Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 23 views

    So That in All Things, God May Be Glorified

    Uploaded by

    Wazzup
    This case discusses a labor dispute between the Philippine Virginia Tobacco Administration (PVTA) and the CIR. The CIR alleged that PVTA failed to pay overtime compensation according to the 8-hour labor law. PVTA denied the allegations and argued that as a government agency, it was exempt from the law. The court ruled that: 1) While PVTA was originally established as a government agency, the court still had jurisdiction over the labor dispute. 2) PVTA's argument that the 8-hour labor law did not apply to it was invalid, as the language of the law clearly applied to all employers. 3) The case was referred to the National Labor Relations Commission for further proceedings and the chief examining

    Copyright:

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

    So That in All Things, God May Be Glorified

    Uploaded by

    Wazzup
    23 views1 page
    This case discusses a labor dispute between the Philippine Virginia Tobacco Administration (PVTA) and the CIR. The CIR alleged that PVTA failed to pay overtime compensation according to the 8-hour labor law. PVTA denied the allegations and argued that as a government agency, it was exempt from the law. The court ruled that: 1) While PVTA was originally established as a government agency, the court still had jurisdiction over the labor dispute. 2) PVTA's argument that the 8-hour labor law did not apply to it was invalid, as the language of the law clearly applied to all employers. 3) The case was referred to the National Labor Relations Commission for further proceedings and the chief examining

    Original Description:

    asd

    Original Title

    Philvtobaccovcir CD

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This case discusses a labor dispute between the Philippine Virginia Tobacco Administration (PVTA) and the CIR. The CIR alleged that PVTA failed to pay overtime compensation according to the 8-hour labor law. PVTA denied the allegations and argued that as a government agency, it was exempt from the law. The court ruled that: 1) While PVTA was originally established as a government agency, the court still had jurisdiction over the labor dispute. 2) PVTA's argument that the 8-hour labor law did not apply to it was invalid, as the language of the law clearly applied to all employers. 3) The case was referred to the National Labor Relations Commission for further proceedings and the chief examining

    Copyright:

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

    So That in All Things, God May Be Glorified

    Uploaded by

    Wazzup
    This case discusses a labor dispute between the Philippine Virginia Tobacco Administration (PVTA) and the CIR. The CIR alleged that PVTA failed to pay overtime compensation according to the 8-hour labor law. PVTA denied the allegations and argued that as a government agency, it was exempt from the law. The court ruled that: 1) While PVTA was originally established as a government agency, the court still had jurisdiction over the labor dispute. 2) PVTA's argument that the 8-hour labor law did not apply to it was invalid, as the language of the law clearly applied to all employers. 3) The case was referred to the National Labor Relations Commission for further proceedings and the chief examining

    Copyright:

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

    CONSTI 1: CONCEPT OF THE STATE

    CASE DIGESTS
    “So that in all things, God may be glorified” cite Section 2 of the Act, but its very language
    leaves no doubt that "it shall apply to all
    PHILIPPINE VIRGINIA TOBACCO ADMIN vs persons employed in any industry or
    CIR occupation, whether public or private . . ."
    Facts:

     Dec 20, 1966 CIR filed with respondent court a 3. Appealed order and resolution of respondent
    petition wherein they alleged that PVTA failed court affirmed. Chief of examining division is to
    to pay them overtime compensation in make a reexamination of records, papers, and
    accordance to CA 444. documents in the possession of PVA and to
     PVTA denied allegations and raising special submit to the court the findings. This case is
    defenses of lack of a cause of action and lack of referred to Nat’l Labor Relations Commission
    jurisdiction for further proceedings.
     Respondent court issued an order sustaining
    claims of CIR and directing petitioner to pay
    the same minus what had already been paid.
    Motion for recon but respondent court denied,
    hence petition for certiorari
    Petitioner’s Argument:

     Plea of reversal of order on basic proposition


    that it is beyond the jurisdiction of respondent
    Court as it is exercising governmental functions
    and is exempt from operation of CA 444
     Eight hour law does not apply to it
    Issues:
    1. WON petitioner discharges governmental and
    not proprietary functions
    2. WON petitioner needs to pay the overtime work
    of the respondents in accordance to eight hour
    labor law
    Ruling:
    1. As originally established in RA 2265 and RA
    4155 makes it evident it is a governmental
    agency. However, the success that came along
    with the efforts of the petitioner to be adjudged
    as performing governmental rather than
    proprietary functions cannot militate against
    respondent Court assuming jurisdiction over
    labor dispute.
    (NARIC v. Alvendia) Eight-Hour Labor Lawruled
    that it is precisely respondent Court and not ordinary
    courts that should pass upon that particular labor
    controversy
    2. Contention of petitioner about 8 hr law does not
    apply to it hardly deserves consideration. It did
    *locus standi-ability of party to demonstrate to the Court harm from the law in question

    You might also like