RAUL COSARE vs BROADCOM ASIA

Facts:
COMPLAINT: Constructive dismissal, illegal suspension and monetary claims
1993 – employed as salesman by Arevalo in the business of selling equipment for TV
networks and production houses
2000 – set up Broadcom
- Named as incorporator
2001 – promoted as AVP for sales and head of technical coordination
March 23, 2009 – sent a confidential memo to Arevalo informing him of the anomalies of
their VP for Sales; Arevalo failed to act on Cosare’s accusations
March 25, 2009 – asked by Arevalo to tender his resignation but Cosare refused
March 30, 2009 – received a letter from Manager of Fin and Admin charging him of serious
misconduct and willful breach of trust
Decision of LA: dismissed the complaint on the ground of failure to establish that he was
dismissed
Decision of NLRC: reversed LA’s decision; finding resondents guilty of illegal dismissal
On CA: respondent raised a new argument that the case involved intra-corporate
controversy which is within the juris of RTC
CA’s Decision: dismissed the labor complaint on the ground of lack of jurisdiction; Cosare
being a corporate officer
Issue:
WON the case instituted was an intra-corporate dispute
Ruling:

The case falls within the jurisdiction of the LA. When the dispute involves a charge of illegal
dismissal, the action may fall under the jurisdiction of the LAs upon whose jurisdiction, as a
rule, falls termination disputes and claims for damages arising from employer-employee
relations as provided in Article 217 of the Labor Code. Consistent with this jurisprudence,
the mere fact that Cosare was a stockholder and an officer of Broadcom at the time the
subject controversy developed failed to necessarily make the case an intra-corporate
dispute.

Considering that the pending dispute particularly relates to Cosare’s rights and
obligations as a regular officer of Broadcom, instead of as a stockholder of the
corporation, the controversy cannot be deemed intra-corporate. (Controversy Test)
MANLIGUEZ vs CA
Facts:
DOLE in its decision ordered Inductocast Cebu to pay its former employees as a consequence
the labor department sheriff levied the buildings and improvements (Tipolo properties) and
were sold in ublic auction. Petitioners filed a complaint which sought the lifting of the levy
and annulment of the sale of the Tipolo properties, contending that they are the real owners
of the property.
ISSUE:
WON the DOLE has jurisdiction on the subject matter and nature of the case as against the
civil court
Ruling:
The case is not a labor case, no EE-ER relationship exists and no issue involved which
may be resolved by reference to the labor code, other labor statues or any CBA. The issue
on the said case is the ownership over the Tipolo properties. Clearly, it is the RTC and not
the DOLE who can take cognizance of the case.

GROTJAHN vs ISNANI
Facts:
GMBH is a multi-national company organized and existing under the laws of Germany
Filed an application with SEC for the establishment of HQ in the Phil
Approved by the BOI; SEC issued certificate of registration and license
Private respondent (Ramona) is the sale rep of petitioner
Secured a loan of 35,000 with an unpaid balance of 12,170.37
July 27, 1992 – ramona filed complaint for illegal suspension, dismissal and non-payment of
commissions
Aug 1992 - petitioner filed against respondent complaint for damages
Sept 1992 –petitioner filed another complaint for collection of sum of money
Respondent did not file an answer but filed a motion to dismiss
Judge granted motion to dismiss and held that LA shall original and exclusive jurisdiction
involving all claims arising from EE-ER relationship
Issue:
WON TC gravely erred in holding that regular courts have no jurisdiction over disputes bet
EE-ER
Ruling:

Yes.

It is true that the loan and cash advances sought to be recovered by petitioner were
contracted by private respondent Romana Lanchinebre while she was still in the employ of
petitioner. Not every dispute between an employer and employee involves matters that
only labor arbiters and the NLRC can resolve in the exercise of their adjudicatory or
quasi-judicial powers. The jurisdiction of labor arbiters and the NLRC under Article 217 of
the Labor Code is limited to disputes arising from an employer-employee relationship
which can only be resolved by reference to the Labor Code, other labor statutes, or their
collective bargaining agreement.

Civil Case No. 92-2486 is a simple collection of a sum of money brought by petitioner, as
creditor, against private respondent Romana Lanchinebre, as debtor. The fact that they were
employer and employee at the time of the transaction does not negate the civil jurisdiction
of the trial 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.

EVIOTA vs CA

Facts:
Complaint: Money claim for damages
1998 – Standard Chartered Bank and Eviota executed a contract of employment
Eviota abruptly resigned and rejoined his previous ER
June 1998 – bank filed a complaint against Eviota

First cause of action for damages: anchored Eviota’s employment of deceit and of making the
private respondent believe that he would fulfill his obligation under the employment
contract with assiduousness and earnestness. The petitioner volte face when, without the
requisite thirty-day notice under the contract and the Labor Code of the Philippines, as
amended, he abandoned his office and rejoined his former employer; thus, forcing the
private respondent to hire a replacement. The private respondent was left in a lurch, and its
corporate plans and program in jeopardy and disarray. Moreover, the petitioner took off
with the private respondent’s computer diskette, papers and documents containing
confidential information on employee compensation and other bank matters.

