Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 52 views

    Mainland Construction, Co., Inc., VS. Movilla: G.R. No. 118088, November

    Uploaded by

    Rein
    1) Movilla was hired as an accountant and employee of Mainland Construction in 1977 but was later elected as an administrative manager and board member. 2) The DOLE found labor law violations by Mainland Construction and ordered payment to employees including Movilla, but Movilla was not paid. 3) The issue is whether the NLRC or SEC has jurisdiction over Movilla's claim against Mainland Construction for unpaid salaries and separation pay. The Supreme Court ruled that the NLRC has jurisdiction as this is a labor dispute between an employee and employer.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Mainland Construction, Co., Inc., VS. Movilla: G.R. No. 118088, November

    Uploaded by

    Rein
    52 views6 pages
    1) Movilla was hired as an accountant and employee of Mainland Construction in 1977 but was later elected as an administrative manager and board member. 2) The DOLE found labor law violations by Mainland Construction and ordered payment to employees including Movilla, but Movilla was not paid. 3) The issue is whether the NLRC or SEC has jurisdiction over Movilla's claim against Mainland Construction for unpaid salaries and separation pay. The Supreme Court ruled that the NLRC has jurisdiction as this is a labor dispute between an employee and employer.

    Original Description:

    Original Title

    4-Aldojesa-Mainland-Construction-Co-Vs.-Movilla

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1) Movilla was hired as an accountant and employee of Mainland Construction in 1977 but was later elected as an administrative manager and board member. 2) The DOLE found labor law violations by Mainland Construction and ordered payment to employees including Movilla, but Movilla was not paid. 3) The issue is whether the NLRC or SEC has jurisdiction over Movilla's claim against Mainland Construction for unpaid salaries and separation pay. The Supreme Court ruled that the NLRC has jurisdiction as this is a labor dispute between an employee and employer.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pptx, pdf, or txt
    52 views6 pages

    Mainland Construction, Co., Inc., VS. Movilla: G.R. No. 118088, November

    Uploaded by

    Rein
    1) Movilla was hired as an accountant and employee of Mainland Construction in 1977 but was later elected as an administrative manager and board member. 2) The DOLE found labor law violations by Mainland Construction and ordered payment to employees including Movilla, but Movilla was not paid. 3) The issue is whether the NLRC or SEC has jurisdiction over Movilla's claim against Mainland Construction for unpaid salaries and separation pay. The Supreme Court ruled that the NLRC has jurisdiction as this is a labor dispute between an employee and employer.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pptx, pdf, or txt
    of 6

    MAINLAND CONSTRUCTION, CO., INC.

    ,
    VS.
    MOVILLA

    G.R. No. 118088, November


    23, 1995
    FACTS
    ◦ Movilla was hired as accountant by Mainland Construction in 1977 and as an employee, was
    registered with the SSS, Medicare, and ECC. In 1987, the board of directors elected Movilla as
    board member and Administrative Manager. Meantime, DOLE had conducted a routine
    inspection on the corporation and found several labor law violations. DOLE ordered the
    corporation to pay its thirteen employees, including Movilla, the unpaid holiday pay, service
    incentive leave, etc. The employer paid all the employees listed in the DOLE'S order, but not
    Movilla; hence, he filed a complaint with the NLRC Regional Arbitration Branch XI, Davao
    City. On February 29, 1992, Movilla died and was substituted for by his heirs. The Labor
    Arbiter rendered judgment on June 26, 1992, dismissing the complaint on the ground of lack
    of jurisdiction.
    FACTS
    ◦ The decision said in part:
    What Movilla is claiming against respondents are his alleged unpaid salaries and separation
    pay as Administrative Manager of the corporation for which position he was appointed by the
    Board of Directors. His claims therefore, fall under the jurisdiction of the Securities and
    Exchange Commission because this is not a simple labor problem, but a matter that comes
    within the area of corporate affairs and management, and is in fact a corporate controversy in
    contemplation of the Corporation Code. (Fortune Cement Corporation vs. NLRC, et al, G.R
    No. 79762, January 24, 1991.) The heirs appealed to the NLRC which ruled that the issue was
    a labor dispute between an employee and petitioner corporation and, thus, the NLRC had
    jurisdiction over the case.
    ISSUE

    ◦ Whether the NLRC or the SEC has jurisdiction over the controversy
    RULING
    ◦ The NLRC, replied the Supreme Court. In order that the SEC can take cognizance of
    a case, the controversy must pertain to any of the following relationships: a) between
    the corporation, partnership or association and the public; b) between the corporation,
    partnership or association and its stockholders, partners, members or officers; c)
    between the corporation, partnership or association and the State as far as its
    franchise, permit or license to operate is concerned; and d) among the stockholders,
    partners or associates themselves. The fact that the parties involved in the controversy
    are all stockholders or that the parties involved are the stockholders and the
    corporation does not necessarily place the dispute -within the ambit of the jurisdiction
    of SEC.
    Things to note!
    ◦ The better policy to be followed in determining jurisdiction over a case should
    be to consider concurrent factors such as the status or relationship of the
    parties or the nature of the question that is the subject of their controversy. In
    the absence of any one of these factors, the SEC will not have jurisdiction.
    Furthermore, it does not necessarily follow that every conflict between
    the corporation and its stockholders would involve such corporate matters as
    only the SEC can resolve in the exercise of its adjudicatory or quasi-judicial
    powers.

    You might also like