1. ESPINO VS NLRC 12.
12. SMART COMMUNICATIONS VS
Leslie Espino was the Executive Vice
President Chief Operation officer of PAL
when her services was terminated due to
administrative charges against her.
PAL’s BOD issued a resolution terminating
her services due to loss of confidence. Espino
now filed a complaint for illegal dismissal
sought payment of back wages and other
benefits as well as moral and exemplary
damages. PAL asserted the LA’s decision as
null and void for lack of jurisdiction for it
should be the SEC that has jurisdiction over
removal of corporate employees.
WON LA has jurisdiction?
SEC and not the NLRC has the jurisdiction to
hear and decide cases involving corporate
officers.
2. MAINLAND CONSTRUCTION VS MOVILLA
Movilla during his lifetime was a CPA then
promoted to the position as administrative
officer. DOLE upon its routine inspection
found irregularities which ordered Miainland
to pay 13 employees including Movilla
however movilla was not paid which caused
him to file a complaint. He was however
substituted by his heirs upon his death.
LA however dismissed the case on grounds
that controversy was intra corporate in
nature hence under SEC’s jurisdiction.
WON LA has jurisdiction or SEC?
LA has jurisdiction, better policy to be
followed, determination of consurring
factors such as status or relationship of the
parties or nature of the question that is
subject to controversy. In the case at bar
there is no change in the nature if its
functions as an employee and the money
claims were made as an employee and not as
corporate officer.
5. SANYO PHILS vs CANIZARES
Sanyo workers union has existing CBA with
USC. Union informed Sanyo that some
employees were notified of their cancellation
of union membership due to anti-union
activities and disloyalty for joining with other
union. Sanyo then dismissed such
employees.
Now dismissed employees filed complaint
and alleging that LA has no jurisdiction over
the dispute as case arises from the
interpretation/implementation of the CBA
should be referred to grievance machinery or
VA.
WON LA has jurisdiction?
LA has jurisdiction, law provides that LA has
no jurisdiction over termination disputes
pursuant to implementation of CBA if the
parties are employer and the union. However
in the case at bar LA has jurisdiction bec.
They are not parties against each other. The
union and employer herein were united as
one against dismissed employees.
It is LA who has jurisdiction over dispute it is
ASTORGA
Astorga was employed by SMART
communications as direct manager and
enjoyed additional benefits including car
plan.
Now smart sent letter against astorga
demanding to pay current market value of
the car given to her, however Astorga
refused which prompted SMART to file suit
for replevin.
Who has jurisdiction?
RTC rightfully assumed jurisdiction. Smart’s
demand is not a labor dispute. It involves
relationship of debtor/creditor not EER.
Hence falls under jurisdiction of regular
courts.
6. GEORG GROTJHAN VS ISNANI
Lanchenebre was herein a sales
representative of petitioner. She secured a
loan from them. Despite repeated demands
she failed to settle her obligation which
caused for her termination.
Who has jurisdiction?
the case does not involve labor dispute but
recovery of sum of money based on civil laws
and obligation and contracts. Therefore issue
cannot be resolved by the reference of labor
code.
7. MONTINOLA vs PAL
Montinola herein is a flight attendant of PAL
she was suspended form employment due to
alleged crime of pilferage. She questioned
the suspension in LA which found her
suspension illegal, no evidence showing that
Montinola illegally taken airline items.
There was denial of substantive due process
there was no ground to put her on
suspension, the list are not sufficient to show
the participation of any of the members.
None of the evidence presented shows that
confiscated items are from her.
LA has jurisdiction as they are authorized by
law to award moral and exemplary damages,
additional facts must be proven:
Dismissal was attended in bad faith
Oppressive to labor
Done in a manner contrary to morals, good
customs, public policy and public order.
8. AMECOS INNOVATIONS VS LOPEZ
Amecos was complained by SSS for failure to
remit SSS contributions of Eliza Lopez,
complaint was then withdrawed for
settlement however Amecos still did not
complied with the demands of Lopez which
caused her to file damages against RTC.
Amecos filed opposition on ground of
jurisdiction, which ERR relationship is merely
incidental does not necessarily place dispute
under LA.
WON regular courts has jurisdiction over
claims for reimbursement arising from EER.
and Manila International, Palace hotel was
noteworthy to state that LA has jurisdiction
not to award not only reliefs provided by
Labor laws but also damages arising or
covered by the Civil code provided it arose
out of EER.
9. TOLOSA VS NLRC
Tolosa was captain of the vessel M/V Donna
he contracted fever therein accompanied by
loose bowel movement for 12 days. His
condition was reported however before he
could be evacuated he died.
Now his wife filed complaint against POEA
for damages against chief mate of the vessel,
manning agent asia bulk and the owner of
the vessel. Case was then transferred to
NLRC and ruled in favor of the wife. Appeal
was then filed on ground of lack of
jurisdiction because the issue did not involve
EER but quasi delict.
Who has jurisdiction over the case.
LA has no jurisdiction over the case because
the claims of damages arise form quasi delict
and not arising from EER.
10. INDOPHIL vs ADVIENTO
Advineto filed a complaint with RTC alleging
he contracted occupational disease by
reason of gross negligence of petitioner to
provide them with a safe, healthy and
workable environment. Indophil argued that
RTC has no jurisdiction as it falls under LA as
it involves EER.
WON RTC has jurisdiction?
RTC has jurisdiction not all claims arising out
Of EER may be resolved by labor courts. This
cases is grounded on Indophil’s negligence or
quasi delict hence regular courts has
jurisdiction.
11. TABANGO SHELL EMPLOYEES ASOC. vs
PILIPINAS SHELL PETROLIUM CORP.
Before the expiration of the CBA bet. the
parties they starter renegotiating their CBA
however they could not agree on the
increase of salaries which caused the union
to file notice of strike for bargaining in bad
faith.
Corporation filed petition with DOLE-SEC
assuming jurisdiction. Union questioned its
jurisdiction as issues involve is not about CBA
but ULP for bargaining in bad faith.
WON sec has jurisdiction?
Yes, LC allows secretary to assume
jurisdiction concerning causes or likely to
cause strike or lockout in an industry
indispensable to national interest.
14. MANILA HOTEL CORP VS NLRC
Santos was an ofw in Oman, he was recruited
by Palace Hotel in Beijing China. Employment
contract as without intervention of POEA.
Later Santos as however laid off and
terminated. Now santos filed a complaint for
illegal dismissal against Manila Hotel Corp
later impleaded. MHC was a government
owned and controlled corp it owns 50% of
the MHI a foreign corp. MHIL manages the
affairs of Palace Hotel.
WON NLRC has jurisdiction over the case.
No, under the rule of forum non-conviniens,
Phil courts may assume jurisdiction when:
1. phil court is one which parties may
conveniently resort to
2. “ “ is in a position to make intelligent
decisions
3. “ : has or likely to have the power to
enforce decision as to law or facts.
All the incidents of the case from
recruitment, employment, dismissal
occurred outside phil. The only link is that
santos was a Filipino, hence phil is not the
convenient forum.
15. HALAGUENA VS PAL
Petioners were flight attendants of PAL and
members of FASAP the exclusive bargaining
org of flight attendants. FASAP entered into
their CBA incorporating that the compulsory
retirement is 55 to female and 60 for males.
Petitioners argued that it was discriminatory,
they filed declaratory relief with issuance of
TRO with RTC of Makati. PAL filed opposition
on grounds that LA should have jurisdiction
as it involves implementation of the CBA.
Who has jurisdiction?
LA has no jurisdiction over the
constitutionality of the provision of the CBA
what was being questioned by the
employees is the provision regarding the
validity of the retirement age of flight
attendants. Question WON it is
unconstitutional lies with the RTC.
16. SANTOS VS SERVIER PHILIPPINES
Ma. Isabel Santos was the human resource
manager of the respondent, she had a
meeting in PARIS however she suddenly had
an allergy attack which resulted to her coma.
Hospital expenses was shouldered by the
respondent. Santos did no recover physically
and mentally which caused the termination
of her employment. Retirement benefits
were given to her husband however balance
were withheld for taxation purposes which
caused his husband to file complaint against
NLRC, arbiter however refused to rule on the
legality of deductions as it was beyond
jurisdiction of NLRC.
WON NLRC has jurisdiction?
LA has jurisdiction to determine validity of
the tax because retirement benefits
according to SC in intertwined with the issue
of benefits.
17. HONDA CARS PHILS vs. TECHNICAL
SPECIALISTS AND SUPERVISORS UNION
Union members were receiving monthly
gasoline allowance , remaining unused may
be converted into case subject to whatever
tax may be applicable. Conversion of gasoline
amount was included in their payroll. Issue
occurred in the disagreement on WON it is
subject to income tax, hence they subjected
it to voluntary arbitration.