Second cause of action: petitioner simply walked away from his employment with the private
respondent sans any written notice, to the prejudice of the private respondent, its banking
operations and the conduct of its business.
Third cause of action: the petitioner made false and derogatory statements that the private
respondent reneged on its obligations under their contract of employment; thus, depicting
the private respondent as unworthy of trust.

Issue:
WON LA has jurisdiction over the case
Ruling:
No, not every controversy or money claim by an employee against the employer or vice-versa
is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the labor arbiter. A money claim by a worker against
the employer or vice-versa is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the labor arbiter only if
there is a reasonable causal connection between the claim asserted and employee-
employer relation. Absent such a link, the complaint will be cognizable by the regular
courts of justice.
Actions between employees and employer where the employer-employee relationship is
merely incidental and the cause of action precedes from a different source of
obligation is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the regular court.
We further stated that while seemingly the cause of action arose from employer-employee
relations, the employers claim for damages is grounded on wanton failure and refusal
without just cause to report to duty coupled with the averment that the employee
maliciously and with bad faith violated the terms and conditions of the contract to the
damage of the employer.

It is evident that the causes of action of the private respondent against the petitioner do not
involve the provisions of the Labor Code of the Philippines and other labor laws but the New
Civil Code. Thus, the said causes of action are intrinsically civil. There is no causal
relationship between the causes of action of the private respondent’s causes of action against
the petitioner and their employer-employee relationship. The fact that the private
respondent was the erstwhile employer of the petitioner under an existing employment
contract before the latter abandoned his employment is merely incidental. In fact, the
petitioner had already been replaced by the private respondent before the action was filed
against the petitioner.

ASIAN ALCOHOL vs NLRC

Facts:

1991 – Parsons family sell their majority rights to Prior Holdings due to business losses

- Prior implemented a reorganizational plan and other cost-saving measures. 117

employees out of 360 were separated; 72 were redundant positions that were
abolished. 21 out of 72 were union members.
October 1992 – received notices of termination effective on Nov 30, 1992 with
corresponding monetary benefits

December 18, 1992 – filed complaints of Illegal dismissal on the grounds that the
retrenchment program is a subterfuge for union busting. They also asseverated that Asian
Alcohol was not bankrupt as it has engaged in an aggressive scheme of contractual hiring

Decision of LA: dismissed the complaint since redundancy/retrenchment was perfectly valid
or legal

On retrenchment: they were able to present documents showing their business losses

Redundancy:

Ernesto Carias, Roberto Martinez and Rafael Sendon who were all Water Pump Tenders were
retrenched as an offshoot to the termination of lease on the land they were drilling

Leandro Verayo and Ereneo Tormo the shift to the use of bunker fuel by about 70% to fire
its boiler, there was no more need for the position of briquetting plant operator and the
services for only two briquetting helpers were determined to be adequate for the job of
briquetting coal. Ereneo retrenched being the oldest helper considering the work’s manual
nature; younger wirkers are preferred

Carlos Amacio poor health condition which greatly affect[ed] his work efficiency and the
reorganization plan needs only 9 mechanic

NLRC decision:

On retrenchment: respondent terminated complainants to protect the company from future

losses, does not create an impression of imminent loss. The company at the time of
retrenchment was not then in the state of business reverses. There is therefore no reason to
retrench

On redundancy: positions of the complainants were not redundant for the simple reason that
they were replaced by casuals

Issue:

WON there is valid dismissal on the grounds of retrenchment and redundancy

Ruling:

There is valid dismissal on grounds of retrenchment and redundancy

Out of its concern for those with less privilege in life, this Court has inclined towards the
worker and upheld his cause in his conflicts with the employer. This favored treatment is
directed by the social justice policy of the Constitution. But while tilting the scales of justice
in favor of workers, the fundamental law also guarantees the right of the employer to
reasonable returns from his investments. Corollarily, the law allows an employer to
downsize his business to meet clear and continuing economic threats. Thus, this Court
has upheld reductions in the work force to forestall business losses or stop the hemorrhaging
of capital.

Article 283 of the Labor Code uses the phrase retrenchment to prevent losses. In its ordinary
connotation, this phrase means that retrenchment must be undertaken by the employer
before losses are actually sustained. We have, however, interpreted the law to mean that
the employer need not keep all his employees until after his losses shall have materialized.

We find that the reorganizational plan and comprehensive cost-saving program to turn the
business around were nor designed to bust the union of the private respondent. Retrenched
were one hundred seventeen (117) employees. Seventy two (72) of them including private
respondent were separated because their positions had become redundant. In this context,
what may technically be considered as redundancy may verily be considered as
retrenchment measures. Their positions had to be declared redundant to cut losses.

The Court finds that the management has faithfully comply with the substantive and procedural
requirements laid down by law and jurisprudence on redundancy and retrenchment as just causes
to terminate services of workers.