John Dominic T.

Buhangin
Labor Law Review II
Professor Natividad Roma

Cases on Jurisdiction of the National Labor Relations Commission

Case Parties Existence of Doctrine
Employer-Employee
Relationship and
NLRC jurisdiction
1. Remington v. Remington Industrial Sales Yes, notwithstanding The mere fact that the househelper or domestic servant is
Castaneda Corporation, Petitioner the nature of the working within the premises of the business of the
work (housekeeping) employer and in relation to or in connection with its
Erlinda Castaneda, that Castaneda business, as in its staffhouses for its guest or even for its
Respondent rendered for officers and employees, warrants the conclusion that such
Remington househelper or domestic servant is and should be
considered as a regular employee of the employer and NOT
as a mere family househelper or domestic servant as
contemplated in Rule XIII, Section 1(b), Book 3 of the Labor
Code, as amended.

2. SSC v. Asia Pro REPUBLIC OF THE Yes, between It is true that the Service Contracts executed between the
PHILIPPINES, represented Asiapro and its respondent cooperative and Stanfilco expressly provide that
by the SOCIAL SECURITY members there shall be no employer-employee relationship between
COMMISSION and SOCIAL the respondent cooperative and its owners-members. This
SECURITY SYSTEM, Court, however, cannot give the said provision force and
Petitioners effect.

Asiapro Cooperative, As previously pointed out by this Court, an employee-

Respondent employer relationship actually exists between the
respondent cooperative and its owners-members. The four
elements in the four-fold test for the existence of an
employment relationship have been complied with. The
 respondent cooperative must not be allowed to deny its
employment relationship with its owners-members by
invoking the questionable Service Contracts provision, when
in actuality, it does exist. The existence of an employer-
employee relationship cannot be negated by expressly
repudiating it in a contract, when the terms and surrounding
circumstances show otherwise. The employment status of a
person is defined and prescribed by law and not by what the
parties say it should be.
3. Manila Hotel THE MANILA HOTEL CORP. No employer- Rule of forum non conveniens, a Philippine court or agency
Corp. v. NLRC AND MANILA HOTEL INTL. employee may assume jurisdiction over the case if:
LTD., Petitioners relationship exists
between Manila (1) Philippine court is one to which the parties may
NATIONAL LABOR Hotel International conveniently resort to;
RELATIONS COMMISSION, and private (2) Philippine court is in a position to make an intelligent
ARBITER CEFERINA J. respondent Santos decision as to the law and the facts; and
DIOSANA AND MARCELO G. (3) Philippine court has or is likely to have power to enforce
SANTOS, Respondents its decisions
The conditions are unavailing in the case at bar.
Not Convenient given that all the incidents of the case
occurred outside the Philippines. Also, defendants, the
Palace Hotel and MHICL are not nationals of the Philippines.
Main witnesses, Mr. Shmidt and Mr. Henk are non-residents
of the Philippines.
Hence, there is no power to determine applicable law.

Employment contract was perfected in foreign soil.

Application of the principle of lex loci contractus (the law of
the place where the contract was made)
No power to determine the facts.

All acts complained of took place in Beijing, People’s Republic

of China. NLRC was not in position to determine whether the
Tiannamen Square incident truly adversely affected
 operations of the Palace Hotel to justify respondent Santos’
retrenchment.
Principle of effectiveness, no power to execute decision.

Even assuming that a proper decision could be reached by

the NLRC, such would not have any binding effect against the
employer, the Palace Hotel. Jurisdiction over person of
Palace Hotel was not acquired. If Santos were an “overseas
contract worker”, a Philippine forum in POEA would protect
him. He is not an “overseas contract worker”.

In sum:
MHC Not Liable

4. Pacific Pacific Consultants Yes, there is We agree with the conclusion of the CA that there was an
Consultants International, Petitioners employer-employee employer-employee relationship between petitioner PPI and
International relationship and respondent using the four-fold test.
v. Klaus Klaus K. Schonfeld, NLRC has jurisdiction
Schonfeld Respondents over the case The settled rule on stipulations regarding venue, as held by
this Court in the vintage case of Philippine Banking
Corporation v. Tensuan, is that while they are considered
valid and enforceable, venue stipulations in a contract do
not, as a rule, supersede the general rule set forth in Rule 4
of the Revised Rules of Court in the absence of qualifying or
restrictive words.

