplo%er-eplo%ee relationship
e=ists #et!een "ocsin and 8issan0.n this case) "ocsin !aselected#% the 8C"P. /oard) in
accordance !ith the Aended /%-"a!s of the corporation) as such) he !as a corporate
officer) not an eplo%ee0 PD 6:5-A) !hich defines corporate officers as Gthose officers of a
corporation !ho are given that character either #% the Corporation Code or #% the
corporation1s #%-la!s0H Section 55 of Corporation Code provides that corporate officers are
the president) secretar%) treasurerand such other officers as a% #e provided for in the #%-
la!s0 RTC has the 4urisdiction over the case0 CA1s decision is affired and petitioner1s petition
is disissed0
F0 Re%es vs0 RTC <a2ati /ranch F5
Facts:
Zenith Insurance Corp. and Rodrigo Reyes filed a derivative suit against his brother Oscar to obtain an accounting of
the funds and assets of the family corporation that were arbitrarily and fraudulently appropriated by Oscar for himself.
When Republic ct !R.." #o. $%&&'%( too) effect* the +,C-s e.clusive and original /urisdiction over cases enumerated
in +ection 0 of 1residential 2ecree !1.2." #o. &345 was transferred to the R6C designated as a special commercial
court. Oscar moved to declare the complaint as a nuisance and harassment suit and should be dismissed according to
the Interim Rules of 1rocedure for Intra5Corporate Controversies7 and that it is not a bona fide derivative suit as it
parta)es of the nature of a petition for the settlement of estate of the deceased nastacia that is outside the
/urisdiction of a special commercial court.
Issue:
Whether the trial court* sitting as a special commercial court* has /urisdiction over the sub/ect matter of Rodrigo-s
complaint.

8eld:
6o resolve it* we rely on the /udicial principle that 9/urisdiction over the sub/ect matter of a case is conferred by law and
is determined by the allegations of the complaint* irrespective of whether the plaintiff is entitled to all or some of the
claims asserted therein.:
While the complaint contained allegations of fraud purportedly committed by Oscar* these allegations are not particular
enough to bring the controversy within the special commercial court;s /urisdiction7 they are not statements of ultimate
facts* but are mere conclusions of law: how and why the alleged appropriation of shares can be characteri<ed as
=illegal and fraudulent= were not e.plained nor elaborated on.
llegations of deceit* machination* false pretenses* misrepresentation* and threats are largely conclusions of law that*
without supporting statements of the facts to which the allegations of fraud refer* do not sufficiently state an effective
cause of action.
0.Okol vs. Slimmers World
FACTSC
This is a petition for revie! on certiorari assailing the decision of the CA in CA-,0R0 SP 8o0
6676+) !hich set aside the resolutions of the 8"RC0
Respondent Sliers 3orld .nternational operating under the nae /ehavior <odifications)
.nc0 eplo%ed petitioner "eslie '2ol as a anageent trainee !ho rose up the ran2s to
#ecoe Bead 'ffice <anager and then Director and Aice President 0
'2ol !as suspended and su#sequentl% fired after recieving notice) investigated and allo!ed a
!ritten e=planation &!hich Sliers 3orld found Gunsatisfactor%H( in connection !ith the
seizure of the /ureau of Custos of seven Precor elliptical achines and seven Precor
treadills #elonging to or consigned to Sliers 3orld0 The shipent of the equipent !as
placed under the naes of '2ol and t!o custos #ro2ers for a value less than ;SM5::0
'2ol filed a coplaint !ith the Ar#itration #ranch of the 8"RC against respondents for illegal
suspension) illegal disissal) unpaid coissions) daages and attorne%1s fees) !ith pra%er
for reinstateent and pa%ent of #ac2!ages0
Respondents asserted that the 8"RC had no 4urisdiction over the su#4ect atter of the
coplaint0
*50 'N'" A0 S".<<$RS 3'R"D ,0R0 8'0 *6:*F6) D$C **) 5::6 P'8$8T$C CARP.') J
"a#or Ar#iter granted the otion to disiss0 The la#or ar#iter ruled that '2ol !as the vice-
president of Sliers 3orld at the tie of her disissal0 Since it involved a corporate officer)
the dispute !as an intra- corporate controvers% falling outside the 4urisdiction of the Ar#itration
#ranch the 8"RC reversed and set aside the la#or ar#iter1s order upon appeal #% the
petitioner and ordered reinstateent !ith #ac2!ages and indenit%0 The CA set aside the
8"RC1s Resolution dated 56 <a% 5::* and affired the la#or ar#iter1s 'rder dated 5: <arch
5:::0 The Court of Appeals ruled that the case) #eing an intra-corporate dispute) falls !ithin
the 4urisdiction of the regular courts pursuant to Repu#lic Act 8o0 79660The appellate court
added that the 8"RC had acted !ithout 4urisdiction in giving due course to the coplaint and
deprived respondents of their right to due process in deciding the case on the erits0
.SS;$ C
3'8 petitioner !as an eplo%ee of Sliers 3orld and 3'8 the 8"RC has 4urisdiction
over the illegal disissal case filed #% petitioner0
B$"DC
8o to #oth0 The petition has no erit
'2ol !as a C'RP'RAT$ 'FF.C$R at the tie of her disissal0 According to the Aended
/%-"a!s of Sliers 3orld !hich enuerate the po!er of the #oard of directors as !ell as
the officers of the corporation) The general anageent of the corporation shall #e vested in
a #oard of five directors !ho shall #e stoc2holders and !ho shall #e elected annuall% #% the
stoc2holders and !ho shall serve until the election and qualification of their successors and
"i2e the Chairan of the /oard and the President) the Aice President shall #e elected #% the
/oard of Directors fro its o!n e#ers0 The Aice President shall #e vested !ith all the
po!ers and authorit% and is required to perfor all the duties of the President during the
a#sence of the latter for an% cause0 The Aice President !ill perfor such duties as the /oard
of Directors a% ipose upon hi fro tie to tie0 This clearl% sho!s that '2ol !as a
director and officer of Sliers 3orld0
An office is created #% the charter of the corporation and the officer is elected #% the directors
and stoc2holders0 'n the other hand) an eplo%ee usuall% occupies no office and generall% is
eplo%ed not #% action of the directors or stoc2holders #ut #% the anaging officer of the
corporation !ho also deterines the copensation to #e paid to such eplo%ee
A corporate officer1s disissal is al!a%s a corporate act) or an intra-corporate controvers%
!hich arises #et!een a stoc2holder and a corporation0 The question of reuneration
involving a stoc2holder and officer) not a ere eplo%ee) is not a siple la#or pro#le #ut a
atter that coes !ithin the area of corporate affairs and anageent and is a corporate
controvers% in conteplation of the Corporation Code0 .t is a settled rule that 4urisdiction over
the su#4ect atter is conferred #% la!0 The deterination of the rights of a director and
corporate officer disissed fro his eplo%ent as !ell as the corresponding lia#ilit% of a
corporation) if an%) is an intra-corporate dispute su#4ect to the 4urisdiction of the regular courts0
Thus) the appellate court correctl% ruled that it is not the 8"RC #ut the regular courts !hich
have 4urisdiction over the present case0 P$T.T.'8 D$8.$D
6. Rural Bank of Coron vs. Cortes
RURAL BANK OF CORON vs. CORTES
G.R. No. 164888 December 6, 26
FC6+:
Respondent was the Financial ssistant* 1ersonnel Officer and Corporate +ecretary of 6he Rural >an) of Coron. On
e.amination of the financial boo)s of the corporations it was found out that respondent was involved in several
anomalies* drawing petitioners to terminate respondent-s services. Respondent-s counsel conveyed respondent-s
willingness to abide by the decision to terminate her but reminded them that she was entitled to separation pay as well
as to the other benefits provided by law in her favor. 8owever* this demand remained unheeded* so respondent filed a
complaint for illegal dismissal and non5payment of salaries and other benefits. 1etitioners moved for the dismissal of
the complaint on the ground of lac) of /urisdiction* contending that the case was an intra5corporate controversy
involving the removal of a corporate officer* hence* cogni<able by the +ecurities and ,.change Commission !+,C"
pursuant to +ection 0 of 12 &345. It was denied and eventually* the ?abor rbiter found for respondent* computing
the monetary award due her. 6he ?abor rbiter disposed his decision.
