MORESCO v.

CAGALAWAN
MORESCO II (rural electric company) hired Virgilio Cagalawan as Disconnection Lineman.
He was designated as Acting Head for a time but was transferred to another sub-office as a
member of the disconnection crew due to being undermanned. Cagalawan assailed his
transfer claiming he was effectively demoted from his position as head. He claimed he was
transferred because he executed an Affidavit supporting his co-employee who filed an
illegal dismissal case against MORESCO II. Cagalawan stopped reporting for work and
filed a Complaint for constructive dismissal. As evidence, Cagalawan submitted a
certification executed by head of disconnection crew attesting that said sub
-office was not undermanned. During the proceedings before the NLRC, MORECO II
submitted a letter from Area Manager Engr. Canada requesting for two additional
disconnection linemen in order to attain the collection quota allocated in his area.
Issue/Held: WON the letter-request of Engr. Canada was sufficient to prove that the suboffice was undermanned. NO. Standing alone, it is self-serving and cannot be considered
competent evidence to prove accuracy of allegations. The letter provides no more than
bare allegations which deserve not even the slightest credit. When there is doubt between
the evidence submitted by the employer and that by the employee, the scales of justice
must be tilted in favor of the employee. An employers cause could only succeed on the
strength of its own evidence and not on the weakness of the employees evidence.
Del Valle, Jr. v. Dy
Clea filed an illegal dismissal case against Big Mak Burger. Labor Arbiter (LA) ruled in
favor of Clea. Since no appeal was made, LA decision became final and executory, a Writ
of Execution was issued, and the properties of Big Mak were levied upon. Big Mak filed a
complaint for injunction and damages before the RTC, which dismissed said complaint on
the ground of lack of jurisdiction. Dy (Big Mak's owner) then filed a petition for certiorari
before the CA, which granted said petition, arguing that Dy's complaint on the merits does
not encroach upon the jurisdiction of the labor tribunal. SC held that that complaint for
injunction and damages was a case properly within thejurisdiction of the labor arbiter and
not the trial court, since the subject matter of Dy's complaint is an incident of a labor case.
Doctrine: Regular courts have no jurisdiction to act on labor cases or various incidents
arising therefrom, including the execution of decisions, awards or orders. Jurisdiction to try
and adjudicate such cases pertains exclusively to the proper labor official concerned under

the Department of Labor and Employment. To hold otherwise is to sanction split jurisdiction
which is obnoxious to the orderly administration of justice.
Q:What determines the nature of action (and hence, the jurisdiction of a court)?
A: Material allegations of the complaint in relation to the law involved and Character of the
reliefs prayed for. In this case, Dy's complaint is a motion to quash a writ of execution of a
decision and an action to annul a decision rendered in an illegal dismissal case. Therefore,
LA has jurisdiction, not RTC.
KAPISANANG PANGKAUNLARAN V. BARRENO
KPKPI hired respondents for its KPKI Mile Program. On September 20, 2001, respondents
filed a complaint before the Department of Labor and Employment-NCR for underpayment
of wages, non-payment of labor standard benefits, and non-coverage with SSS and Home
Development fund. During pendency of said case, respondent Barreno was terminated.
She then file a complaint, now before NLRC, for illegal dismissal. The other respondents,
Ametin, Nonay, Dionisio, and Casio were also terminated that prompted them to file an
illegal dismissal case before the NLRC too.
Issue: Whether or not the respondents committed forum shopping when they file the NLRC
case during the pendency of the DOLE Case. (Issue of DOLE and NLRC jurisdiction)
HELD: NO. There is no identity of causes of action between the cases pending with the
DOLE and NLRC. The DOLE case involved violations of labor standard provisions while
the NLRC case questioned the propriety of the dismissal. These are two separate
remedies for distinct causes of actions. The violation of labor standard laws falls within the
jurisdiction of the DOLE while the dismissal from employment is within NLRCs jurisdiction.
Thus, in cases where the complaint for violation of labor standard laws preceded the
termination of the employee and the filing of the illegaldismissal case, it would not be in
consonance with justice to charge the complainants engaging in forum shopping when the
remedy available to them at the time their causes of action arose was to file separate
cases before different fora.
Cosare v. Broadcom Asia
In 2000, Arevalo set up a company (Broadcom), naming Cosare (his long time employee)
as an incorporator, with shares of stocks amounting to P100.00. In 2003, Cosare sent a
confidential memo to Arevalo informing him of some anomalies committed by his superior.
.

