G.R. No.

197309 October 10, 2012

ACE NAVIGATION CO., INC., VELA INTERNATIONAL MARINE LTD., and/or

RODOLFO PAMINTUAN,Petitioners,
vs.
TEODORICO FERNANDEZ, assisted by GLENITA FERNANDEZ, Respondent.

FACTS:

Teodorico Fernandez, a seaman, assisted by his wife, filed with the NLRC a
complaint for disability benefits, with prayer for moral and exemplary damages, plus
attorneys fees, against petitioners.

The petitioners moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing that the exclusive original
jurisdiction is with the voluntary arbitrator or panel of voluntary arbitrators,
pursuant to Section 29 of the POEA Standard Employment Contract (POEA-SEC),
since the parties are covered by the AMOSUP-TCC or AMOSUP-VELA collective
bargaining agreement. Under Section 14 of the CBA, a dispute between a seafarer
and the company shall be settled through the grievance machinery and mandatory
voluntary arbitration.

The Labor Arbiter denied the motion to dismiss. The NLRC denied the appeal. The
CA denied the petition on procedural and substantive grounds.

ISSUE:

Who has the original and exclusive jurisdiction over Fernandezs disability claim
the labor arbiter under Section 10 of R.A. No. 8042 otherwise known as the Migrant
Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995, as amended, or the voluntary
arbitration mechanism as prescribed in the parties CBA and the POEA-SEC?

HELD:

Article 260 of the Labor Code states: The parties to a Collective Bargaining
Agreement shall include therein provisions that will ensure the mutual observance
of its terms and conditions. They shall establish a machinery for the adjustment and
resolution of grievances arising from the interpretation or implementation of their
Collective Bargaining Agreement and those arising from the interpretation or
enforcement of company personnel policies.

Article 261 of the Labor Code reads in part: The Voluntary Arbitrator or panel of
Voluntary Arbitrators shall have original and exclusive jurisdiction to hear and
decide all unresolved grievances arising from the interpretation or implementation
of the Collective Bargaining Agreement and those arising from the interpretation or
enforcement of company personnel policies.
Article 262 of the Labor Code declares: The Voluntary Arbitrator or panel of
Voluntary Arbitrators, upon agreement of the parties, shall also hear and decide all
other labor disputes including unfair labor practices and bargaining deadlocks.

The POEA-SEC, which governs the employment of Filipino seafarers, provides in its
Section 29 on Dispute Settlement Procedures: In cases of claims and disputes
arising from this employment, the parties covered by a collective
bargaining agreement shall submit the claim or dispute to the original and
exclusive jurisdiction of the voluntary arbitrator or panel of voluntary
arbitrators. If the parties are not covered by a collective bargaining agreement,
the parties may at their option submit the claim or dispute to either the original and
exclusive jurisdiction of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), pursuant
to Republic Act (RA) 8042 otherwise known as the Migrant Workers and Overseas
Filipinos Act of 1995 or to the original and exclusive jurisdiction of the voluntary
arbitrator or panel of voluntary arbitrators. If there is no provision as to the
voluntary arbitrators to be appointed by the parties, the same shall be appointed
from the accredited voluntary arbitrators of the National Conciliation and Mediation
Board of the Department of Labor and Employment.

Under the above-quoted constitutional and legal provisions, the voluntary arbitrator
or panel of voluntary arbitrators has original and exclusive jurisdiction over
Fernandezs disability claim. There is no dispute that the claim arose out of
Fernandezs employment with the petitioners and that their relationship is covered
by a CBA the AMOSUP/TCC or the AMOSUP-VELA CBA. The CBA provides for a
grievance procedure for the resolution of grievances or disputes which occur during
the employment relationship and, like the grievance machinery created under
Article 261 of the Labor Code, it is a two-tiered mechanism, with voluntary
arbitration as the last step.
G.R. No. 201298 February 5, 2014

RAUL C. COSARE, Petitioner,

vs.
BROADCOM ASIA, INC. and DANTE AREVALO, Respondents.

FACTS:

In 1993, Cosare was employed as a salesman by Arevalo, who was then in the
business of selling broadcast equipment needed by television networks and
production houses. In December 2000, Arevalo set up the company Broadcom, still
to continue the business of trading communication and broadcast equipment.
Cosare was named an incorporator of Broadcom, having been assigned 100 shares
of stock with par value of P1.00 per share. In October 2001, Cosare was promoted to
the position of Assistant Vice President for Sales (AVP for Sales) and Head of the
Technical Coordination.

Sometime in 2003, Abiog was appointed as Broadcoms Vice President for Sales and
thus, became Cosares immediate superior. Cosare sent a confidential memo to
Arevalo to inform him of the anomalies which were allegedly being committed by
Abiog against the company.

Arevalo failed to act on Cosares accusations. Cosare claimed that he was instead
called for a meeting by Arevalo wherein he was asked to tender his resignation in
exchange for "financial assistance" in the amount ofP300,000.00.

