Als2014blaborii azucena inspection power is but an

Info iconThis preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: 
elements
to
be
considered
in
determining
whether
 the
SEC
has
jurisdiction
over
the
controversy,
to
wit:
 (1)
 the
 status
 or
 relationship
 of
 the
 parties,
 and
 (2)
 the
nature
of
the
question
that
is
the
subject
of
their
 controversy.
 As
 petitioner’s
appointment
as
comptroller
required
 the
approval
and
formal
action
of
the
IBC’s
Board
of
 Directors
 to
 become
 valid,
 it
 is
 clear
 therefore
 that
 petitioner
 is
a
corporate
officer
whose
dismissal
may
 be
the
subject
of
a
controversy
cognizable
by
the
SEC
 [now
 RTC]
 which
 includes
 controversies
 involving
 7
 8. both
 election
 and
 appointment
 of
 corporate
 directors,
trustees,
officers,
and
managers.
 o CLV:
 business
 judgment
 doctrine
 encompasses
 the
 removal
from
office
of
a
corporate
officer
at
the
discretion
 of
 the
 board
 of
 directors.
 He
 ahs
 no
 security
 of
 tenure.
 (CLV
sees
an
open
constitutional
issue)
 • When
bank
officer
may
be
a
regular
employee
 o Prudential
Bank
and
Trust
Co.
v.
Reyes
 The
 primary
 standard
 of
 determining
 regular
 employment
 is
 the
 reasonable
 connection
 between
 the
particular
activity
performed
by
the
employee
in
 relation
 to
 the
 usual
 trade
 or
 business
 of
 the
 employer.
 As
 assistant
 vice­president
 of
 the
 foreign
 department
 of
 the
 bank
 she
 performs
 tasks
 integral
 to
 the
 operations
 of
 the
 bank
 and
 her
 length
 of
 service
 with
 the
 bank
 totaling
 28
 years
 speaks
 volumes
 of
 her
 status
 as
 a
 regular
 employee
 of
 the
 bank.
 As
 such,
 she
 is
 entitled
 to
 security
 of
 tenure.
 Her
 services
 may
 be
 terminated
 only
 for
 a
 just
 or
 authorized
cause.
The
NLRC
has
jurisdiction.
 Labor
arbiter’s
jurisdiction:
money
claims
 • A
 money
 claim
 arising
 from
 employer‐employee
 relations,
 excepting
 SSS/ECC/Medicare
claims,
is
within
the
jurisdiction
of
a
labor
arbiter
–
 o If
 the
 claim,
 regardless
 of
 amount,
 is
 accompanied
 with
 a
 claim
for
reinstatement;
or
 o If
the
claim,
whether
or
not
accompanied
with
a
claim
for
 reinstatement,
exceeds
5k
per
claimant
 • Only
money
claims
NOT
arising
from
CBA
 o Original
 and
 exclusive
 jurisdiction
 of
 the
 labor
 arbiter
 is
 limited
 only
 to
 those
 arising
 from
 statutes
 or
 contracts
 other
than
a
CBA.
 o The
voluntary
arbitrator
or
panel
of
voluntary
arbitrators
 will
 have
 original
 and
 exclusive
 jurisdiction
 over
 money
 claims
“arising
from
the
interpretation
or
implementation
 of
 the
 CBA,
 and
 those
 arising
 from
 the
 interpretation
 or
 enforcement
 of
 company
 personnel
 policies”,
 under
 Article
261
 • Money
claims
must
have
arisen
out
of
employment
 o Money
 claims
 of
 workers
 which
 do
 not
 arise
 out
 of
 or
 in
 connection
with
their
employer‐employee
relationship
fall
 within
the
general
jurisdiction
of
regular
courts
of
justice
 o If
 an
 employee
 is
 claiming
 a
 prize
 under
 an
 incentive
 program
in
his
company,
where
should
he
file
his
claim?
 Pepsi­cola
Bottling
Co.
v.
Martinez
 Tumala
was
declared
winner
of
the
Lapu‐ Lapu
 Award
 in
 the
 annual
 Sumakwel
 contest.
 He
 was
 entitled
 to
 a
 prize
 of
 a
 house
 and
 lot,
 but
 petitioner
 company,
 despite
 demands,
 refused
 to
 deliver
 the
 prize.
 His
 employment
 was
 also
 Lalay
Abala.
ALS2014B.
Labor
II.
 • terminated.
 He
 filed
 with
 the
 CFI.
 Company
moved
to
dismiss
the
complaint
 on
grounds
of
lack
of
jurisdiction
 Labor
arbiter
has
jurisdiction
 The
 claim
 for
 said
 prize
 unquestionably
 arose
from
an
employer­employee
relation
 and,
therefore,
falls
within
the
coverage
of
 Article
 217
 of
 the
 Labor
 Code.
 Tumala
 would
 not
 have
 qualified
 for
 the
 contest,
 much
 less
 won
 the
 prize,
 if
 he
 was
 not
 an
 employee
of
the
company
at
the
time
of
the
 holding
 of
 the
 contest.
 To
 hold
 that
 Tumala’s
 claim
 for
 the
 prize
 should
 be
 passed
upon
by
the
regular
courts
of
justice
 independently
 and
 separately
 from
 his
 claim
for
back
salaries,
retirement
benefits
 and
 damages,
 would
 be
 to
 sanction
 split
 jurisdiction
 San
Miguel
Corp.
v.
NLRC
 SMC
 sponsored
 a
 program
 granting
 cash
 awards
 to
 employees
 who
 would
 submit
 ideas
 and
 suggestions
 beneficial
 to
 the
 corporation.
 Rustico
 filed
 a
 p...
View Full Document

Ask a homework question - tutors are online