In the instant case, no restrictive words

like only, solely, exclusively in this court, in no other court
save , particularly, nowhere else but/except , or words of
equal import were stated in the contract.

Hence the Labor Code applies and the NLRC has jurisdiction.
5. Food Traders Food Traders House, Inc., Yes, but NLRC has no In the instant case, there is want of evidence that the
House, Inc. v. Petitioners jurisdiction with P15,000 or P7,500.00 supposed indebtedness of Espino to
NLRC respect to the Alinas arose out of employer-employee relationship. On the
NATIONAL LABOR garnishment in contrary, it was admitted by both parties that
RELATIONS COMMISSION satisfaction of a such indebtedness was a personal loan to Espino and out of
and BARBARA A. personal loan the personal funds of Alinas. Clearly, this personal loan is not
CAMACHO-ESPINO, within the ambit of the Labor Arbiters jurisdiction.
Respondents
Under par. (b) of Art. 217 of the Labor Code, the NLRC shall
have exclusive appellate jurisdiction over all cases decided by
labor arbiters. This simply means that if a claim does not fall
within the exclusive original jurisdiction of the labor arbiter,
the NLRC cannot have appellate jurisdiction thereon, much
less receive additional evidence. As a result, the NLRC gravely
abused its discretion when it affirmed the garnishment of
Espinos salary and allowed its set-off against Espinos
personal loan on the ground that it does not fall within the
Labor Arbiters exclusive original jurisdiction.

6. Baez v. Bebiano M. Baez, Petitioner Yes, there is It is clear that under Art. 217(a) par. 4 of Labor Code, the
Valdevilla employer-employee Labor Arbiter and NLRC have original and exclusive
Hon. Downey C. Valdevilla relationship jurisdiction claims for actual, moral, exemplary and other
and Oro Marketing, forms of damages arising from the employer-employee
Respondents NLRC has jurisdiction relations. This provision is the result of the amendment by
in cases involving the Section 9 of Republic Act (“R.A.”) No. 6715, which took effect
claim for damages on March 21, 1989, and which put to rest the earlier
arising from confusion as to who between Labor Arbiters and regular
employer-employee courts had jurisdiction over claims for damages as between
relationship employers and employees.

It will be recalled that years prior to R.A. 6715, jurisdiction

over all money claims of workers, including claims for
damages, was originally lodged with the Labor Arbiters and
the NLRC by Article 217 of the Labor Code. On May 1, 1979,
 however, Presidential Decree (“P.D.”) No. 1367 amended
said Article 217 to the effect that “Regional Directors shall
not indorse and Labor Arbiters shall not entertain claims for
moral or other forms of damages.” This limitation in
jurisdiction, however, lasted only briefly since on May 1,
1980, P.D. No. 1691 nullified P.D. No. 1367 and restored
Article 217 of the Labor Code almost to its original form.
Presently, and as amended by R.A. 6715, the jurisdiction of
Labor Arbiters and the NLRC in Article 217 is comprehensive
enough to include claims for all forms of damages “arising
from the employer-employee relations”.

7. Purificacion G. Purificacion G. Tabang, No, since Tabang is The charges filed by Tabang partake of the nature of an intra-
Tabang v. Petitioner not an employee but corporate controversy. An “office” is created by the charter
NLRC a corporate officer of the corporation and the officer is elected by the directors
NLRC and Pamana Golden or stockholders. On the other hand, an “employee” usually
Care Medical Center The RTC has occupies no office and generally is employed not by action of
Foundation, Respondents jurisdiction over the the directors or stockholders but by the managing officer of
subject matter being the corporation who also determines the compensation to
an intra-corporate be paid such employee. In this case, Tabang was appointed
controversy by the Board of Trustees to offices stated in the by-
laws. She is deemed an officer of the corporation. An
officer’s dismissal is always a corporate act, or an intra-
corporate controversy, and the nature is not altered by the
reason or wisdom which the Board of Directors may have in
taking such action. The question of remuneration of an
officer is likewise not a simple labor problem but a matter
that comes within the area of corporate affairs and
management and is a corporate controversy.

