Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 47 views

    3 Dy Vs NLRC

    Uploaded by

    Bluebells33
    1) The petitioner challenges the NLRC's dismissal of their appeal from a labor arbiter's decision in favor of Vailoces. 2) Vailoces was the manager and director of a rural bank but was not re-elected as manager by the newly elected board of directors. 3) Vailoces filed a complaint with the labor department alleging illegal dismissal, which the labor arbiter ruled in his favor. 4) The petitioners argue the case involves an intra-corporate controversy that falls under the jurisdiction of the SEC, not the labor department.

    Copyright:

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

    3 Dy Vs NLRC

    Uploaded by

    Bluebells33
    47 views1 page
    1) The petitioner challenges the NLRC's dismissal of their appeal from a labor arbiter's decision in favor of Vailoces. 2) Vailoces was the manager and director of a rural bank but was not re-elected as manager by the newly elected board of directors. 3) Vailoces filed a complaint with the labor department alleging illegal dismissal, which the labor arbiter ruled in his favor. 4) The petitioners argue the case involves an intra-corporate controversy that falls under the jurisdiction of the SEC, not the labor department.

    Original Title

    3 Dy 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?

    1) The petitioner challenges the NLRC's dismissal of their appeal from a labor arbiter's decision in favor of Vailoces. 2) Vailoces was the manager and director of a rural bank but was not re-elected as manager by the newly elected board of directors. 3) Vailoces filed a complaint with the labor department alleging illegal dismissal, which the labor arbiter ruled in his favor. 4) The petitioners argue the case involves an intra-corporate controversy that falls under the jurisdiction of the SEC, not the labor department.

    Copyright:

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

    3 Dy Vs NLRC

    Uploaded by

    Bluebells33
    1) The petitioner challenges the NLRC's dismissal of their appeal from a labor arbiter's decision in favor of Vailoces. 2) Vailoces was the manager and director of a rural bank but was not re-elected as manager by the newly elected board of directors. 3) Vailoces filed a complaint with the labor department alleging illegal dismissal, which the labor arbiter ruled in his favor. 4) The petitioners argue the case involves an intra-corporate controversy that falls under the jurisdiction of the SEC, not the labor department.

    Copyright:

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

    LORENZO C. DY, ZOSIMO DY, SR.

    , WILLIAM IBERO, The Executive Labor Arbiter rendered Decision in favor


    RICARDO GARCIA AND RURAL BANK OF of Vailoces.
    AYUNGON, INC., petitioners,
    vs. Lorenzo Dy, et al. appealed to the NLRC assigning error
    NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION AND to the decision of the Labor Arbiter, one being that the
    EXECUTIVE LABOR ARBITER ALBERTO L. matter of Vailoces’ relief was within the adjudicatory
    DALMACION, AND CARLITO H. powers of the Securities and Exchange Commission.
    VAILOCES, respondents. The NLRC bypassed the issues and dismissed the
    appeal for having been filed late. Hence, this petition.
    Petitioners assail in this Court the resolution of the
    National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) ISSUE: Whether or not the SEC has jurisdiction over the
    dismissing their appeal from the decision of the dispute.
    Executive Labor Arbiter 1 in Cebu City which found
    private respondent to have been illegally dismissed by RULING: YES. While the comment of Vailoces traverses
    them. the averments of the petition that of the Solicitor General
    on behalf of public respondents perceives the matter as
    Vailoces, was the manager of the Rural Bank of an intra-corporate controversy of the class described in
    Ayungon (Negros Oriental). He was also a director and Section 5, par. (c) of Presidential Decree No. 902-A,
    stockholder of the bank. namely:

    On June 4, 1983, a special stockholders' meeting was ‘Original and exclusive jurisdiction to hear and decide
    called to elect bank's BOD. Immediately after the cases involving:
    election, proceeded to elect the bank's executive Xxxx
    officers. Xxxx

    Pursuant bank's by-laws, providing for the election by “(c) Controversies in the election or appointments of
    the entire membership of the Board of the executive directors, trustees, officers or managers of such
    officers of the bank, (i.e., the president, vice-president, corporations, partnerships or associations.”’
    secretary, cashier and bank manager) in that board
    meeting, petitioners were elected president, vice- explicitly declared to be within the original jurisdiction of
    president and corporate secretary. Vailoces was not re- the SEC, and recommends that the questioned
    elected as bank manager. Because of this development, resolution of the NLRC as well as the decision of the
    the Board passed Resolution relieving him as bank Labor Arbiter be set aside as null and void.
    manager.
    The judgment of the Labor Arbiter and the
    Vailoces filed a complaint for illegal dismissal and resolution of the NLRC are void for lack of jurisdiction. It
    damages with the Ministry of Labor and Employment is of no moment that Vailoces, in his amended
    against Lorenzo Dy and Zosimo Dy, Sr., William Ibero, complaint, seeks other relief which would seemingly fall
    Ricardo Garcia and the Rural Bank of Ayungon, and under the jurisdiction of the Labor Arbiter, because
    additional causes of action for underpayment of salary underpayment of salary and non-payment of living
    and non-payment of living allowance. allowance show that they are actually part of the
    perquisites of his elective position, hence, intimately
    Vailoces asserted that Lorenzo Dy, after obtaining linked with his relations with the corporation. The
    control of the majority stock of the bank called an illegal question of remuneration involving a person who is not a
    stockholders' meeting and elected a Board of Directors mere employee but a stockholder and officer of a
    controlled by him; that after its illegal constitution, said corporation is not a simple labor problem but a matter
    Board convened and passed a resolution dismissing him that comes within the area of corporate affairs and
    as manager, without giving him the opportunity to be management, and is in fact a corporate controversy in
    heard first; that his dismissal was motivated by Lorenzo contemplation of the Corporate Code.
    Dy's desire to take over the management and control of
    the bank, not to mention the fact that he (Dy) harbored ill Wherefore, the questioned decision of the Labor
    feelings against Vailoces. Arbiter and the Resolution of the NLRC dismissing
    petitioners’ appeal are hereby set aside for being
    In their answer, Lorenzo Dy, et al. denied the charge of rendered without jurisdiction.
    illegal dismissal: pointed out that Vailoces' position was
    an elective one, and he was not re-elected as bank
    manager because of the Board's loss of confidence in
    him; and that the Board's action was taken to protect the
    interest of the bank and was "designed as an internal
    control measure to secure the check and balance of
    authority within the organization." 

    You might also like