Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 89 views

    Juco Vs NLRC

    Uploaded by

    J. Lapid
    - Petitioner Benjamic Juco was dismissed from his job at the National Housing Corporation (NHC) and filed various complaints regarding his dismissal. - The issue is whether Juco, as an employee of NHC, a government-owned corporation, is governed by the Labor Code or the Civil Service Law. - The Supreme Court held that Juco is governed by the Labor Code. It ruled that under the 1987 Constitution, government-owned corporations organized under general incorporation statutes rather than those with original charters are subject to the Labor Code and under the jurisdiction of the NLRC. As NHC was incorporated under a general law and not an original charter, the NLRC has jurisdiction over Juco's complaint.

    Copyright:

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

    Juco Vs NLRC

    Uploaded by

    J. Lapid
    89 views2 pages
    - Petitioner Benjamic Juco was dismissed from his job at the National Housing Corporation (NHC) and filed various complaints regarding his dismissal. - The issue is whether Juco, as an employee of NHC, a government-owned corporation, is governed by the Labor Code or the Civil Service Law. - The Supreme Court held that Juco is governed by the Labor Code. It ruled that under the 1987 Constitution, government-owned corporations organized under general incorporation statutes rather than those with original charters are subject to the Labor Code and under the jurisdiction of the NLRC. As NHC was incorporated under a general law and not an original charter, the NLRC has jurisdiction over Juco's complaint.

    Original Description:

    Juco vs NLRC

    Original Title

    Juco vs NLRC

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    - Petitioner Benjamic Juco was dismissed from his job at the National Housing Corporation (NHC) and filed various complaints regarding his dismissal. - The issue is whether Juco, as an employee of NHC, a government-owned corporation, is governed by the Labor Code or the Civil Service Law. - The Supreme Court held that Juco is governed by the Labor Code. It ruled that under the 1987 Constitution, government-owned corporations organized under general incorporation statutes rather than those with original charters are subject to the Labor Code and under the jurisdiction of the NLRC. As NHC was incorporated under a general law and not an original charter, the NLRC has jurisdiction over Juco's complaint.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    89 views2 pages

    Juco Vs NLRC

    Uploaded by

    J. Lapid
    - Petitioner Benjamic Juco was dismissed from his job at the National Housing Corporation (NHC) and filed various complaints regarding his dismissal. - The issue is whether Juco, as an employee of NHC, a government-owned corporation, is governed by the Labor Code or the Civil Service Law. - The Supreme Court held that Juco is governed by the Labor Code. It ruled that under the 1987 Constitution, government-owned corporations organized under general incorporation statutes rather than those with original charters are subject to the Labor Code and under the jurisdiction of the NLRC. As NHC was incorporated under a general law and not an original charter, the NLRC has jurisdiction over Juco's complaint.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    JUCO VS NLRC

    GR No. 98107
    18 August 1997
    FACTS
    Petitioner Benjamic Juco was hired as a project engineer of respondent National Housing Corporation
    (NHC). On May 14, 1975, he was separated from the service for having been implicated in a crime of theft
    and/or malversation of public funds. Petitioner filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against the NHC with
    the Department of Labor. The Labor Arbiter rendered a decision dismissing the complaint on the ground
    that the NLRC had no jurisdiction over the case. Petitioner elevated the case to the NLRC reversing the
    decision of the Labor Arbiter. NHC appealed before this Court granting the petitioner and set aside the
    questioned decision of the Labor Arbiter. Petitioner filed with the CSC a complaint for illegal dismissal.
    Respondent NHC moved for the dismissal on the ground that the CSC has no jurisdiction over the case.
    CSC issued an order dismissing the complaint for lack of jurisdiction, ratiocinating that NHC is a
    government corporation without an original charter but organized/created under the Corporation Code. It
    provides that under the 1987 Constitution, [t]he civil service embraces all branches, subdivisions,
    instrumentalities and agencies of the Government, including government owned and controlled
    corporations with original charters. Petitioner filed with respondent NLRC a complaint for illegal dismissal.
    NLRC thru labor arbiter Caday ruled that petitioner was illegally dismissed from his employment as there
    was evidence in the record that the criminal case against him was purely fabricated, prompting the RTC to
    dismiss the charges against him. Hence, he concluded that the dismissal was illegal. He further ruled that
    the complaint is not barred by prescription considering that the period from which to reckon the
    reglementary period of four years should be from the date of the receipt of the decision of the Civil Service
    Commission promulgated on April 11, 1989. NHC appealed before the NLRC and it reversed the decision
    of the Labor Arbiter on the ground of lack of jurisdiction.
    ISSUE
    Whether petitioner is governed by the Labor Code
    HELD
    YES. Under the laws then in force, employees of government-owned and/or controlled corporations were
    governed by the Civil Service Law and not by the Labor Code. Hence, Article 277 of the Labor Code (PD
    442) then provided: The terms and conditions of employment of all government employees, including
    employees of government-owned and controlled corporations shall be governed by the Civil Service Law,
    rules and regulations. The 1987 Constitution provides: The civil service embraces all branches,
    subdivisions, instrumentalities, and agencies of the Government, including government owned or controlled
    corporations with original charter. (Article IX-B, Section 2[1]).

    In National Service Corporation (NASECO) v. National Labor Relations Commission, 12 we had the
    occasion to apply the present Constitution in deciding whether or not the employees of NASECO are
    covered by the Civil Service Law or the Labor Code notwithstanding that the case arose at the time when
    the 1973 Constitution was still in effect. We ruled that the NLRC has jurisdiction over the employees of
    NASECO on the ground that it is the 1987 Constitution that governs because it is the Constitution in place
    at the time of the decision. Furthermore, we ruled that the new phrase "with original charter" means that
    government-owned and controlled corporations refer to corporations chartered by special law as
    distinguished from corporations organized under the Corporation Code. Thus, NASECO which had been
    organized under the general incorporation statute and a subsidiary of the National Investment Development
    Corporation, which in turn was a subsidiary of the Philippine National Bank, is exluded from the purview of
    the Civil Service Commission.

    In the case at bench, the National Housing Corporation is a government owned corporation organized in
    1959 in accordance with EO 399 Uniform Charter of Government Corporation. Its shares of stock are and
    have been one hundred percent (100%) owned by the Government from its incorporation under Act 1459,

    the former corporation law. Considering the fact that the NHA had been incorporated under Act 1459, the
    former corporation law, it is but correct to say that it is a government-owned or controlled corporation
    whose employees are subject to the provisions of the Labor Code. Thus, the NLRC erred in dismissing
    petitioner's complaint for lack of jurisdiction because the rule now is that the Civil Service now covers only
    government-owned or controlled corporations with original charters. Having been incorporated under the
    Corporation Law, its relations with its personnel are governed by the Labor Code and come under the
    jurisdiction of the National Labor Relations Commission.

    You might also like