8. Dai-chi DAI-CHI ELECTRONICS NLRC has no Money claims that did not arise out of such relations is to be
Electronics MANUFACTURING jurisdiction over a taken in by regular courts. The claims should have a causal
Manufacturing CORPORATION, petitioner case that stems from connection with employer-employee relations. In Ocheda,
v. Villarama violation of a non-
 HON. MARTIN S.
VILLARAMA, JR., Presiding
Judge, Regional Trial Court,
Branch 156, Pasig, Metro
Manila and ADONIS C.
LIMJUCO, respondents
9. Emmanuel EMMANUEL S. HUGO,
Hugo, et. al., v. LOURENTE V. CRUZ,
Light Rail DIOSDADO S. DOLORES,
Transit RAMON B. DE LOS REYES,
Authority ORLANDO B. FLORES,
ROGELIO R. MARTIN, JOSE
ROBERTO A. PAMINTUAN,
MELVIN R. GOMEZ,
REYNALDO P. SOLISA,
EMMANUEL A. PALADO,
JR., ANSELMO V.
TALAGTAG, JR., ANTHONY
C. RONQUILLO, ARTHUR G.
CONCEPCION, ORLANDO
MALAYBA, LEANDRO C.
PAGURAYAN III, MARVIN L.
GABRIEL, FERNANDO V.
DIAZ, ALFREDO CHAN,
JUAN G. OBIAS, JR., EMIL P.
BELCHEZ, RODELIO H.
LASTIMA, and AUGUSTO
LAGOS, Petitioners
competition clause the action based on tort or quasi-delict with no
included in an such causal connection was in the juris of the regular courts.
employment In Pepsi-Cola, the action by employees against the malicious
contract; RTC has filing of the employer of a criminal complaint against them
jurisdiction was with the regular courts.
The ratio for the Dai-chi case was that the complaint for
damages was not anchored on term of employee’s service
but the effects of such term.
No employer- Petitioners themselves admitted in their complaint that
employee LRTA is a government agency organized and existing
relationship exists pursuant to an original charter (Executive Order No. 603),
between petitioners and that they are employees of METRO.
herein and LRTA,
hence, NLRC has no Light Rail Transit Authority v. Venus, Jr., which has a similar
jurisdiction factual backdrop, holds that LRTA, being a government-
owned or controlled corporation created by an original
charter, is beyond the reach of the Department of Labor and
Employment which has jurisdiction over workers in the
private sector, viz:
. . . [E]mployees of petitioner METRO cannot be considered
as employees of petitioner LRTA. The employees hired by
METRO are covered by the Labor Code and are under the
jurisdiction of the Department of Labor and Employment,
whereas the employees of petitioner LRTA, a government-
owned and controlled corporation with original charter,
are covered by civil service rules. Herein private respondent
workers cannot have the best of two worlds, e.g., be
considered government employees of petitioner LRTA, yet
allowed to strike as private employees under our labor
laws. x x x.
 LIGHT RAIL
TRANSIT AUTHORITY,
Respondent

10. Jocelyn Galera JOCELYN M. GALERA, Yes, there is An examination of WPPs by-laws resulted in a finding
v. WPP Petitioner employer-employee that Galeras appointment as a corporate officer (Vice-
Marketing relationship as President with the operational title of Managing Director of
WPP MARKETING Galera’s position is Mindshare) during a special meeting of WPPs Board of
COMMUNICATIONS, INC., not one that Directors is an appointment to a non-existent corporate
JOHN STEEDMAN, contemplates a office. WPPs by-laws provided for only one Vice-President.
MARK WEBSTER, and corporate officer per Galera being an employee, then the Labor Arbiter and the
NOMINADA LANSANG, the respondents’ by- NLRC have jurisdiction over the present case.
Respondents laws

11. Pioneer PIONEER CONCRETE No employer- In the present case, no employer-employee relationship
Concrete PHILIPPINES, INC., PIONEER employee exists between petitioners and respondent. In fact, in his
Philippines v. PHILIPPINES HOLDINGS, relationship exists complaint, private respondent is not seeking any relief under
Antonio D. and PHILIP J. herein, the cause not the Labor Code, but seeks payment of damages on account
Todaro KLEPZIG, Petitioners arising from of petitioners’ alleged breach of their obligation under their
employment but agreement to employ him. It is settled that an action for
ANTONIO D. from breach of breach of contractual obligation is intrinsically a civil dispute.
TODARO, Respondent contractual In the alternative, respondent seeks redress on the basis of
stipulation to hire the provisions of Articles 19 and 21 of the Civil Code.
respondent
Hence, it is clear that the present action is within the realm
of civil law, and jurisdiction over it belongs to the regular
courts.
This Court has consistently held that where no employer-
employee relationship exists between the parties and no
issue is involved which may be resolved by reference to the
Labor Code, other labor statutes or any collective bargaining
agreement, it is the Regional Trial Court that has jurisdiction.
12. Apex Mining APEX MINING COMPANY, Yes, there is While it may be true that the nature of the work of a
Company, Inc. INC., Petitioner employer-employee househelper, domestic servant or laundrywoman in a home
v. NLRC relationship and or in a company staffhouse may be similar in nature, the
NATIONAL LABOR Candido is to be difference in their circumstances is that in the former
RELATIONS COMMISSION treated as a regular instance they are actually serving the family while in the
and SINCLITICA employee latter case, whether it is a corporation or a single
CANDIDO, Respondents proprietorship engaged in business or industry or any other
agricultural or similar pursuit, service is being rendered in the
staffhouses or within the premises of the business of the
employer. In such instance, they are employees of the
company or employer in the business concerned entitled to
the privileges of a regular employee.