On last day of the period of appeal* petitioners filed a #otice of ppeal and @otion for Reduction of >ond to which they
attached a @emorandum on ppeal. In their @otion for Reduction of >ond* petitioners alleged that the corporations
were under financial distress and the Rural >an) of Coron was under receivership. 6hey thus prayed that the amount
of bond be substantially reduced* preferably to one half thereof or even lower.
6he #?RC* while noting that petitioners timely filed the appeal* held that the same was not accompanied by an appeal
bond* a mandatory reAuirement under rticle 44B of the ?abor Code and +ection C* Rule DI of the #?RC #ew Rules of
1rocedure. It accordingly dismissed the appeal.
1etitioners filed a 1etition for Certiorari before the Court of ppeals* which dismissed it. 8ence this petition faulting the
appellate court for dismissing their petition* saying that they did such based on mere technicality and failure to decide
based on merit.
I++E,:
F. WO# the ?abor rbiter has thus /urisdiction over respondent-s complaint.
4. WO# the appellate court erred in dismissing the petition =on a mere technicality.=
8,?2:
F. G,+. While* indeed* respondent was the Corporate +ecretary of the Rural >an) of Coron* she was also its
Financial ssistant and the 1ersonnel Officer of the two other petitioner corporations. @ainland Construction
Co.* Inc. v. @ovilla4B instructs that a corporation can engage its corporate officers to perform services under a
circumstance which would ma)e them employees.
4. #O
6he non5posting of an appeal bond within the reglementary period divests the #?RC of its /urisdiction to entertain the
appeal. 6he reAuirement for posting the surety bond is not merely procedural but /urisdictional and cannot be trifled
with. #on5compliance with such legal reAuirements is fatal and has the effect of rendering the /udgment final and
e.ecutory. 6he petitioners cannot be allowed to see) refuge in a liberal application of rules for their act of negligence.
In the case at bar* petitioner did not post a full or partial appeal bond within the prescribed period* thus* no appeal was
perfected from the decision of the ?abor rbiter. For this reason* the decision sought to be appealed to the #?RC had
become final and e.ecutory and therefore immutable. Clearly then* the #?RC has no authority to entertain the appeal*
much less to reverse the decision of the ?abor rbiter.
!. "#$%&e'# vs. (AL
"ALAGUENA vs., (")L)(()NE A)RL)NES )NC.
GR No. 1!21*
Oc+ober 2, 2,
Facts:
1etitioners were employed as female flight attendants of respondent 1hilippine irlines !1?" on different dates prior to
#ovember 44* F&&C. 6hey are members of the Flight ttendants and +tewards ssociation of the 1hilippines !F+1".
On Huly FF* 433F* respondent and F+1 entered into a Collective >argaining greement incorporating the terms and
conditions of their agreement for the years 4333 to 4330.
+ection FII* 1art of the 1?5F+1 C>* provides that:
. For the Cabin ttendants hired before 44 #ovember F&&C:
. . . .
B. Compulsory Retirement
+ub/ect to the grooming standards provisions of this greement* compulsory retirement shall
be fifty5five !00" for females and si.ty !C3" for males. . . ..
In a letter dated Huly 44* 433B* petitioners and several female cabin crews manifested that the
aforementioned C> provision on compulsory retirement is discriminatory* and demanded for an eAual
treatment with their male counterparts.
On Huly 4&* 433I* petitioners filed a +pecial Civil ction for 2eclaratory Relief with 1rayer for the Issuance of
6emporary Restraining Order and Writ of 1reliminary In/unction with the Regional 6rial Court !R6C" of @a)ati
City* >ranch FI%* doc)eted as Civil Case #o. 3I5$$C* against respondent for the invalidity of +ection FII*
1art of the 1?5F+1 C>. 6he R6C set a hearing on petitioners; application for a 6RO and* thereafter*
reAuired the parties to submit their respective memoranda.
R6C ruled that it had /urisdiction over the controversy since such controversy did not arise from a labor dispute rather
it arose from the unconstitutionality of that certain provision in the C> as well as its violation of the ?abor Code and
the C,2W.
C ruled that R6C had #O /urisdiction over the case.
Issue:
Whether or not the R6C has /urisdiction over the petitioners; action challenging the legality or constitutionality of the
provisions on the compulsory retirement age contained in the C> between respondent 1? and F+1
8eld:
In the case at bar* the allegations in the petition for declaratory relief plainly show that petitioners; cause of action is the
annulment of +ection FII* 1art of the 1?5F+1 C>.
It is clear that the issue raised is whether +ection FII* 1art of the 1?5F+1 C> is unlawful and unconstitutional.
8ere* the petitioners; primary relief in Civil Case #o. 3I5$$C is the annulment of +ection FII* 1art of the 1?5F+1
C>* which allegedly discriminates against them for being female flight attendants. 6he sub/ect of litigation is
incapable of pecuniary estimation* e.clusively cogni<able by the R6C* pursuant to +ection F& !F" of >atas 1ambansa
>lg. F4&* as amended. >eing an ordinary civil action* the same is beyond the /urisdiction of labor tribunals.
6he said issue cannot be resolved solely by applying the ?abor Code. Rather* it reAuires the application of the
Constitution* labor statutes* law on contracts and the Convention on the ,limination of ll Forms of 2iscrimination
gainst Women* and the power to apply and interpret the constitution and C,2W is within the /urisdiction of trial
courts* a court of general /urisdiction.
6he /urisdiction of labor arbiters and the #?RC under rticle 4F% of the ?abor Code is limited to disputes arising from
an employer5employee relationship which can only be resolved by reference to the ?abor Code* other labor statutes*
or their collective bargaining agreement.
8ere* the employer5employee relationship between the parties is merely incidental and the cause of action ultimately
arose from different sources of obligation* i.e.* the Constitution and C,2W.
6hus* where the principal relief sought is to be resolved not by reference to the ?abor Code or other labor relations
statute or a collective bargaining agreement but by the general civil law* the /urisdiction over the dispute belongs to the
regular courts of /ustice and not to the labor arbiter and the #?RC. In such situations* resolution of the dispute reAuires
e.pertise* not in labor management relations nor in wage structures and other terms and conditions of employment*
but rather in the application of the general civil law. Clearly* such claims fall outside the area of competence or
e.pertise ordinarily ascribed to labor arbiters and the #?RC and the rationale for granting /urisdiction over such claims
to these agencies disappears.
