0 evaluări0% au considerat acest document util (0 voturi)
169 vizualizări3 pagini
1) The Supreme Court ruled that Galera was an employee, not a corporate officer, of WPP based on an examination of WPP's by-laws and application of the four-fold test of employment.
2) The labor arbiter had proper jurisdiction over Galera's illegal dismissal complaint since she was deemed an employee.
3) Galera's dismissal was ruled illegal because WPP failed to prove just cause and did not follow proper procedure, lacking both substantive and procedural due process.
4) However, Galera could not claim employee benefits under Philippine law because she commenced employment without an alien employment permit, which is required by law. The Court maintained the status quo and did not award Galera
1) The Supreme Court ruled that Galera was an employee, not a corporate officer, of WPP based on an examination of WPP's by-laws and application of the four-fold test of employment.
2) The labor arbiter had proper jurisdiction over Galera's illegal dismissal complaint since she was deemed an employee.
3) Galera's dismissal was ruled illegal because WPP failed to prove just cause and did not follow proper procedure, lacking both substantive and procedural due process.
4) However, Galera could not claim employee benefits under Philippine law because she commenced employment without an alien employment permit, which is required by law. The Court maintained the status quo and did not award Galera
1) The Supreme Court ruled that Galera was an employee, not a corporate officer, of WPP based on an examination of WPP's by-laws and application of the four-fold test of employment.
2) The labor arbiter had proper jurisdiction over Galera's illegal dismissal complaint since she was deemed an employee.
3) Galera's dismissal was ruled illegal because WPP failed to prove just cause and did not follow proper procedure, lacking both substantive and procedural due process.
4) However, Galera could not claim employee benefits under Philippine law because she commenced employment without an alien employment permit, which is required by law. The Court maintained the status quo and did not award Galera
WPP Marketing Communications, Inc., et al. vs. Jocelyn M.
Galera benefits, and moral and exemplary damages, among others.
GR No. 169207; March 25, 2010 Jocelyn M. Galera vs. WPP Marketing Communications, Inc., et al. On appeal, the NLRC reversed the labor arbiter’s ruling. The NLRC ruled that GR No. 169239; March 25, 2010 Galera was WPP’s Vice-President, and therefore, a corporate officer at the time she was removed by the Board of Directors on 14 December 2000. The Facts: NLRC ruled that the labor arbiter had no jurisdiction over the case because being a corporate officer, a case arising from her termination is considered as Petitioner Jocelyn M. Galera is an American citizen, who was hired by an intra-corporate dispute, which was cognizable by the Securities and respondent John Steedman, Chairman of WPP Worldwide and Chief Executive Exchange Commission under P.D. 902-A (but now by the Regional Trial Courts Officer of Mindshare, Co., a corporation based in Hong Kong, China, to work designated as Commercial Courts by the Supreme Court pursuant to Section in the Philippines for private respondent WPP Marketing Communications, 5.2 of RA No.8799). Inc. (WPP), a corporation registered and operating under the laws of Philippines. Under the employment contract, Galera would commence The Court of Appeals reversed the NLRC. It ruled that Galera’s appointment employment on September 1, 1999, with the position of Managing Director of by the Board of Directors of the WPP as Vice President for Media had no legal Mindshare Philippines. Thus, without obtaining an alien employment permit, effect as WPP’s by-laws provided for only one Vice-President, which at that Galera commenced her employment with WPP Philippines on the said date. It time was occupied. Furthermore, WPP’s by-laws did not include a managing was only after four months from the time she commenced employment that director as among its corporate officers. The Court of Appeals ordered WPP private respondent WPP filed before the Bureau of Immigration an to pay Galera backwages and separation pay, as well as housing benefits, application for petitioner Galera to receive a working visa. In the application, moral and exemplary damages, and attorney’s fees, among others. she was designated as Vice-President of WPP. Petitioner alleged that she was constrained to sign the application in order that she could remain in the The case was subsequently elevated to the Supreme Court. Philippines and retain her employment.
