Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 171 views

    Nestlé Philippines, Inc. vs. NLRC

    Uploaded by

    PNP Mayoyao
    This case involves private respondents who availed of Nestlé Philippines' car loan policy while employed there. They were later dismissed and filed complaints for illegal dismissal with the NLRC. Nestlé Philippines then demanded payment of the remaining balance on the car loans or return of the cars. When private respondents did not comply, Nestlé filed a civil suit in court to recover possession of the cars. Private respondents then sought an injunction from the NLRC to stop Nestlé from cancelling the loans or collecting payments pending resolution of their illegal dismissal case. The NLRC granted the injunction but the Supreme Court held that the NLRC gravely abused its discretion and lacked jurisdiction, as the car loan dispute was a civil matter not related to any labor

    Copyright:

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

    Nestlé Philippines, Inc. vs. NLRC

    Uploaded by

    PNP Mayoyao
    171 views1 page
    This case involves private respondents who availed of Nestlé Philippines' car loan policy while employed there. They were later dismissed and filed complaints for illegal dismissal with the NLRC. Nestlé Philippines then demanded payment of the remaining balance on the car loans or return of the cars. When private respondents did not comply, Nestlé filed a civil suit in court to recover possession of the cars. Private respondents then sought an injunction from the NLRC to stop Nestlé from cancelling the loans or collecting payments pending resolution of their illegal dismissal case. The NLRC granted the injunction but the Supreme Court held that the NLRC gravely abused its discretion and lacked jurisdiction, as the car loan dispute was a civil matter not related to any labor

    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 involves private respondents who availed of Nestlé Philippines' car loan policy while employed there. They were later dismissed and filed complaints for illegal dismissal with the NLRC. Nestlé Philippines then demanded payment of the remaining balance on the car loans or return of the cars. When private respondents did not comply, Nestlé filed a civil suit in court to recover possession of the cars. Private respondents then sought an injunction from the NLRC to stop Nestlé from cancelling the loans or collecting payments pending resolution of their illegal dismissal case. The NLRC granted the injunction but the Supreme Court held that the NLRC gravely abused its discretion and lacked jurisdiction, as the car loan dispute was a civil matter not related to any labor

    Copyright:

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

    Nestlé Philippines, Inc. vs. NLRC

    Uploaded by

    PNP Mayoyao
    This case involves private respondents who availed of Nestlé Philippines' car loan policy while employed there. They were later dismissed and filed complaints for illegal dismissal with the NLRC. Nestlé Philippines then demanded payment of the remaining balance on the car loans or return of the cars. When private respondents did not comply, Nestlé filed a civil suit in court to recover possession of the cars. Private respondents then sought an injunction from the NLRC to stop Nestlé from cancelling the loans or collecting payments pending resolution of their illegal dismissal case. The NLRC granted the injunction but the Supreme Court held that the NLRC gravely abused its discretion and lacked jurisdiction, as the car loan dispute was a civil matter not related to any labor

    Copyright:

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

    Nestlé Philippines, Inc. vs.

    NLRC
    G.R. No. 85197. March 18, 1991
    Facts:
    Private respondents were employed by the petitioner and they availed of the
    company’s car loan policy. The company purchased the cars to be paid back by the
    employees through monthly deductions from their salaries. The company retains
    ownership of the vehicles until fully paid.
    Private respondents were dismissed from the service for having participated in
    an illegal strike and for certain irregularities. Thus, they filed complaints for illegal
    dismissal in the Arbitration Branch of the NLRC. The Labor Arbiter dismissed their
    complaints. Pending appeal from NLRC, private respondents had been directed to
    either settle the remaining balance of the cost of their respective cars, or return them
    to the company for proper disposition.
    As they failed and refused to avail of either option, the company filed in the
    Regional Trial Court of Makati a civil suit to recover possession of the cars. The Court
    issued an Order dated March 7, 1988 directing the Deputy Sheriff to take the motor
    vehicles into his custody.
    The private respondents sought a temporary restraining order in the NLRC to
    stop the company from cancelling their car loans and collecting their monthly
    amortizations pending the final resolution of their appeals in the illegal dismissal case.
    The NLRC en banc, issued a resolution granting their petition for injunction.

    Issue:
    Whether or not NLRC acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of
    jurisdiction when it issued a labor injunction without legal basis and in the absence of
    any labor dispute related to the same.

    Held:
    Nestlé’s demand for payment of the private respondents’ amortizations on their
    car loans, or, in the alternative, the return of the cars to the company, is not a labor,
    but a civil, dispute. It involves debtor-creditor relations, rather than employee-
    employer relations. x x x The NLRC gravely abused its discretion and exceeded its
    jurisdiction by issuing the writ of injunction to stop the company from enforcing the
    civil obligation of the private respondents under the car loan agreements and from
    protecting its interest in the cars which, by the terms of those agreements, belong to it
    (the company) until their purchase price shall have been fully paid by the employee.
    The terms of the car loan agreements are not in issue in the labor case. The rights and
    obligations of the parties under those contracts may be enforced by a separate civil
    action in the regular courts, not in the NLRC.

    You might also like