6he dispute in the case at bar is not between F+1 and respondent 1?* who have both previously agreed upon the
provision on the compulsory retirement of female flight attendants as embodied in the C>. 6he dispute is between
respondent 1? and several female flight attendants who Auestioned the provision on compulsory retirement of female
flight attendants. 6hus* referral to the grievance machinery and voluntary arbitration would not serve the interest of the
petitioners.
$. +antiago vs. CF +harp Crew
FactsC Petitioner had #een !or2ing as a seafarer for Sith /ell <anageent) .nc0 for a#out
five &5( %ears0 'n + Fe#ruar% *667) petitioner signed a ne! contract of eplo%ent !ith
respondent) !ith the duration of nine &6( onths0 Be !as assured of a onthl% salar% of
;SM5*50::) overtie pa% and other #enefits0 The follo!ing da% or on F Fe#ruar% *667) the
contract !as approved #% the Philippine 'verseas $plo%ent Adinistration &P'$A(0
Petitioner !as to #e deplo%ed on #oard the O<SA SeaspreadO !hich !as scheduled to leave
the port of <anila for Canada on *+ Fe#ruar% *6670 A !ee2 #efore the scheduled date of
departure) Capt0 Pacifico Fernandez) respondentDs Aice President) sent a facsiile essage
to the captain of O<SA Seaspread)O that the !ife of Paul Santiago as2ed not to send her
hus#and to <SA Seaspread an%ore0 And that soe callers !ho did not reveal their identit%
gave soe feed#ac2s that Paul Santiago this tie if allo!ed to depart !ill 4up ship in
Canada li2e his #rother Christopher Santiago0 And requested to send his replaceent instead
in order to prevent fro #eing penalized0 'n 6 Fe#ruar% *667) petitioner !as thus told that he
!ould not #e leaving for Canada an%ore) #ut he !as reassured that he ight #e considered
for deplo%ent at soe future date0 Petitioner filed a coplaint for illegal disissal) daages)
and attorne%Ds fees against respondent and its foreign principal) Ca#le and 3ireless &<arine(
"td0 The case !as raffled to "a#or Ar#iter Teresita Castillon- "ora) !ho ruled that the
eplo%ent contract reained valid #ut had not coenced since petitioner !as not
deplo%ed0 According to her) respondent violated the rules and regulations governing overseas
eplo%ent !hen it did not deplo% petitioner) causing petitioner to suffer actual daages0 'n
appeal #% respondent) the 8"RC ruled that there is no eplo%er-eplo%ee relationship
#et!een petitioner and respondent #ecause under the Standard Ters and Conditions
,overning the $plo%ent of Filipino Seafarers on /oard 'cean ,oing Aessel) the
eplo%ent contract shall coence upon actual departure of the seafarer fro the airport
or seaport at the point of hire and !ith a P'$A-approved contract0 .n the a#sence of an
eplo%er-eplo%ee relationship #et!een the parties) the clais for illegal disissal) actual
daages) and attorne%Ds fees should #e disissed0 'n the other hand) the 8"RC found
respondentDs decision not to deplo% petitioner to #e a valid e=ercise of its anageent
prerogative affiring the decision !ith odification vacating the a!ard of actual daages and
attorne%Ds fees0 Petitioner oved for the reconsideration of the 8"RCDs Decision #ut his
otion !as denied for lac2 of erit0*: Be elevated the case to the Court of Appeals through a
petition for certiorari !hich noted that there is an a#iguit% in the 8"RCDs Decision !hen it
affired !ith odification the la#or ar#iterDs Decision) #ecause #% the ver% odification
introduced #% the Coission &vacating the a!ard of actual daages and attorne%Ds fees()
there is nothing ore left in the la#or ar#iterDs Decision to affir0 According to the appellate
court) petitioner is not entitled to actual daages #ecause daages are not recovera#le #% a
!or2er !ho !as not deplo%ed #% his agenc% !ithin the period prescri#ed in the P'$A Rules0
.t agreed !ith the 8"RCDs finding that petitionerDs non-deplo%ent !as a valid e=ercise of
respondentDs anageent prerogative0 .t added that since petitioner had not departed fro
the Port of <anila) no eplo%er-eplo%ee relationship #et!een the parties arose and an%
clai for daages against the so-called eplo%er could have no leg to stand on0 PetitionerDs
su#sequent otion for reconsideration !as denied0
70 PA;" A0 SA8T.A,' vs CF SBARP CR$3 <A8A,$<$8T) .8C0 ,0R0 8o0 *65F*6 C Jul%
*:) 5::9 T.8,A) J0C
.ssueC 3hether or not the CA coitted a serious error of la! !hen it ignored ISJection *: of
Repu#lic Act IR0A0J 8o0 7:F5 other!ise 2no!n as the <igrant 3or2erDs Act of *665 as !ell as
Section 56 of the Standard Ters and Conditions ,overning the $plo%ent of Filipino
Seafarers 'n-/oard 'cean-,oing Aessels &!hich is deeed incorporated under the
petitionerDs P'$A approved $plo%ent Contract( that the clais or disputes of the
'verseas Filipino 3or2er #% virtue of a contract fall !ithin the 4urisdiction of the "a#or Ar#iter
of the 8"RC0
BeldC ?es0 There is no question that the parties entered into an eplo%ent contract !here#%
petitioner !as contracted #% respondent to render services on #oard O<SA SeaspreadO for
the consideration of ;SM5*50:: per onth for nine &6( onths) plus overtie pa%0 Bo!ever)
respondent failed to deplo% petitioner fro the port of <anila to Canada0 Considering that
petitioner !as not a#le to depart fro the airport or seaport in the point of hire) the
eplo%ent contract did not coence) and no eplo%er-eplo%ee relationship !as created
#et!een the parties0 Bo!ever) a distinction ust #e ade #et!een the perfection of the
eplo%ent contract and the coenceent of the eplo%er-eplo%ee relationship0 The
perfection of the contract) !hich in this case coincided !ith the date of e=ecution thereof)
occurred !hen petitioner and respondent agreed on the o#4ect and the cause) as !ell as the
rest of the ters and conditions therein0 The coenceent of the eplo%er-eplo%ee
relationship) as earlier discussed) !ould have ta2en place had petitioner #een actuall%
deplo%ed fro the point of hire0 Thus) even #efore the start of an% eplo%er- eplo%ee
relationship) conteporaneous !ith the perfection of the eplo%ent contract !as the #irth of
certain rights and o#ligations) the #reach of !hich a% give rise to a cause of action against
the erring part%0 Thus) if the reverse had happened) that is the seafarer failed or refused to #e
deplo%ed as agreed upon) he !ould #e lia#le for daages0
<oreover) respondentDs act of preventing petitioner fro departing the port of <anila and
#oarding O<SA SeaspreadO constitutes a #reach of contract) giving rise to petitionerDs cause