Cosare filed a labor complaint, claiming that he was constructively dismissed from
employment by the respondents. The Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint. The
NLRC reversed the LA decision. Respondents filed a petition for certiorari with the
CA on the issues of constructive dismissal and intra-corporate controversy which
was within the jurisdiction of the RTC, instead of the LA. The CA granted the
respondents petition.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the case instituted by Cosare was an intra-corporate dispute that
was within the original jurisdiction of the RTC, and not of the LAs;

HELD:

An intra-corporate controversy, which falls within the jurisdiction of regular courts,

has been regarded in its broad sense to pertain to disputes that involve any of the
following relationships: (1) between the corporation, partnership or association and
the public; (2) between the corporation, partnership or association and the state in
so far as its franchise, permit or license to operate is concerned; (3) between the
corporation, partnership or association and its stockholders, partners, members or
officers; and (4) among the stockholders, partners or associates, themselves.
Settled jurisprudence, however, qualifies that when the dispute involves a charge of
illegal dismissal, the action may fall under the jurisdiction of the LAs upon whose
jurisdiction, as a rule, falls termination disputes and claims for damages arising from
employer-employee relations as provided in Article 217 of the Labor Code.
Consistent with this jurisprudence, the mere fact that Cosare was a stockholder and
an officer of Broadcom at the time the subject controversy developed failed to
necessarily make the case an intra-corporate dispute.

In Matling Industrial and Commercial Corporation v. Coros,the Court distinguished

between a "regular employee" and a "corporate officer" for purposes of establishing
the true nature of a dispute or complaint for illegal dismissal and determining which
body has jurisdiction over it. Succinctly, it was explained that "[t]he determination
of whether the dismissed officer was a regular employee or corporate officer
unravels the conundrum" of whether a complaint for illegal dismissal is cognizable
by the LA or by the RTC. "In case of the regular employee, the LA has jurisdiction;
otherwise, the RTC exercises the legal authority to adjudicate.

Applying the foregoing to the present case, the LA had the original jurisdiction over
the complaint for illegal dismissal because Cosare, although an officer of Broadcom
for being its AVP for Sales, was not a "corporate officer" as the term is defined by
law.
G.R. No. 217575, June 15, 2016

SOUTH COTABATO COMMUNICATIONS CORPORATION AND GAUVAIN J.

BENZONAN, Petitioners, v. HON. PATRICIA STO. TOMAS, SECRETARY OF
LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT, ROLANDO FABRIGAR, MERLYN VELARDE, VINCE
LAMBOC, FELIPE GALINDO, LEONARDO MIGUEL, JULIUS RUBIN, EDEL
RODEROS, MERLYN COLIAO, AND EDGAR JOPSON, Respondents.

FACTS:

On January 19, 2004, the DOLE Region-XII conducted a Complaint Inspection at the
premises of DXCP Radio Station owned by petitioner South Cotabato
Communications Corporation. The inspection yielded a finding of violation of labor
standards involving the nine (9) private respondents.

Consequently, the DOLE issued a Notice of Inspection Result directing petitioner

corporation and/or its president to effect restitution and/or correction of the alleged
violations within five days from notice. Due to petitioners' failure to comply with its
directive, the DOLE scheduled on March 3, 2004 a Summary Investigation at its
Regional Office No. XII, Provincial Extension Office, in General Santos City. However,
petitioners failed to appear despite due notice. Another hearing was scheduled on
April 1, 2004 wherein petitioners' counsel failed to attend due to an alleged conflict
in schedule. Instead, his secretary appeared on his behalf to request a resetting,
which was denied. Thus, in an Order dated May 20, 2004, the DOLE Regional
Director directed petitioners to pay private respondents the total amount of
P759,752, representing private respondents' claim for wage differentials, 13 th month
pay differentials, service incentive leave pay, holiday premium pay, and rest day
premium Pay-Therefrom, petitioners appealed to the Secretary of Labor, raising two
grounds: (1) denial of due process; and (2) lack of factual and legal basis of the
assailed Order.

The Secretary of Labor affirmed the findings of the DOLE Regional Director. The CA
upheld the Secretary of Labor, holding that petitioners cannot claim denial of due
process, their failure to present evidence being attributed to their negligence.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the CA did not completely and properly dispose of the case pending
before it as it never resolved all justiciable issues raised x x x, particularly, that the
determination of presence or absence of employer-employee relationship is
indispensable in the resolution of this case as jurisdiction is dependent upon it.

HELD:

After a careful review of this case, the Court finds that the DOLE failed to establish
its jurisdiction over the case.
Under Article 128 of the Labor Code, the Secretary of Labor, or any of his or her
authorized representatives, is granted visitorial and enforcement powers for the
purpose of determining violations of, and enforcing, the Labor Code and any labor
law, wage order, or rules and regulations issued pursuant thereto. Indispensable to
the DOLE'S exercise of such power is the existence of an actual employer-employee
relationship between the parties.

It can be assumed that the DOLE in the exercise of its visitorial and
enforcement power somehow has to make a determination of the
existence of an employer-employee relationship. Such prerogatival
determination, however, cannot be coextensive with the visitorial and enforcement
power itself. Indeed, such determination is merely preliminary, incidental and
collateral to the DOLE'S primary function of enforcing labor standards provisions.
The determination of the existence of employer-employee relationship is still
primarily lodged with the NLRC.

Thus, before the DOLE may exercise its powers under Article 128, two important
questions must be resolved: (1) Does the employer-employee relationship still exist,
or alternatively, was there ever an employer-employee relationship to speak of; and
(2) Are there violations of the Labor Code or of any labor law?

The existence of an employer-employee relationship is a statutory

prerequisite to and a limitation on the power of the Secretary of Labor,
one which the legislative branch is entitled to impose.

The Orders of the Regional Director and the Secretary of Labor do not
contain clear and distinct factual basis necessary to establish the
jurisdiction of the DOLE and to justify the monetary awards to private
respondents