Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
3Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Legal Writing, case synthesis, labor

Legal Writing, case synthesis, labor

Ratings: (0)|Views: 102|Likes:
Published by Pauline
Consolidated Broadcasting System, Inc. v. Oberio, et. al., G.R. No. 168424, June 8, 2007

FACTS:  The respondents are allegedly employed as drama talents by DYWBBombo Radyo, a radio station owned and operated by petitioner Consolidated Broadcasting System, Inc. However, there was an issue raised which opposed by the respondents that sought respondents to file a case before DOLE. DOLE after its inspection of DYWB station found out that the petitioner is guilty of violation of labor standard laws
Consolidated Broadcasting System, Inc. v. Oberio, et. al., G.R. No. 168424, June 8, 2007

FACTS:  The respondents are allegedly employed as drama talents by DYWBBombo Radyo, a radio station owned and operated by petitioner Consolidated Broadcasting System, Inc. However, there was an issue raised which opposed by the respondents that sought respondents to file a case before DOLE. DOLE after its inspection of DYWB station found out that the petitioner is guilty of violation of labor standard laws

More info:

Categories:Types, Business/Law
Published by: Pauline on Aug 05, 2012
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

07/18/2013

pdf

text

original

 
Consolidated Broadcasting System, Inc. v. Oberio, et. al 
.,
G.R. No. 168424, June 8, 2007
FACTS:
The respondents are allegedly employed as drama talents by DYWB-Bombo Radyo, a radio station owned and operated by petitioner Consolidated Broadcasting System, Inc.
 
However, there was an issue raised which opposed by therespondents that sought respondents to file a case before DOLE.
DOLE after its inspection of DYWB station found out that the petitioner is guilty of violation of labor standard laws, such as underpayment of wages, 13
th
month pay, non-payment of service incentive leave pay,and non-coverage of respondents under the Social Security System.
The petitioners on the other hand argued that the respondents are notthey employees and refused to submit the payroll and daily timerecords to DOLE despite the subpoena decus tecum issued by theRegional Director.
 
Thereafter, the respondents were pressured by the petitioner’s by
 barring them to report to their work. Hence, the illegal dismissal wasfiled.
DOLE issued their order and certified the records of the case to NLRCif employer-employee relationship does exist. But respondentsappealed the order to the secretary of labor.
The respondents filed an illegal dismissal, underpayment/non-paymentof wages and benefits plus damages against petitioner. But it wasdismissed by the Labor Arbiter.
On respondents appealed to NLRC for determination of the existenceof employer-employee relationship, they submitted documents such astime cards, identification cards, payroll, a show cause order of thestation manager to respondent Danny Oberio and memoranda either noted or issued by said manager.
ISSUES:
Did respondents violate the rule on forum shopping?
 
Whether the NLRC correctly ruled on the merits of the case instead of remanding the case to the Labor Arbiter.
Whether respondent
s were employees of petitioner.
Whether 
respondent’s
dismissal was illegal.
RULING:
No because it is the law itself which provides for two separate remediesfor their distinct causes of action. According to Article under Article 217 of the Labor Code, termination cases fall under the jurisdiction of Labor  Arbiters. Whereas, Article 128 of the same Code vests the Secretary of Labor or his duly authorized representatives with the power to inspect the
 
employer’s records to determine and compel compliance with labor 
standard laws. The exercise of the said power by the Secretary or hisduly authorized representatives is exclusive to cases where employer-employee relationship still exists. Thus, in cases where the complaint for violation of labor standard laws preceded the termination of the employeeand the filing of the illegal dismissal case, it would not be in consonancewith justice to charge the complainants with engaging in forum shoppingwhen the remedy available to them at the time their causes of action arosewas to file separate cases before different
fora 
.
Yes, it must be stressed that labor tribunals are not bound by technicalrules and the Court would sustain the expedient disposition of cases solong as the parties are not denied due process. Indeed, no such denialexists because it had all the opportunities to present evidence before thelabor tribunals below, the Court of Appeals, and even before this Court,but chose not to do so for reasons which will not warrant the sacrifice of substantial justice over technicalities.
 
Yes, the respondents passed the “four 
-
fold test” on em
ployer-employeerelations, namely: (1) the selection and engagement of the employee, or the power to hire; (2) the payment of wages; (3) the power to dismiss; and(4) the power to control the employee.
Yes. In labor cases, the employer has the burden of proving that thedismissal was for a just cause; failure to show this would necessarilymean that the dismissal was unjustified and, therefore, illegal. In this case,the petitioner therefore failed to discharge its burden, hence, respondentswere correctly declared to have been illegally dismissed.
Harborview Restaurant v. Labro 
, G. R. No. 168273, April 30, 2009FACTS:
Respondent was a cook at the Harborview Restaurant until one day, hewas informed by his co-employee as confirmed by the chief-cook and
respondent’s brother who is an over 
-all supervisor at the restaurant thathe indeed terminated because he allegedly steal a plastic bag of meatfrom the restaurant and gave it to the supplier. Respondent denied theaccusation.
On the following week, respondent filed a complaint for illegal dismissalwith NLRC.
Petitioner argued that the respondent refused to go back into his workdespite the letter sent to him to report, and if not, he would be deemed tohave abandoned his work and be terminated. Thus, he abandoned hiswork. But respondent denied having received such letter from thepetitioner.
The labor arbiter ruled in favor of respondent, however, NLRC reversedthe ruling and held that there was no termination and illegal dismissal tospeak of, that he abandoned his work.
On the petition file before the CA, in applying the case of Ranara
v. NLRC 
,the appellate court held that in fact petitioner did dismiss respondent anddid not observe due process in dismissing him.
Petitioner now sought for review of the CA ruling.

Activity (3)

You've already reviewed this. Edit your review.
1 hundred reads
Pauline liked this

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->