of action0 Respondent unilaterall% and unreasona#l% reneged on its o#ligation to deplo%
petitioner and ust therefore ans!er for the actual daages he suffered0 The fact that the
P'$A Rules are silent as to the pa%ent of daages to the affected seafarer does not ean
that the seafarer is precluded fro claiing the sae0 The P'$A Rules onl% provide
sanctions !hich the P'$A can ipose on erring agencies0 .t does not provide for daages
and one% clais recovera#le #% aggrieved eplo%ees #ecause it is not the P'$A) #ut the
8"RC) !hich has 4urisdiction over such atters0 Despite the a#sence of an eplo%er-
eplo%ee relationship #et!een petitioner and respondent) the Court rules that the 8"RC has
4urisdiction over petitionerDs coplaint0 The 4urisdiction of la#or ar#iters is not liited to clais
arising fro eplo%er-eplo%ee relationships0 Section *: of R0A0 8o0 7:F5 &<igrant 3or2ers
Act() provides thatC
Sec0 *:0 <one% Clais0 - 8ot!ithstanding an% provision of la! to the contrar%) the "a#or
Ar#iters of the 8ational "a#or Relations Coission &8"RC( shall have the original and
e=clusive 4urisdiction to hear and decide) !ithin ninet% &6:( calendar da%s after the filing of
the coplaint) the clais arising out of an eplo%er- eplo%ee relationship or #% virtue of
an% la! or contract involving Filipino !or2ers for overseas deplol%ent including clais for
actual) oral) e=eplar% and other fors of daages0
&. tlas Farms Inc. vs. #?RC
FACTSC
Petitioner see2s the reversal of the decisionof the Court of Appeals disissing its petition for certiorari
against the 8"RC) as !ell as the resolution den%ing its otion for reconsideration0
Pena and A#ion filed coplaints for illegal disissal against the petitioner0
The la#or ar#iter disissed their coplaints on the ground that the grievance achiner% in
the C/A had not %et #een e=hausted0
Private respondents availed of the grievance process) #ut later on refiled the case #efore the
8"RC0 The% alleged Olac2 of s%path%O on petitioner1s part to engage in conciliation
proceedings0
Private respondents #rought the case to the 8"RC) !hich reversed the la#or ar#iter1s
decision0 The appellate court denied the petition and affired the 8"RC0 .ts otion for
reconsideration) !hich !as
denied0Bence) this petition0
Petitioner contends that the disissal of private respondents !as for a 4ust and valid cause)
pursuant to the provisions of the copan%1s rules and regulations0 .t also alleges that private
respondents theselves aditted that the% !ere e#ers of the eplo%ees1 union !ith
!hich petitioner had an e=isting C/A0 This #eing the case) according to petitioner) 4urisdiction
over the case #elonged to the grievance achiner% and thereafter the voluntar% ar#itrator) as
provided in the C/A0
For their part) private respondents contend that the% !ere illegall% disissed fro
eplo%ent #ecause
anageent discovered that the% intended to for another union) and #ecause the% !ere
vocal in asserting their rights0
.ssueC 3hether the la#or ar#iter and the 8"RC had 4urisdiction to decide coplaints for illegal
disissal0
BeldC ?es0 Anent the issue) Article 5*9 of the "a#or Code provides that la#or ar#iters have
original and e=clusive 4urisdiction over terination disputes0 A possi#le e=ception is provided
in Article 56* of the "a#or Code) !hich provides that ---
The Aoluntar% Ar#itrator or panel of voluntar% ar#itrators shall have original and e=clusive
4urisdiction to hear and decide all unresolved grievances arising fro the interpretation or
ipleentation of the Collective /argaining Agreeent and those arising fro the
interpretation or enforceent of copan% personnel policies referred to in the iediatel%
preceding article0 Accordingl%) violations of a Collective /argaining Agreeent) e=cept those
!hich are gross in character) shall no longer #e treated as unfair la#or
practice and shall #e resolved as grievances under the Collective /argaining Agreeent0 For
purposes of this article) gross violations of Collective /argaining Agreeent shall ean
flagrant and or alicious refusal to
copl% !ith the econoic provisions of such agreeent
The Coission) its Regional 'ffices and the Regional Directors of the Departent of "a#or
and $plo%ent shall not entertain disputes) grievances or atters under the e=clusive and
original 4urisdiction of the Aoluntar% Ar#itrator or panel of Aoluntar% Ar#itrators and shall
iediatel% dispose and refer the sae to the grievance <achiner% or Ar#itration provided in
the Collective /argaining Agreeent0H
'ne significant fact in the present petition also needs stressing0 Pursuant to Article 56:of the
"a#or Code) the parties to a C/A shall nae or designate their respective representatives to
the grievance achiner% and if the grievance is unsettled in that level) it shall autoaticall%
#e referred to the voluntar% ar#itrators designated in
advance #% the parties to a C/A0 Consequentl% onl% disputes involving the union and the
copan% shall #e referred to the grievance achiner% or voluntar% ar#itrators0 .n these
terination cases of private respondents) the union had no participation) it having failed to
o#4ect to the disissal of the eplo%ees concerned #% the petitioner0 .t is o#vious that
ar#itration !ithout the union1s active participation on #ehalf of the disissed eplo%ees
!ould #e pointless) or even pre4udicial to their cause0
Petition is D$8.$D for lac2 of erit0 CA affired) there !as illegal disissal and the
4urisdiction #elongs to the la#or ar#iter
F3. 1erpetual 8elp Credit Cooperative Inc. v Faburada
FactsC Fa#urada) Ailar) Taa%o and Catipa%filed a coplaint against the PBCC.!ith the
Ar#itration /ranch D'"$ for illegal disissal0
5*0 P$RP$T;A" B$"P CR$D.T C''P$RAT.A$) .8C0) vs0FA/;RADA ,0R0 8o0 *5*6F7
'cto#er 7) 5::* SA8D'AA"-,;T.$RR$P) J0C
PBCC. filed a otion to disiss0
The "a#or Ar#iter denied petitionerDs otion to disiss) holding that the case is ipressed
!ith eplo%er- eplo%ee relationship) that the la! on cooperatives is su#servient to the
"a#or Code) and that coplainants illegall% disissed0 The 8"RC affired the "a#or
Ar#iterDs decision0Bence) this petition #% the PBCC.0
Petitioner contends that the la#or ar#iter has no 4urisdiction to ta2e cognizance of the
coplaint of private respondents considering that the% failed to su#it their dispute to the
grievance achiner% as required #% P0D and its ipleenting rules and regulations under
"'. 5+0 "i2e!ise) the Cooperative Developent Authorit% did not issue a Certificate of 8on-
Resolution pursuant to Cooperative Developent Authorit% "a!
