Mainland Construction Co. Inc. vs Movilla, 320 Phil 353

Facts:

Ernesto Movilla, who was a Certified Public Accountant during his lifetime, was hired by Mainland in 1977.  Thereafter, he was promoted to the position of Administrative Officer with a monthly salary of P4,700.00. Ernesto Movilla, recorded as receiving a fixed salary of P4,700.00 a month, was registered with the Social Security System (SSS) as an employee of petitioner corporation.  His contributions to the SSS, Medicare and Employees Compensation Commission (ECC) were deducted from his monthly earnings by his said employer. DOLE conducted a routine inspection on petitioner corporation and found that it committed such irregularities in the conduct of its business as: "1. Underpayment of wages under R.A. 6727 and RTWPB-XI-01; Non-implementation of Wage Order No. RTWPB-XI-02; Unpaid wages for 1989 and 1990; Non-payment of holiday pay and service incentive leave pay; and Unpaid 13th month pay. On the basis of this finding, petitioner corporation was ordered by DOLE to pay to its thirteen employees, which included Movilla, the total amount of P309,435.89, representing their salaries, holiday pay, service incentive leave pay differentials, unpaid wages and 13th month pay. All the employees listed in the DOLE's order were paid by petitioner corporation, except Ernesto Movilla. On October 8, 1991, Ernesto Movilla filed a case against petitioner corporation and/or Lucita, Robert, and Ellen, all surnamed Carabuena, for unpaid wages, separation pay and attorney's fees, with the Department of Labor and Employment, Regional Arbitration, Branch XI, Davao City. On February 29, 1992, Ernesto Movilla died while the case was being tried by the Labor Arbiter and was promptly substituted by his heirs, private respondents herein, with the consent of the Labor Arbiter.

 

 

Issue:

Which has jurisdiction over the case, the SEC or the NLRC?

 

Held:

Since Ernesto Movilla's complaint involves a labor dispute, it is the NLRC, under Article 217 of the Labor Code of the Philippines, which has jurisdiction over the case at bench. In the case at bench, the claim for unpaid wages and separation pay filed by the complainant against petitioner corporation involves a labor dispute.  It does not involve an intra-corporate matter, even when it is between a stockholder and a corporation.  It relates to... an employer-employee relationship which is distinct from the corporate relationship of one with the other. Moreover, there was no showing of any change in the duties being performed by complainant as an Administrative Officer and as an Administrative Manager after his election by the Board of Directors.  What comes to the fore is whether there was a change in the nature of his functions and not merely the nomenclature or title given to his job.