Instead of acting on the complaint, Arevalo asked Cosare to resign in exchange for 300k.
Cosare refused, and was charged with serious misconduct and willful breach of trust by the
company. He was suspended from accessing office documents, retrieving personal
belongings, was even barred from entering the office building. He filed the labor complaint,
saying he was constructively dismissed and illegally suspended.
ISSUES/HELD :
1. Who has jurisdiction over the dispute? The Labor Arbiter, not the RTC. The general
rule is cases of disputes among stockholders are treated as inter-corporate controversy,
which falls under the jurisdiction of the regular courts. However, if it involves a charge of
illegal dismissal, the action may fall under the jurisdiction of the LA. The mere fact that
Cosare was a stockholder does not necessarily make this an intra-corporate dispute.
If the illegal dismissal is that of a regular employee, LA has jurisdiction; if it is that of a
corporate officer, RTC has jurisdiction. In this case, Cosare, although AVP for Sales for
Broadcom, is not a corporate officer. A corporate officer is one who is given that character
(1) by the Corporation Code or by the corporation by-laws, or (2) by the election of the
directors or stockholders. Broadcoms by-laws only enumerate the positions of President,
VP, Treas and Sec. Cosare was merely appointed by Arevalo, and not elected by the
stockholders
.
2. Was Cosare constructively and illegally dismissed? Yes. Broadcom was already
resolute to sever their working relationship with Cosare.They did not accept Cosares
explanation because of the lapse of the 48-hour period to explain charges against him,
which was unfair to begin with. Cosares failure to work was neither voluntary nor indicative
of an intention to sever his employment with Broadcom.
Industrial Timber Corp. V. Ababon
This is a consolidation of two cases. Industrial Plywood Group Corporation (IPGC) owns a
plywood plant, which it leased to Industrial Timber Corporation (ITC) for 5 years. March 16,
1990: ITC notified DOLE and its workers that in three days, it will undergo a no plant
operation due to lack of raw materials.. However, IPGC told ITC of the leases expiration in
August 1990 and its intent not to renew. Subsequently ITC also notified DOLE and the
workers re: shutting down the plant because of the non-renewal of an
expired anti-pollution permit. These made ITC lay off all the workers.

October 1990: IPGC took over the plant after it secured the permit. Virgilio Ababon and co.
filed a complaint against ITC and IPGC for illegal dismissal, unfair labor practice and
damages, claiming ITCs shutdown was engineered to bust the union, and that both
corporations are one and the same entity being controlled by one owner. LA: no illegal
dismissal, but granted separation pay. The NLRC appeal set this aside and ordered the
workersreinstatement and payment of back wages. IPGC and ITCs subsequent MRs were
dismissed by the SC, but granted by the NLRC, which ruled in the companies favor.
Ababons subsequent petition for certiorari with the SC was referred to the CA. CA ruled to
reinstate the NLRCs first decision, which granted reinstatement. The companies filed
another MRdenied because it was filed 3 days after the last day of the reglementary
period.
Issue/Held: WON the companies petition should be allowed despite going against the
rules of procedure. Yes. Relevant articles: LC Art. 218 (c) and Art. 221. There must be
liberality in applying rules of procedure when it is in the interest of substantial justice.
The court allowed the motion to proceed, and held that while the cause for dismissal was
valid and proven, it lacked the proper notice requirement of LC Art. 283. The companies
were not compelled to reinstate the workers, but they were ordered to pay separation pay
and nominal damages.