0 .ssueC 3'8 "a#or Ar#iter has 4urisdiction
BeldC As aptl% stated #% the Solicitor ,eneral in his coent) P0D0 *95 does not provide for a
grievance achiner%0 "'. has no relevance to the instant case0
The a#ove provisions appl% to e#ers) officers and directors of the cooperative involved in
disputes !ithin a cooperative or #et!een cooperatives #ut there is no evidence that private
respondents are e#ers of petitioner PBCC.0and even if the% are) the dispute is a#out
pa%ent of !ages) overtie pa%) rest da% and
terination of eplo%ent0 ;nder Art0 5*9 of the "a#or Code) these disputes are !ithin the
original and e=clusive 4urisdiction of the "a#or Ar#iter0
The petition is here#% D$8.$D0 The decision of respondent 8"RC is AFF.R<$D0
Additional infoC 8adiscussditoung eleents ngee-er relationship) 2inds of eplo%ees) t!o
groups of 4ust causes) procedural due process08asa Gsae saeH lang 2ung a% full te=t
2a%o0
55555 another digest 555
(ER(ETUAL "EL( CRED)T COO(ERAT)-E, )NC. vs. BENED)CTO FABURADA, S)S)N)TA -)LLAR, ).ELDA
TA.A/O, "AROLD CAT)(A/, #'0 +1e NAT)ONAL LABOR RELAT)ONS CO..)SS)ON
G.R. No. 121,48, Oc+ober 8, 21
FC6+:
On Hanuary B* F&&3* >enedicto Faburada* +isinita Dilar* Imelda 6amayo and 8arold Catipay* private respondents* filed
a complaint against the 1erpetual 8elp Credit Cooperative* Inc. !18CCI"* petitioner* with the rbitration >ranch*
2epartment of ?abor and ,mployment !2O?,"* 2umaguete City* for illegal dismissal* premium pay on holidays and
rest days* separation pay* wage differential* moral damages* and attorney;s fees.
Forthwith* petitioner 18CCI filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on the ground that there is no employer5employee
relationship between them as private respondents are all members and co5owners of the cooperative. Furthermore*
private respondents have not e.hausted the remedies provided in the cooperative by5laws. 18CCI also filed a
supplemental motion to dismiss alleging that R C&B&* theCooperative 2evelopment uthority ?aw* reAuires
conciliation or mediation within the cooperative before a resort to /udicial proceeding.
6he ?abor rbiter ruled in favor of the private respondents* holding that the case is impressed withemployer5employee
relationship and that the laws on cooperatives is subservient to the ?abor Code. 6he #?RC affirmed the ?;s decision.
I++E,: Whether or not there is an employer5employee relationship between the parties and that private respondents
were illegally dismissed
8,?2:
G,+7 thus petition is 2,#I,2* and the decision of respondent #?RC is FFIR@,2.
In determining the e.istence of an employer5employee relationship* the following elements are considered: !F " the
selection and engagement of the wor)er or the power to hire7 !4" the power to dismiss7 !B" the payment of wages by
whatever means7 and !I" the power to control the wor)er;s conduct* with the latter assuming primacy in the overall
consideration. #o particular form of proof is reAuired to prove the e.istence of an employer5employee relationship. ny
competent and relevant evidence may show the relationship.
6he above elements are present here. 1etitioner 18CCI* through @r. ,dilberto ?antaca* Hr.* its @anager* hired private
respondents to wor) for it. 6hey wor)ed regularly on regular wor)ing hours* were assigned specific duties* were paid
regular wages and made to accomplish daily time records /ust li)e any other regular employee. Faburada was a
regular part5time Computer programmerJ operator* whereas 6amayo* Dillar* and Catipay were cler)s. 6hey wor)ed
under the supervision of the cooperative manager. >ut unfortunately* they were dismissed.
6he ?abor Code comprehends three )inds of employees: Regular employees* 1ro/ect employees* and Casual
,mployees. 6here are 4 separate instances whereby it can be determined that an employment is regular: F" If the
particular activity performed by the employee is necessary or desirable in the usual business or trade of the employer*
and 4" If the employee has been performing the /ob for at least a year. 1rivate respondents were rendering services
necessary to the day5to5day operations of 18CCI. 6his alone Aualified them as regular employees. @oreover* all of
them e.cept one wor)ed with 18CCI for more than F year. s regular employees or wor)ers* private respondents are
entitled to security of tenure. 6hus* their services may be terminated only for a valid cause* with observance of due
process.
1etitioner contends that the labor arbiter has no /urisdiction to ta)e cogni<ance of the complaint of private respondents
considering that they failed to submit their dispute to the grievance machinery as reAuired by 1.2. F%0 !strengthening
the Cooperative @ovement" $ and its implementing rules and regulations under ?OI 4B. ?i)ewise* the Cooperative
2evelopment uthority did not issue a Certificate of #on5Resolution pursuant to +ection $ of the Cooperative
2evelopment uthority ?aw. 6he above provisions apply to members* officers and directors of the cooperative involved
in disputes within a cooperative or between cooperatives.
6here is no evidence that private respondents are members of petitioner 18CCI and even if they are* the dispute is
about payment of wages* overtime pay* rest day and termination of employment. Ender rt. 4F% of the ?abor Code*
these disputes are within the original and e.clusive /urisdiction of the ?abor rbiter.
FF. ustria vs. #?RC
FactsC Pastor Dionisio Austria !as disissed fro service #% the Seventh Da% Adventist or
SDA for isappropriation of funds) !ilful #reach of trust) serious isconduct) gross and
ha#itual neglect of duties and coission of an offense against the person of eplo%er1s dul%
authorized representative as grounds0 Pastor Austria #egan serving the religious corporation
on *66+ until 'cto#er *66* !hen his services !as terinated0 Fro August up to 'cto#er
*66*) petitioner received several counications fro <r0 .#esate the Treasurer of the
8egros <ission as2ing hi to adit accounta#ilit% and responsi#ilit% for the church tithes and
offerings collected #% his !ife0 Be e=plained that it !as .#esate and Pastor /uhat) the
president of the said <ission !ho authorized his !ife to collect since he !as sic2 at that tie0
'n the other hand) Pastor /uhat and petitioner had a heated arguent !hen Pastor Rodrigo
har#oured ill feelings against the latter for helping out one Dann% Diaada for collecting the
unpaid #alance for the repair of Rodrigo1s otor vehicle0 ;pon discover% that Rodrigo !as
a#out to file a coplaint against hi !ith the <ission) Austria !ent to /uhat1s office to
convene the $=ecutive Coittee #ut he failed since there !as no quoru0 Austria #anged
the attache case of /uhat) scattered the #oo2s and tried to overturn the ta#le0 Su#sequentl%)
on 'cto#er 56) *66*) the $=ecutive Coittee !as convened and rendered the disissal of
Austria0
The "A ruled in favour of the petitioner0 8"RC vacated such findings #ut reversed its o!n
decision upon filing of the <R #% respondents on the ground that "A has no 4urisdiction due to
the constitutional provision of the separation of church and state since the case involved an
ecclesiastical affair to !hich the state cannot interfere0
.ssueC
*0 3hether or not the "AK8"RC has 4urisdiction over the case
50 3hether or not the terination of the services of petitioner is an ecclesiastical affair
and as such
involves the separation of church and stateE and
+0 3hether or not such terination is valid
BeldC *0 ?es0 The grounds for the petitioner1s disissal are #ased on Art 575 of the "a#or
Code !hich
enuerates the 4ust causes for terination of eplo%ent0 /% this alone) it is palpa#le that
the reason for his disissal fro the service is not a religious nature0 Coupled !ith this is the
act of the SDA in
550 A;STR.A vs0 8AT.'8A" "A/'R R$"AT.'8S C'<<.SS.'8 +*5 SCRA F*: ,R 8o0
*5F+75 August *6) *666 Napunan) J0
furnishing 8"RC !ith a cop% of petitioner1s letter of terination recognizing his 57 %ears of
service0 As such) the State) through the "A and the 8"RC) has the right to ta2e cognizance of
the case and to deterine !hether SDA) as eplo%er) rightfull% e=ercised its anageent
prerogative to disiss an eplo%ee0 This is in consonance !ith the andate of the
