Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 418 views

    Espino Vs NLRC and Pal

    Uploaded by

    maanyag6685
    The petitioner Leslie Espino, the former Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer of Philippine Airlines (PAL), filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against PAL with the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) after being terminated by the PAL Board of Directors. The NLRC initially ruled in favor of Espino but later determined it did not have jurisdiction over the case. The Supreme Court upheld the NLRC's finding of lack of jurisdiction, holding that under Presidential Decree 902-A, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has original and exclusive jurisdiction over cases involving the removal of corporate officers, as this was an intra-corporate controversy. The nature of the complaint for back wages and damages did not change the SEC

    Copyright:

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

    Espino Vs NLRC and Pal

    Uploaded by

    maanyag6685
    418 views1 page
    The petitioner Leslie Espino, the former Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer of Philippine Airlines (PAL), filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against PAL with the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) after being terminated by the PAL Board of Directors. The NLRC initially ruled in favor of Espino but later determined it did not have jurisdiction over the case. The Supreme Court upheld the NLRC's finding of lack of jurisdiction, holding that under Presidential Decree 902-A, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has original and exclusive jurisdiction over cases involving the removal of corporate officers, as this was an intra-corporate controversy. The nature of the complaint for back wages and damages did not change the SEC

    Original Description:

    labor law

    Original Title

    Espino vs Nlrc and Pal

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The petitioner Leslie Espino, the former Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer of Philippine Airlines (PAL), filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against PAL with the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) after being terminated by the PAL Board of Directors. The NLRC initially ruled in favor of Espino but later determined it did not have jurisdiction over the case. The Supreme Court upheld the NLRC's finding of lack of jurisdiction, holding that under Presidential Decree 902-A, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has original and exclusive jurisdiction over cases involving the removal of corporate officers, as this was an intra-corporate controversy. The nature of the complaint for back wages and damages did not change the SEC

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    418 views1 page

    Espino Vs NLRC and Pal

    Uploaded by

    maanyag6685
    The petitioner Leslie Espino, the former Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer of Philippine Airlines (PAL), filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against PAL with the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) after being terminated by the PAL Board of Directors. The NLRC initially ruled in favor of Espino but later determined it did not have jurisdiction over the case. The Supreme Court upheld the NLRC's finding of lack of jurisdiction, holding that under Presidential Decree 902-A, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has original and exclusive jurisdiction over cases involving the removal of corporate officers, as this was an intra-corporate controversy. The nature of the complaint for back wages and damages did not change the SEC

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    ESPINO vs NLRC and PAL (1995)

    FACTS:

    Petitioner Leslie W. Espino was the Exec. Vice President-Chief Operating Officer of respondent
    Phil Airlines (PAL) when his service was terminated in 1990 as a result of the findings of the panels
    created by then President Corazon C. Aquino to investigate the administrative charges filed against
    him. It appears that petitioner and other several senior officers of PAL were charged for their
    involvement in 4 cases, labeled as Goldair, Robelle, Kabash/Primavera, and Middle East.
    The PAL Board of Directors issued separate resolutions wherein Espino was considered resign
    from the service effective immediately for loss of confidence
    Espino filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against PAL with the NLRC, Arbitration Branch,
    NCR.
    PAL argued that board resolutions cannot be reviewed by the NLRC and that the recourse of
    the petitioner Espino should have been addressed by way of appeal, to the OP.
    Labor Arbiter Cresencio J. Ramos rendered a decision in favor of petitioner Espino
    PAL asserted that the Labor Arbiters decision is null and void for lack of jurisdiction over the
    subject matter as it is the SEC, and not the NLRC which has jurisdiction over involving dismissal or
    removal of corporate officers.
    NLRC promulgated a resolution and this time ruled in favor of PAL on the ground of lack of
    jurisdiction
    Petitioner Espino contended that it is the NLRC that has jurisdiction over the case as it involves
    the termination of a regular employee and involves claim for backwages and other benefits and
    damages

    Issue: Whether the NLRC has jurisdiction over the complaint filed by the petitioner for illegal
    dismissal
    HELD: NO
    Under P.D. No. 902-A, it is the Securities and Exchange Commission and not the NLRC that has
    original and exclusive jurisdiction over cases involving the removal from employment of corporate
    officers. Under the said decree, the SEC has the exclusive and original jurisdiction to hear and decide
    cases involving Controversies in the election or appointments of directors, trustees, officers or
    managers of such corporations, partnerships or associations.
    It has been ruled that a corporate officers dismissal is always a corporate act and/or an intracorporate controversy and that nature is not altered by the reason or wisdom which the Board of
    Directors may have in taking such action. Evidently, this intra-corporate controversy must be place
    under the specialized competence and expertise of the SEC.
    The fact that petitioner sought payment of his backwages, other benefits, as well as damages and
    attorney's fees in his complaint for illegal dismissal will not operate to prevent the SEC from exercising
    its jurisdiction under PD 902-A. As to the contention of Espino that PAL is estopped from questioning
    the jurisdiction of the NLRC, it is well-settled that jurisdiction over the subject matter is conferred by
    law and the question of lack of jurisdiction may be raised anytime even on appeal.
    WHERFORE, PETITION IS DENIED

    You might also like