13. PNB v. Philippine National Bank, Yes, there is Labor arbiters have original and exclusive jurisdiction over
Cabansag Petitioner employer-employee claims arising from employer-employee relations including
relationship since at termination disputes involving all workers, including OFWs.
Florence O. Cabansag, the time of her Here, Cabansag applied for and secured an OEC from the
Respondent dismissal, Cabansag’s POEA through the Philippine Embassy. The OEC authorized
probation had her working status in a foreign country and entitled her to all
already ended benefits and processes under our statutes. Although she may
been a direct hire at the commencement of her employment,
NLRC has jurisdiction she became an OFW who was covered by Philippine labor
laws and policies upon certification by the POEA. When she
was illegally terminated, she already possessed the POEA
employment certificate.

A migrant worker “refers to a person who is to be engaged, is

engaged or has been engaged in a remunerated activity in a
state of which he or she is not a legal resident; to be used
interchangeably with overseas Filipino worker.” Here,
Cabansag was a Filipino, not a legal resident of Singapore,
and employed by petitioner in its branch office in Singapore.
She is clearly an OFW/migrant worker. Thus, she has the
option where to file her Complaint for illegal dismissal. She
 can either file at the Regional Arbitration Branch where she
resides or the RAB where the employer is situated. Thus, in
filing her Complaint before the RAB office in Quezon City, she
has made a valid choice of proper venue.

14. Union Motors UNION MOTORS No, there is no Thus, there are specifically three officers which a corporation
Corp. v. NLRC CORPORATION, BENITO S. employer-employee must have under the statute: president, secretary, and
CUA, and CHARLOTTE C. relationship since treasurer. However, the law does not limit corporate officers
CUA, Petitioners Go’s position in the to these three. Section 25 gives corporations the widest
company is that of a latitude to provide for such other offices, as they may deem
THE NATIONAL LABOR corporate officer necessary. The by-laws may and usually do provide for such
RELATIONS COMMISSION other officers, e.g., vice-president, cashier, auditor, and
and PRISCILLA D. NLRC does not have general manager. The by-laws of petitioner corporation are
GO, Respondents jurisdiction no exception. Article V (1) thereof states that one of the
powers vested in the Board of Directors is to appoint such
other officers as they may deem necessary who shall have
such power and shall perform such duties as may from time
to time be prescribed by the Board.