Constitution to afford full protection to la#or0
Furtherore) the "a#or Code) under Art 597 on post eplo%ent states that Gthe provisions
of this Title shall appl% to all esta#lishents or underta2ings) !hether for profit or not0H The
provision does not a2e an% e=ception in favour of religious corporation0 This is ade ore
evident #% the fact that the Rules .pleenting the "C) particularl%) Section *) Rule *) /oo2
A. on the terination of $plo%ent and Retireent) categoricall% includes religious
institutions in the coverage of the la!0
50 8o0 The principle of separation of church and state finds no application in this case0 The
rationale of the principle of such separation is sued up in the failiar sa%ing) GStrong fence
a2e good neigh#ours0H The idea advocated #% this principle is to delineate the #oundaries
#et!een the t!o institutions and thus) avoid encroachents #% one against the other #ecause
of a isunderstanding of the liits of their respective e=clusive 4urisdictions0 The case at #ar
does not concern an ecclesiastical or purel% religious affair as to #ar the State fro ta2ing
cognizance of the sae0 $cclesiastical affair involves the relationship #et!een the church and
its e#ers and relate to atters of faith) religious doctrines) !orship and governance of the
congregation0 3hat is involved here is the relationship of the church as an eplo%er and the
inister as an eplo%ee0 .t is purel% secular and has no relation !hatsoever !ith the practice
of faith) !orship or doctrines of the church0
+0 8o0 .n order to have a valid disissal) the concurrence of the t!o requireents nael%C &a(
due processE and &#( valid cause0 The rules further require the eplo%er to furnish the
eplo%ee !ith t!o !ritten notices) &a( a !ritten notice served on the eplo%ee specif%ing the
ground or grounds for terination and giving the said eplo%ee reasona#le opportunit% !ithin
!hich to e=plain his sideE and &#( a !ritten notice of terination served on the eplo%ee
indicating that upon due consideration of all circustances) grounds have #een esta#lished to
4ustif% his terination0 8on-copliance is fatal #ecause the requireents are conditions sine
qua non #efore disissal a% validl% #e effected0
PR su#stantiall% failed to copl% !ith the a#oveentioned requireents as regards the first
notice0 The notice to attend the eeting cannot #e construed as a !ritten charge0 The alleged
grounds for the disissal of petitioner fro the service !ere onl% revealed to hi !hen the
actual letter of disissal !as finall% issued0 Furtherore) the Court did not sustain the validit%
of the disissal #ased on the grounds enuerated #% the PR0
F4. 2epartment of Foreign ffairs vs. #?RC
FactsC A coplaint for illegal disissal !as filed against the Asian Developent /an2
&OAD/O(0 ;pon receipt of suonses) #oth the AD/ and the DFA notified the "A that the AD/)
as !ell as its President and 'fficers) !ere covered #% an iunit% fro legal process e=cept
for #orro!ings) guaranties or the sale of securities pursuant to Article 5:&*( and Article 55 of
the Agreeent $sta#lishing the Asian Developent /an2 &the OCharterO( in relation to Section
5 and Section FF of the Agreeent /et!een The /an2 And The ,overnent 'f The
Philippines Regarding The /an2Ds Beadquarters &the OBeadquarters AgreeentO(0 The "A
too2 cognizance of the coplaint on the ipression that the AD/ had !aived its diploatic
iunit% fro suit) and issued a 4udgent in favor of the coplainant0 The AD/ did not file an
appeal) #ut the DFA sought a nullification !ith the 8"RC0 The latter denied the request0
.ssueC
*0 3hether or not AD/ is iune fro suit>
50 3hether or not the DFA has the legal standing to file the present petition>
BeldC
*0 ?$S0 ;nder the Charter and Beadquarters Agreeent) the AD/ en4o%s iunit% fro
legal process of
ever% for) e=cept in the specified cases of #orro!ing and guarantee operations) as
!ell as the purchase) sale and under!riting of securities0 The /an21s officers) on their
part) en4o% iunit% in respect of all acts perfored #% the in their official capacit%0
The Charter and the Beadquarters Agreeent granting these iunities and privileges
are treat% covenants and coitents voluntaril% assued #% the Philippine
governent !hich ust #e respected0 /eing an international organization that has
#een e=tended a diploatic status) the AD/ is independent of the unicipal la!0 'ne
of the #asic iunities of an international organization is iunit% fro local
4urisdiction) i0e0) that it is iune fro the legal !rits and processes issued #% the
tri#unals of the countr% !here it is found0 The o#vious reason for this is that the
su#4ection of such an organization to the authorit% of the local courts !ould afford a
convenient ediu thru !hich the host governent a% interfere in their operations or
even influence or control its policies and decisions of the organizationE #esides) such
su#4ection to local 4urisdiction !ould ipair the capacit% of such #od% to discharge its
responsi#ilities ipartiall% on #ehalf of its e#er-states0O The AD/ didnDt descend to
the level of an ordinar% part% to a coercial transaction) !hich should have
constituted a !aiver of its iunit% fro suit) #% entering into service contracts !ith
different private copanies0 There are t!o conflicting concepts of sovereign iunit%)
each !idel% held and firl% esta#lished0 According to the classical or a#solute theor%) a
sovereign cannot) !ithout its consent) #e ade a respondent in the Courts of another
sovereign0 According to the ne!er or restrictive theor%) the iunit% of the sovereign is
recognized onl% !ith regard to pu#lic acts or acts 4ure iperii of a state) #ut not !ith
regard to private act or acts 4ure gestionis0 Certainl%) the ere entering into a contract
#% a foreign state !ith a private part% cannot #e the ultiate test0 Such an act can onl%
#e the start of the inquir%0 The logical question is !hether the foreign state is engaged
in the activit% in the regular course of #usiness0 .f the foreign state is not engaged
regularl% in a #usiness or trade) the particular act or transaction ust then #e tested #%
its nature0 .f the act is in pursuit of a sovereign activit%) or an incident thereof) then it is
an act 4ure iperii) especiall% !hen it is not underta2en for gain or profit0 The service
contracts referred to #% private respondent have not #een intended #% the AD/ for
profit or gain #ut are official acts over !hich a !aiver of iunit% !ould not attach0
50 ?es0 The DFADs function includes) aong its other andates) the deterination of
persons and institutions covered #% diploatic iunities) a deterination !hich)
!hen challenged) entitles it to see2 relief fro the court so as not to seriousl% ipair
the conduct of the countr%Ds foreign relations0 The DFA ust #e allo!ed to plead its
case !henever necessar% or advisa#le to ena#le it to help 2eep the credi#ilit% of the
Philippine governent #efore the international counit%0 3hen international
agreeents are concluded) the parties thereto are deeed to have li2e!ise accepted
the responsi#ilit% of seeing to it that their agreeents are dul% regarded0 .n our countr%)
this tas2 falls principall% on the DFA as #eing the highest e=ecutive departent !ith the
copetence and authorit% to so act in this aspect of the international arena
*+0 P8/ vs0 Ca#ansag
FACTSC Respondent Florence Ca#ansag arrived in Singapore as a tourist0 She applied for
eplo%ent) !ith the Singapore /ranch of the Philippine 8ational /an2) a private #an2ing
corporation organized and e=isting under the la!s of the Philippines) !ith principal offices at
the P8/ Financial Center in <anila0 At the tie) the /ranch 'ffice had t!o &5( t%pes of
eplo%eesC &a( e=patriates or the regular eplo%ees) hired in <anila and assigned a#road
including Singapore) and &#( locall% &direct( hired0 She applied for eplo%ent as /ranch
Credit 'fficer0 She !as hired &appointed( upon the recoendation of Ru#en C0 To#ias a
,eneral <anager of the P8/ Singapore #ranch0 As required) she o#tained an G$plo%ee
PassH for t!o %ears0 Ber appointent as a Credit 'fficer stated that she !ould undergo a
pro#ation for a period of three onths fro the date of assuption of dut% that can #e
terinated upon * da% notice and after pro#ation upon one onth notice0 The Philippine