On December 14, 2000, private respondent Galera was verbally informed by Issues: Steedman that her employment had been terminated. She received her 1. Is Galera an employee or a corporate officer of WPP? termination letter the following day. Her termination prompted Galera to commence a complaint for illegal dismissal before the labor arbiter. The labor 2. Did the labor arbiter have jurisdiction over the case? arbiter found WPP, Steedman, Webster, and Lansang liable for illegal dismissal and damages. Furthermore the labor arbiter stated that Galera was 3. Was Galera illegally dismissed? not only illegally dismissed but was also not accorded due process, saying that Galera was not given an opportunity by WPP to defend herself and explain 4. Is Galera entitled to collect the award of backwages and damages even if her side. Thus, WPP did not observe both substantive and procedural due she did not have an alien employment permit when she commenced her process in terminating Galera’s employment. The labor arbiter ordered WPP employment in the Philippines? to reinstate Galera and to pay her backwages, transportation and housing (Third Issue): Ruling (First Issue): Yes, WPP’s dismissal of Galera lacked both substantive and procedural due Galera is an employee of WPP. She is not a corporate officer of WPP. An process. examination of WPP’s by-laws resulted in a finding that Galera’s appointment as a corporate officer (Vice-President with the operational title of Managing WPP failed to prove any just or authorized cause for Galera’s dismissal. WPP Director of Mindshare) during a special meeting of WPP’s Board of Directors was unable to substantiate the allegations of Steedman’s December 15, 2000 is an appointment to a non-existent corporate office. WPP’s by-laws provided letter to Galera, (questioning her leadership and competence). Galera, on the for only one Vice-President. At the time of Galera’s appointment on other hand, presented documentary evidence in the form of congratulatory December 31, 1999, WPP already had one Vice-President in the person of letters, including one from Steedman, which contents are diametrically Webster. Galera cannot be said to be a director of WPP also because all five opposed to the December 15, 2000 letter. Also, the law requires that the directorship positions provided in the by-laws are already occupied. employer must furnish the worker sought to be dismissed with two written notices before termination of employment can be legally effected: (1) notice The appellate court further justified that Galera was an employee and not a which apprises the employee of the particular acts or omissions for which his corporate officer by subjecting WPP and Galera’s relationship to the four-fold dismissal is sought; and (2) the subsequent notice which informs the test: (a) the selection and engagement of the employee; (b) the payment of employee of the employer’s decision to dismiss him. Failure to comply with wages; (c) the power of dismissal; and (d) the employer’s power to control the requirements taints the dismissal with illegality. WPP’s acts clearly show the employee with respect to the means and methods by which the work is to that Galera’s dismissal did not comply with the two-notice rule. be accomplished. The appellate court found that Sections 1 and 4 of the employment contract mandate where and how often she is to perform her work; Sections 3, 5, 6 and 7 show that wages she receives are completely (Fourth Issue): controlled by WPP; and Sections 10 and 11 clearly state that she is subject to the regular disciplinary procedures of WPP. No, Galera could not claim the employees benefits she is entitled under Philippine Labor Laws. The law and the rules are consistent in stating that the (Second Issue): employment permit must be acquired prior to employment. Article 40 of the Labor Code states: "Any alien seeking admission to the Philippines for The Labor Arbiter had jurisdiction over the illegal dismissal complaint filed by employment purposes and any domestic or foreign employer who desires to Galera. Galera being an employee, the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC had engage an alien for employment in the Philippines shall obtain an jurisdiction over her illegal dismissal complaint. Article 217 of the Labor Code employment permit from the Department of Labor. Section 4, Rule XIV, Book vests the Labor Arbiter with the jurisdiction to hear and decide, among others 1 of the Implementing Rules and Regulations provides, among others, that if termination disputes, involving workers, whether agricultural or non- an alien enters the country under a non-working visa and wishes to be agricultural. employed thereafter, he may only be allowed to be employed upon presentation of a duly approved employment permit. Galera cannot come to this Court with unclean hands. To grant Galera’s prayer is to sanction the violation of the Philippine labor laws requiring aliens to secure work permits before their employment. We hold that the status quo must prevail in the present case and we leave the parties where they are. This ruling, however, does not bar Galera from seeking relief from other jurisdictions.