The records clearly show that private respondents position

as Assistant to the President and Personnel & Administrative
Manager is a corporate office under the by-laws of UMC. The
Secretarys Certificate of February 3, 1989, lists the position
of Assistant to the President and Personnel & Administrative
Manager as a corporate office. We have held that one who is
included in the by-laws of an association in its roster of
corporate officers is an officer of said corporation and not a
mere employee. It is also settled that if found regular on its
face, a Secretarys Certification is sufficient to rely on, and
there is no need to investigate the truth of the facts
contained in such certification. No reason has been shown
here to doubt the veracity of the said corporate secretary’s
certification. Hence, the inescapable conclusion is that
private respondent was an officer of petitioner UMC.
15. Deltaventures DELTAVENTURES
Resources, Inc. RESOURCES, INC., Petitioner
v. Cabato
HON. FERNANDO P.
CABATO, Presiding Judge
Regional Trial Court, La
Trinidad, Benguet, Branch
62; HON. GELACIO L.
RIVERA, JR., Executive
Labor Arbiter, NLRC-CAR,
Baguio City, ADAM P.
VENTURA, Deputy-Sheriff,
NLRC-CAR, Baguio City;
ALEJANDRO BERNARDINO,
AUGUSTO GRANADOS,
PILANDO TANGAY, NESTOR
RABANG, RAY DAYAP,
MYRA BAYAONA, VIOLY
LIBAO, AIDA LIBAO, JESUS
GATCHO and GREGORIO
DULAY, Respondents
16. Georg GEORG GROTJAHN GMBH
Grothjahm & CO., Petitioner
GMBH v.
Isnani HON. LUCIA VIOLAGO
ISNANI, Presiding Judge,
Regional Trial Court,
Makati, Br. 59; ROMANA R.
LANCHINEBRE; and TEOFILO
A.
LANCHINEBRE, Respondents
NLRC’s jurisdiction Jurisdiction, once acquired, is not lost upon the instance of
persists despite filing the parties but continues until the case is terminated.
of a complaint to Whatever irregularities attended the issuance and execution
quash writ of of the writ of execution should be referred to the same
execution issued by administrative tribunal who rendered the decision. This is
the designated Labor because any court which issued a writ of execution has the
Arbiter inherent power for the advancement of justice, to correct
errors of its ministerial officers and to control its own
processes.
Petitioner should have filed its third-party claim before the
Labor Arbiter, from whom the writ of execution originated
before instituting the civil case at RTC.
Yes, there is Not every dispute between an employer and employee
employer-employee involves matters that only labor arbiters and the NLRC can
relationship between resolve in the exercise of their adjudicatory or quasi-judicial
Romana Lanchinebre powers. The jurisdiction of labor arbiters and the NLRC under
and petitioner Article 217 of the Labor Code is limited to disputes arising
from an employer-employee relationship which can only be
NLRC has no resolved by reference to the Labor Code, other labor
jurisdiction as the statutes, or their collective bargaining agreement.
subject matter
involves a private Civil Case No. 92-2486 is a simple collection of a sum of
contractual money brought by petitioner, as creditor, against private
 obligation despite respondent Romana Lanchinebre, as debtor. The fact that
existence of they were employer and employee at the time of the
employer-employee transaction does not negate the civil jurisdiction of the trial
relationship court. The case does not involve adjudication of a labor
dispute but recovery of a sum of money based on our civil
laws on obligation and contract.

17. AFP Mutual AFP MUTUAL BENEFIT No existence of Under the contract invoked, private respondent had never
Benefit ASSOCIATION, employer-employee been petitioner's employee, but only its commission
Association v. INC., Petitioner relationship agent. As an independent contractor, his claim for unpaid
NLRC commission should have been litigated in an ordinary civil
NATIONAL LABOR action.
RELATIONS COMMISSION
and EUTIQUIO The jurisdiction of labor arbiters and respondent Commission
BUSTAMANTE, Respondents is set forth in Article 217 of the Labor Code. The unifying
element running through paragraphs (1) - (6) of said
provision is the consistent reference to cases or
disputes arising out of or in connection with an employer-
employee relationship. Prior to its amendment by Batas
Pambansa Blg. 227 on June 1, 1982, this point was clear as
the article included "all other cases arising from employer-
employee relation unless expressly excluded by this
Code." Without this critical element of employment
relationship, the labor arbiter and respondent Commission
can never acquire jurisdiction over a dispute. As in the case
at bar. It was serious error on the part of the labor arbiter to
have assumed jurisdiction and adjudicated the
claim. Likewise, the respondent Commission's affirmance
thereof.

18. Santos v. MA. ISABEL T. SANTOS, NLRC does not have Records reveal that as early as in petitioners position paper
Servier represented by ANTONIO P. jurisdiction over the filed with the Labor Arbiter, she already raised the legality of
Philippines SANTOS, Petitioner tax deductions of said deduction, albeit designated as unpaid balance of the
retirement package. Petitioner specifically averred
SERVIER PHILIPPINES, INC. petitioner’s that P362,386.87 was not given to her by respondent as it
and NATIONAL LABOR retirement benefit was allegedly a part of the formers taxable income.[39] This is
RELATIONS COMMISSION, likewise evident in the Labor Arbiter and the NLRCs decisions
Respondents although they ruled that the issue was beyond the tribunals
jurisdiction. They even suggested that petitioners claim for
illegal deduction could be addressed by filing a tax refund
with the Bureau of Internal Revenue.