$#ass% in Singapore processed the eplo%ent contract of respondent and then she !as
issued #% the P'$A) an Q'verseas $plo%ent Certificate)1 certif%ing that she !as a #ona
fide contract !or2er for Singapore0
/arel% three &+( onths in office respondent Ca#ansag) she su#itted to To#ias) her initial
perforance report that the latter !as so ipressed !ith the it that he ade a notation and)
on said QReport1C Q,''D 3'RN01 Bo!ever) later she !as told that she had to resign #ecause
of Gcost cutting easureH0 Perple=ed) she as2ed for a foral advice #ut she received none0
She refused to resign0 To#ias deanded that she su#it her letter of resignation) !ith the
prete=t that he needed a Chinese-spea2ing Credit 'fficer to penetrate the local ar2et) !ith
the inforation that a Chinese-spea2ing Credit 'fficer had alread% #een hired and !ill #e
reporting for !or2 soon0 She !as !arned that) unless she su#itted her letter of resignation)
her eplo%ent record !ill #e #leished !ith the notation QD.S<.SS$D1 spread thereon0 Still
respondent Ca#ansag refused to resign) To#ias disissed her 4ust a#out four onths fro
hiring0
Respondent Ca#ansag filed a coplaint of illegal disissal #efore the ar#itration #ranch of
the 8"RC in the 8ational Capital Region0 The petitioner contended that the "a#or Ar#iter has
no 4urisdiction #ecause respondent !as Olocall% hiredOE and totall% Ogoverned #% and su#4ect to
the la!s) coon practices and custosO of Singapore) not of the PhilippinesH0
.SS;$C 3hether or not the ar#itration #ranch of the 8"RC in the 8ational Capital Region has
4urisdiction over the instant controvers%
B$"D0 ?es0 /ased on Art0 *59 and ore specificall%) Section *: of RA 7:F5* and "a#or
ar#iters clearl% have original and e=clusive 4urisdiction over clais arising fro eplo%er-
eplo%ee relations) including terination disputes involving all !or2ers) aong !ho are
overseas Filipino !or2ers &'F3(0 Prior to eplo%ing respondent) petitioner had to o#tain an
eplo%ent pass for her fro the Singapore <inistr% of <anpo!er0 Securing the pass !as a
regulator% requireent pursuant to the iigration regulations of Singapore0
Siilarl%) the Philippine governent requires non-Filipinos !or2ing in the countr% to first
o#tain a local !or2 perit in order to #e legall% eplo%ed here0 That perit) ho!ever) does
not autoaticall% ean that the non- citizen is there#% #ound #% local la!s onl%) as averred
#% petitioner0 .t does not at all ipl% a !aiver of one1s national la!s on la#or0 A#sent an% clear
and convincing evidence to the contrar%) such perit sipl% eans that its holder has a legal
status as a !or2er in the issuing countr%0
8ote!orth% is the fact that respondent li2e!ise applied for and secured an 'verseas
$plo%ent Certificate fro the P'$A through the Philippine $#ass% in Singapore0 The
Certificate issued declared her a #ona fide contract !or2er for Singapore0 ;nder Philippine
la!) this docuent authorized her !or2ing status in a foreign countr% and entitled her to all
#enefits and processes under our statutes0 Thus) even assuing arguendo that she !as
considered at the start of her eplo%ent as a Odirect hireO governed #% and su#4ect to the
la!s) coon practices and custos prevailing in Singapore she su#sequentl% #ecae a
contract !or2er or an 'F3 !ho !as covered #% Philippine la#or la!s and policies upon
certification #% the P'$A0 At the tie her eplo%ent !as illegall% terinated) she alread%
possessed the P'$A eplo%ent Certificate0
<oreover) petitioner adits that it is a Philippine corporation doing #usiness through a #ranch
office in Singapore0 Significantl%) respondent1s eplo%ent #% the Singapore #ranch office
had to #e approved #% the president of the #an2 !hose principal offices !ere in <anila0 This
circustance ilitates against petitioner1s contention that respondent !as Olocall% hiredOE and
totall% Ogoverned #% and su#4ect to the la!s) coon practices and custosO of Singapore)
not of the Philippines0 .nstead) !ith ore reason does this fact reinforce the presuption that
respondent falls under the legal definition of igrant !or2er) in this case one deplo%ed in
Singapore0 Bence) petitioner cannot escape the application of Philippine la!s or the
4urisdiction of the 8"RC and the la#or ar#iter0
&2ahit ang !or2er a% locall% hired sa la#as ng Pilipinas) hindi autoatic na hindi na si%a under
ng #atas natin0 Ang perit na nerequire ng Singapore 2a% Ca#ansag a% sipl% copliance
lang ng iigration regulations nila0 Bindi to !aiverR Counterpart to ng Art0 F: ng "C natin
regarding a#out eplo%ent perit of non resident aliens under la#or standards0 ?ou a%
chec2Krevie! it #a2a agtanong&corelate( si a dito(
*F0 /anez vs0 Aaldevilla
FACTSC Petitioner !as the sales operations anager of private respondent in its #ranch in
.ligan Cit%0 .n *66+) private respondent Oindefinitel% suspendedO petitioner and the latter filed a
coplaint for illegal disissal !ith the 8"RC in .ligan Cit%0 "a#or Ar#iter found petitioner to
have #een illegall% disissed and ordered the pa%ent of separation pa% in lieu of
reinstateent) and of #ac2!ages and attorne%Ds fees0 The decision !as appealed to the
8"RC) !hich disissed the sae for having #een filed out of tie0 $levated #% petition for
certiorari #efore the Supree Court) the case !as disissed on technical groundsE ho!ever)
the Court also pointed out that even if all the procedural requireents for the filing of the
petition !ere et) it !ould still #e disissed for failure to sho! grave a#use of discretion on
the part of the 8"RC0
Private respondent filed a coplaint for daages #efore the Regional Trial Court of <isais
'riental on the ground that petitioner in his odus operandi &unauthorized instalent sale
schee !hich caused neglect in his dut% as a salean and use of private respondent1s
propert% and supplies in conducting his o!n #usiness( !hich resulted to private respondent1s
#usiness decrease in sales0 Petitioner filed a otion to disiss and interposed that the action
for daages) having arisen fro an eplo%er-eplo%ee relationship) !as squarel% under the
e=clusive original 4urisdiction of the 8"RC and is #arred #% reason of the final 4udgent in the
la#or case0 Be accused private respondent of splitting causes of action) stating that the latter
could ver% !ell have included the instant clai for daages in its counterclai #efore the
"a#or Ar#iter0 The RTC declared itself as having 4urisdiction on the ground that the private
respondent does not as2 relief under the "a#or Code of the Philippnes0 The private
respondent see2s to recover daages as redress for defendantDs #reach of his contractual
o#ligation to plaintiff !ho !as daaged and pre4udiced0
.SS;$C 3hether or not the Regional trial court has 4urisdiction over the su#4ect atter0
B$"DC 8'0 The 4urisdiction of "a#or Ar#iters and the 8"RC in Article 5*9 is coprehensive
enough to include clais for all fors of daages Oarising fro the eplo%er-eplo%ee
relationsO0The designating clause Oarising fro the eplo%er-eplo%ee relationsO Article 5*9
should appl% !ith equal force to the clai of an eplo%er for actual daages against its
disissed eplo%ee) !here the #asis for the clai arises fro or is necessaril% connected
!ith the fact of terination) and should #e entered as a counterclai in the illegal disissal
case0
$ven under Repu#lic Act 8o0 795 &the O.ndustrial Peace ActO) no! copletel% superseded #%
the "a#or Code() 4urisprudence !as settled that !here the plaintiffDs cause of action for
daages arose out of) or !as necessaril% intert!ined !ith) an alleged unfair la#or practice
coitted #% the union) the 4urisdiction is e=clusivel% !ith the &no! defunct( Court of
.ndustrial Relations) and the assuption of 4urisdiction of regular courts over the sae is a
nullit%0 To allo! other!ise !ould #e Oto sanction split 4urisdiction) !hich is pre4udicial to the
orderl% adinistration of 4ustice0O
There is no ista2ing the fact that private respondentDs clai against petitioner for actual
daages arose fro a prior eplo%er-eplo%ee relationship0 .n the first place) private
respondent !ould not have ta2en issue !ith petitionerDs Odoing #usiness of his o!nO had the
latter not #een concurrentl% its eplo%ee0 Thus) the daages alleged in the coplaint #elo!
