Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 461 views

    Mainland Vs Movilla

    Uploaded by

    CarlMarkInopia
    The NLRC has jurisdiction over the controversy, not the SEC. While the parties involved are a stockholder and the corporation, the dispute is over unpaid wages and separation pay, making it a labor dispute between an employee and employer. For the SEC to have jurisdiction, the controversy must relate to specific corporate relationships, but this case involves an employer-employee relationship distinct from the corporate relationship. There was also no showing that the complainant's duties changed after being elected to the Board of Directors, despite a change in job title.

    Copyright:

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

    Mainland Vs Movilla

    Uploaded by

    CarlMarkInopia
    461 views1 page
    The NLRC has jurisdiction over the controversy, not the SEC. While the parties involved are a stockholder and the corporation, the dispute is over unpaid wages and separation pay, making it a labor dispute between an employee and employer. For the SEC to have jurisdiction, the controversy must relate to specific corporate relationships, but this case involves an employer-employee relationship distinct from the corporate relationship. There was also no showing that the complainant's duties changed after being elected to the Board of Directors, despite a change in job title.

    Original Description:

    af

    Original Title

    Mainland vs Movilla

    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 NLRC has jurisdiction over the controversy, not the SEC. While the parties involved are a stockholder and the corporation, the dispute is over unpaid wages and separation pay, making it a labor dispute between an employee and employer. For the SEC to have jurisdiction, the controversy must relate to specific corporate relationships, but this case involves an employer-employee relationship distinct from the corporate relationship. There was also no showing that the complainant's duties changed after being elected to the Board of Directors, despite a change in job title.

    Copyright:

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

    Mainland Vs Movilla

    Uploaded by

    CarlMarkInopia
    The NLRC has jurisdiction over the controversy, not the SEC. While the parties involved are a stockholder and the corporation, the dispute is over unpaid wages and separation pay, making it a labor dispute between an employee and employer. For the SEC to have jurisdiction, the controversy must relate to specific corporate relationships, but this case involves an employer-employee relationship distinct from the corporate relationship. There was also no showing that the complainant's duties changed after being elected to the Board of Directors, despite a change in job title.

    Copyright:

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

    Mainland Construction vs Movilla

    Facts: Ernesto Movilla was hired as a Certified Public Accountant and was thereafter promoted
    to the position of Administrative Officer during 1977 by the petitioner corporation. He was
    receiving a fixed salary of P4,700 a month and was registered with the SSS as an employee of
    the corporation. During the annual meeting of stockholders, he was elected as member of the
    Board of Director and was elected thereafter as an administrative manager. On 1991, the DOLE
    found petitioner to have committed irregularities in the conducts of its business, thus it was
    ordered to pay its 13 employees, including Movilla, for their unpaid wages and benefits. All
    employees in the DOLEs list was paid by petitioner except Movilla, hence the latter filed a case
    for unpaid wages, separation pay and other fees with the DOLE. Movilla died while the case was
    being tried and was substituted by his heirs.
    The Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint for lack of jurisdiction stating that the controversy is
    intra-corporate in nature and is within the jurisdiction of the SEC. Upon appeal with the NLRC,
    the latter decided in favor of Movilla contending that it is a labor dispute between an employee
    and petitioner corporation.
    Issue: Which of the two agencies of the government the NLRC and SEC- has jurisdiction over
    the controversy?
    Ruling. The NLRC has the jurisdiction over the issue. The fact that the parties involved in the
    controversy are all stockholders or that the parties involved are the stockholders and the
    corporation does not necessarily place the dispute within the ambit of the jurisdiction of SEC.
    The better policy to be followed in determining jurisdiction over a case should be to consider
    concurrent factors such as the status or relationship of the parties or the nature of the question
    that is the subject of their controversy. In the absence of any one of these factors, the SEC will
    not have jurisdiction. Furthermore, it does not necessarily follow that every conflict between the
    corporation and its stockholders would involve such corporate matters as only the SEC can
    resolve in the exercise of its adjudicatory or quasi-judicial powers.
    In order that the SEC can take cognizance of a case, the controversy must pertain to any of the
    following relationships: a) between the corporation, partnership or association and the public; b)
    between the corporation, partnership or association and its stockholders, partners, members or
    officers; c) between the corporation, partnership or association and the State as far as its
    franchise, permit or license to operate is concerned; and d) among the stockholders, partners or
    associates themselves.
    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 employeremployee 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.

    You might also like