You are on page 1of 1

Casino Labor Association v.

Court of Appeals
GR No. 141020, 12 June 2008


The series of events which ultimately led to the filing of the petition at bar started with the
consolidated cases filed by the petitioner labor union with the Arbitration Branch of the
NLRC. The Labor Arbiter dismissed the cases for lack of jurisdiction over the respondents
therein, Philippine Amusement and Gaming Corporation (PAGCOR) and Philippine
Casino Operators Corporation (PCOC) and the Philippine Special Services Corporation
(PSSC), this was affirmed by the NLRC and the SC with finality.

In a resolution, the court stated the following:

x x x Any petitions brought against private companies will have to be brought

before the appropriate agency or office of the Department of Labor and

Based solely on that statement, petitioner filed a Manifestation with the NLRC praying that
the records of the consolidated cases be remanded to the Arbitration Branch for proper
prosecution and/or disposition thereof against private respondents. NLRC granted the
motion, but later reconsidered and denied with finality the manifestation. Hence, this
petition asserting that the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion in ignoring the
mandate of the earlier resolution.


Whether the NLRC has jurisdiction over the PAGCOR, the PCOC and the PSSC.



In resolving the issue of whether or not the NLRC has jurisdiction over employer-employee
relations in PAGCOR, PCOC and PSSC, the Third Division made the definitive ruling that
there appears to be no question from the petition and its annexes that the respondent
corporations were created by an original charter.

Furthermore, it is well-settled that to determine the true intent and meaning of a decision,
no specific portion thereof should be resorted to, but the same must be considered in its
entirety. Hence, petitioner cannot merely view a portion of the 15 March 1989 Resolution
in isolation for the purpose of asserting its position. The 23 January 1989 Resolution
already ruled on the NLRCs lack of jurisdiction over all the respondents in the case-