Scribd
Upload
96 views3 pages

Cabrera Vs NLRC

The Supreme Court of the Philippines reversed the decision of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) that dismissed the complaint of petitioners Teofilo Cabrera, Fausto Baclig and Alfredo Agulan for illegal dismissal by the National Service Corporation (NSC). The Court ruled that the NSC, being a government-owned corporation without an original charter, falls under the jurisdiction of labor laws and the NLRC rather than civil service rules. This overturned a previous ruling, based on a different provision of the 1987 Constitution, that such government corporations were part of the civil service. The Court reinstated the decision and orders of the labor arbiter in favor of the petitioners.

Uploaded by

Jim Rey
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
96 views3 pages

Cabrera Vs NLRC

The Supreme Court of the Philippines reversed the decision of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) that dismissed the complaint of petitioners Teofilo Cabrera, Fausto Baclig and Alfredo Agulan for illegal dismissal by the National Service Corporation (NSC). The Court ruled that the NSC, being a government-owned corporation without an original charter, falls under the jurisdiction of labor laws and the NLRC rather than civil service rules. This overturned a previous ruling, based on a different provision of the 1987 Constitution, that such government corporations were part of the civil service. The Court reinstated the decision and orders of the labor arbiter in favor of the petitioners.

Uploaded by

Jim Rey
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 3

Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila
FIRST DIVISION

G.R. No. 83387 June 27, 1991
TEOFILO CABRERA, FAUSTO BACLIG an ALFRE!O AGULAN, petitioners,
vs.
T"IR! !I#ISION, NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, NATIONAL
SER#ICE CORPORATION an$o% BRIG. GEN. MIGUEL #ILLAMOR
&Re'.(, respondents.
Mardonio L. Edica for petitioners.

CRU), J.:p
t the ti!e the National "abor Relations #o!!ission dis!issed the petitioners$
co!plaint for ille%al dis!issal b& the National Service #orporation, the rulin% case
'as National (ousin% uthorit& v. )uco.
1
The challen%ed decision of the public
respondent !ust no' be reversed on the basis of the doctrine announced in
NS*#O v. N"R#.
2
Dis!issed b& the National Service #orporation, the petitioners co!plained to the
Ministr& of "abor and *!plo&!ent on Septe!ber +,, +-./. fter considerin% the
position papers of the parties, the "abor rbiter ordered the petitioners$
reinstate!ent 'ithout loss of seniorit& ri%hts and the pa&!ent to the! of t'o &ears
bac0 'a%es and other bene1ts.
3
The decision 'as appealed to and a2r!ed b& the
First Division of the N"R# on Dece!ber -, +-.3, and in due ti!e, the petitioners
!oved for the issuance of a 'rit of e4ecution. This 'as opposed b& NS*#O on the
%round that it had not been furnished 'ith a cop& of the decision, but the opposition
'as re5ected and the petition 'as %ranted. Reconsideration of the order havin%
been denied, the NS*#O appealed to the N"R#, 'hich, throu%h its Third Division
this ti!e, declared itself 'ithout 5urisdiction and dis!issed the case on u%ust +.,
+-.,.
*
#itin% the N( case, the public respondent held that the NS*#O 'as not
covered b& the "abor #ode but b& #ivil Service rules and re%ulations, bein% a
%overn!ent6o'ned or controlled corporation.
The petitioners are no' before us as0in% for a2r!ance of the ori%inal decision
rendered b& the "abor rbiter.
In National (ousin% #orporation v. )uco, this #ourt, appl&in% the +-,7 #onstitution,
declared that the petitioner corporation 'as part of the #ivil Service and,
accordin%l&, its e!plo&ees 'ere covered not b& the "abor #ode but b& #ivil Service
rules and re%ulations. The basis of the rulin% 'as rticle 8II69, Section +:+; providin%
that <the #ivil Service e!braces ever& branch, a%enc&, subdivision and
instru!entalit& of the =overn!ent, includin% ever& %overn!ent6o'ned or controlled
corporation.<
In National Service #orporation v. N"R#, ho'ever, that decision 'as overturned on
Nove!ber >?, +-.., after the #ourt found that the NS*#O did not have an ori%inal
charter fro! the le%islature. The rule applied 'as rticle I869, Section >:+; of the
+-., #onstitution providin% that <the #ivil Service e!braces all branches,
subdivisions, instru!entalities and a%encies of the =overn!ent, includin%
%overn!ent6o'ned or controlled corporations 'ith ori%inal charters.
+
On the applicabilit& of the ne' doctrine, the #ourt said@
On the pre!ise that it is the +-., #onstitution that %overns the instant case
because it is the #onstitution in place at the ti!e of decision thereof, the N"R# has
5urisdiction to accord relief to the parties. s an ad!itted subsidiar& of the NID#, in
turn a subsidiar& of the PN9, the NS*#O is a %overn!ent6o'ned or controlled
corporation 'ithout ori%inal charter.
dditionall&, the NS*#O is estopped fro! challen%in% the 5urisdiction of the N"R#,
havin% accepted it all the 'hile this case 'as in pro%ress and until +-.,, 'hen it
appealed the order of the "abor rbiter for the issuance of the 'rit of e4ecution.
lon% line of decisions operates a%ainst the NS*#O.
,
It is especiall& noted that 'hen petitioner Fausto 9acli% 1led a co!plaint 'ith the
Merit S&ste! 9oard of the #ivil Service for his reinstate!ent, the NS*#O %eneral
!ana%er alle%ed in his ans'er dated Februar& -, +-.+, that the case 'as
co%niAable not b& the 9oard but b& the labor authorities. (is reason 'as that the
NS*#O 'as a private corporation or%aniAed under the #orporation "a'.
7
The Solicitor =eneral correctl& observes that the petitioners do not alle%e %rave
abuse of discretion on the part of the respondents as reBuired in a petition
for certiorari under Rule C3 of the Rules of #ourt. De shall disre%ard that procedural
Ea', ho'ever, in vie' of the 5urisdictional issue here raised, and in the interest of
substantial 5ustice.
Our 1ndin% is that the respondent N"R# erred in dis!issin% the petitioners$
co!plaint for lac0 of 5urisdiction because the rule no' is that onl& %overn!ent6
o'ned or controlled corporations 'ith ori%inal charters co!e under the #ivil
Service. The NS*#O havin% been or%aniAed under the #orporation "a' and not b&
virtue of a special le%islative charter, its relations 'ith its personnel are %overned b&
the "abor #ode and co!e under the 5urisdiction of the National "abor Relations
#o!!ission.
D(*R*FOR*, the order of the N"R# dated u%ust +., +-.,, is R*V*RS*D and S*T
SID*. The decision of the "abor rbiter dated Septe!ber 7/, +-.7, as a2r!ed b&
the N"R# on Dece!ber -, +-.3, and his order dated pril ?, +-.C, are R*INSTT*D.
No costs.
SO ORD*R*D.

You might also like