WON VA has jurisdiction?

Voluntary arbitrator does not have

jurisdiction to resolve the issue of taxation
pertaining to benefits that were converted
into cash. Commission on internal revenue
has jurisdiction.

18. JORDAN VS GRANDEUR SECURITY

SERVICES
Jordan with his co employees filed to LA for
money claims against respondent as it failed
to pay them minimum wages and other
benefits and illegally deducted premiums for
insurance. Grandeur argued that it merely
reassigned Jurban to Quezon but it insisted
to abadon his work and filed for illegal
dismissal, they also denied the claims for
non-payment.
LA ruled for reinstatement of Jurban
however he waived his right for
reinstatement and instead appealed to NRLC.

WON NLRC has jurisdiction?

No, LC provides that LA has jurisdiction over

termination disputes and NLRC has only
exclusive appellate jurisdiction over the case.
Plain reading on the memorandum of appeal
shows that it was another complaint for
illegal dismissal hence it acted outside its
jurisdiction.

13. MILAN VS NLRC (Solid mills)

Milan was the sole collective bargaining
agent of solid mills, employees were allowed
to occupy the company village on condition
that employees would vacate any time the
company deems fit.
Solid mills ceased its operations due to
serious business losses and employees were
dismissed. However their benefits was
withheld as they refused to vacate the
premises which caused them to file
complaint before LA for nonpayment. Solid
mills argued that the complaint was
premature as they refuse to vacate.

WON LA has jurisdiction

YES, issue raised over the subject property by

virtue of employment is intertwined with
EER. Therefore LA has jurisdiction.