areC first) those aounting to lost profits and earnings due to petitionerDs a#andonent or
neglect of his duties as sales anager) having #een other!ise preoccupied #% his
unauthorized installent sale scheeE and second) those equivalent to the value of private
respondentDs propert% and supplies !hich petitioner used in conducting his O#usiness O0
Second) and ore iportantl%) to allo! respondent court to proceed !ith the instant action for
daages !ould #e to open ane! the factual issue of !hether petitionerDs installent sale
schee resulted in #usiness losses and the dissipation of private respondentDs propert%0 This
issue has #een dul% raised and ruled upon in the illegal disissal case and the "a#or Ar#iter
ruled that no #usiness loses a% #e attri#uted to the petitioner0 .n other !ords) the issue of
actual daages has #een settled in the la#or case) !hich is no! final and e=ecutor%0
The la!a2ing authorit% had second thoughts a#out depriving the "a#or Ar#iters and the
8"RC of the 4urisdiction to a!ard daages in la#or cases #ecause that setup !ould ean
duplicit% of suits) splitting the cause of action and possi#le conflicting findings and conclusions
#% t!o tri#unals on one and the sae clai0
&3alang 4urisdiction ang Regular courts sa daages na gusto a2uha ng eplo%er against
sa eplo%ee 2apag it arises fro the ee-er relationship0 Sa tingin 2o lang ha ang purpose ng
Art05*9 a#out daages 2ung #a2it ala!a2 ito a% dahil a#out sa proptness ng resolution of
la#or cases0 Si%epre naan 2ung iaalo! na iisplit ang suitC isa sa "a#or Ar#iter regarding
terination disputes at isa 2apag a% clai ng eplo%er against sa eplo%ee0 <ala2i na ang
tra#aho0 Ang solution dito a% counterclai0 .sang suit nalang at agfile nalang ang eplo%er
ng counter clai0 Ang advantage 2asi dito a% para isahang deterination ng facts at para d
narin adagdagan ang ga 2aso na na2ata#a2 sa regular courts0 .copare natin ang case
na to sa Pepsi cola vs0 ,allang) dun 2asi ang su#4ect atter dun a% alicious prosecution
2a%a i#ang i#a tlga ang cause of action0 Dun a% 4urisdiction ang regular court(
*50 Santos vs0 Servier Philippines .nc0
FactsC /efore this Court is a Petition for Revie! on Certiorari under Rule F5 of the Rules of
Court) see2ing to set aside the Court of Appeals0
Petitioner <a0 .sa#el T0 Santos !as the Buan Resource <anager of respondent Servier
Philippines) .nc0 she filed a vacation leave) to go to france !ith her fail%0 The% ate in a
restaurant 2no!n for ussels0 .t cause her an allerg% reaction) !here she he fell into coa for
5* da%s0 3ith the doctor1s consent) she !as allo!ed her to return to the Philippines to
continue edication0 The copan%1s ph%sician conducted a ph%sical and ps%chological
evaluation of her condition) to deterine her fitness to resue her !or2 at the copan%0 The
ph%sician concluded that the forer had not full% recovered entall% and ph%sicall%0 Bence)
respondent !as constrained to terinate petitioner1s services0
The copan% offered Santos offered a retireent pac2age !hich consists ofC Retireent plan
#enefit) insurance pension) educational assistance and edical and health care0 'f the
proised retireent #enefits aounting to P*):6+)7F*096) onl% P9:*)F5F076 !as released to
petitioner1s hus#and) the #alance thereof !as !ithheld allegedl% for ta=ation purposes0
Petitioner) represented #% her hus#and) instituted the instant case for unpaid salariesE unpaid
separation pa%E unpaid #alance of retireent pac2age plus interestE insurance pension for
peranent disa#ilit%E educational assistance for her sonE edical assistanceE rei#urseent
of edical and reha#ilitation e=pensesE oral) e=eplar%) and actual daages) plus
attorne%1s fees0
"A disiss the coplaint) and The ar#iter refused to rule on the legalit% of the deductions
ade #% respondent fro petitioner1s total retireent #enefits for ta=ation purposes) as the
issue !as #e%ond the 4urisdiction of the 8"RC 8"RC) allo!ed santos to recover the proise
pac2age of #enefit0 CA affired 8"RC0 Thus this petition
.ssueC 3'8 the "A and 8"RC has the 4urisdiction to rule on the legalit% of deduction allegedl%
deducted for ta=ation purposes
BeldC ?es) ) petitioner1s clai for illegal deduction falls !ithin the tri#unal1s 4urisdiction0 .t is
note!orth% that petitioner deanded the copletion of her retireent #enefits) including the
aount !ithheld #% respondent for ta=ation purposes0 The issue of deduction for ta=
purposes is intert!ined !ith the ain issue of !hether or not petitioner1s #enefits have #een
full% given her0 .t is) therefore) a one% clai arising fro the eplo%er-eplo%ee
relationship) !hich clearl% falls !ithin the 4urisdiction of the "a#or Ar#iter and the 8"RC0
Additional infoC in the case the SC said the deduction !as valid since santos !as not entitled
to the ta= e=eption thus) valid deduction0 Regarding sa separation pa%) hindi da! pede) 2asi
na2alaga% sa 2asunduan sa retireent #enefit #a!al na sila tuangap ng i#ang #enefit)
either retireent #enefit lang or ung separation pa%0