8/17/2019 21. juco vs nlrc

1/5

[G.R. No. 98107. August 18, 1997]

BENJAMIN C. JUCO, petitioner , vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS

COMMISSION a! NATIONAL "OUSING

COR#ORATION, respondents.

$ E C I S I O N

"ERMOSISIMA, JR., J .%

This is a petition for certiorari  to set aside the Decision of the National

Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) dated March 14, 1991, which reersed

the Decision dated Ma! "1, 199# of Labor $rbiter Man%el R& Cada!, on the

'ro%nd of lac of %risdiction&

*etitioner +enamin C& %co was hired as a proect en'ineer of respondent

National -o%sin' Corporation (N-C) from Noember 1., 19/# to Ma! 14,

19/0& n Ma! 14, 19/0, he was separated from the serice for hain' been

implicated in a crime of theft and2or malersation of p%blic f%nds&

n March "0, 19//, petitioner filed a complaint for ille'al dismissal a'ainst

the N-C with the Department of Labor&

n 3eptember 1/, 19//, the Labor $rbiter rendered a decision dismissin'the complaint on the 'ro%nd that the NLRC had no %risdiction oer the case&15

*etitioner then eleated the case to the NLRC which rendered a decision

on December "6, 196", reersin' the decision of the Labor $rbiter& "5

Dissatisfied with the decision of the NLRC, respondent N-C appealed

before this Co%rt and on an%ar! 1/, 1960, we rendered a decision, the

dispositie portion thereof reads as follows7

WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby GRANTED. The questioned decision of the

respondent Nationa !abor Reations "o##ission is $ET A$%DE. The decision of the

!abor Arbiter dis#issin& the case before it for ac' of (urisdiction is RE%N$TATED. )*+

n an%ar! ., 1969, petitioner filed with the Ciil 3erice Commission a

complaint for ille'al dismissal, with preliminar! mandator! in%nction&45

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/aug1997/98107.htm#_edn1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/aug1997/98107.htm#_edn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/aug1997/98107.htm#_edn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/aug1997/98107.htm#_edn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/aug1997/98107.htm#_edn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/aug1997/98107.htm#_edn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/aug1997/98107.htm#_edn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/aug1997/98107.htm#_edn1

8/17/2019 21. juco vs nlrc

2/5

n 8ebr%ar! ., 1969, respondent N-C moed for the dismissal of the

complaint on the 'ro%nd that the Ciil 3erice Commission has no %risdiction

oer the case&05

n $pril 11, 1969, the Ciil 3erice Commission iss%ed an order 

dismissin' the complaint for lac of %risdiction& t ratiocinated that7

The oard finds the co##ent and-or #otion to dis#iss #eritorious. %t as not

disputed that NH" is a &o/ern#ent corporation ithout an ori&ina charter but

or&ani0ed-created under the "orporate "ode.

Artice %1, $ection 2 345 of the 4678 "onstitution pro/ides9

The ci/i ser/ice e#braces a branches, subdi/isions, instru#entaities and a&encies

of the &o/ern#ent, incudin& &o/ern#ent oned and controed corporations ithori&ina charters. 3underscorin& suppied5

Fro# the aforequoted constitutiona pro/ision, it is cear that respondent NH" is not

ithin the scope of the ci/i ser/ice and is therefore beyond the (urisdiction of this

 board. :oreo/er, it is pertinent to state that the 4678 "onstitution as ratified and

 beca#e effecti/e on February 2, 4678.

WHEREFORE, for ac' of (urisdiction, the instant co#paint is hereby dis#issed. );+

n $pril "6, 1969, petitioner filed with respondent NLRC a complaint for ille'al dismissal with preliminar! mandator! in%nction a'ainst respondent

N-C&/5

n Ma! "1, 199#, respondent NLRC thr% Labor $rbiter Man%el R& Cada!

r%led that petitioner was ille'all! dismissed from his emplo!ment b!

respondent as there was eidence in the record that the criminal case a'ainst

him was p%rel! fabricated, promptin' the trial co%rt to dismiss the char'es

a'ainst him& -ence, he concl%ded that the dismissal was ille'al as it was

deoid of basis, le'al or fact%al&

-e f%rther r%led that the complaint is not barred b! prescription

considerin' that the period from which to recon the re'lementar! period of 

fo%r !ears sho%ld be from the date of the receipt of the decision of the Ciil

3erice Commission prom%l'ated on $pril 11, 1969& -e also ratiocinated that7

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/aug1997/98107.htm#_edn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/aug1997/98107.htm#_edn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/aug1997/98107.htm#_edn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/aug1997/98107.htm#_edn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/aug1997/98107.htm#_edn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/aug1997/98107.htm#_edn7

8/17/2019 21. juco vs nlrc

3/5

%t appears < < < co#painant fied the co#paint for ie&a dis#issa ith the "i/i

$er/ice "o##ission on =anuary ;, 4676 and the sa#e as dis#issed on Apri 44,

4676 after hich on Apri 27, 4676, this case as fied by the co#painant. >rior to

that, this case as rued upon by the $upre#e "ourt on =anuary 48, 467? hich

en(oined the co#painant to &o to the "i/i $er/ice "o##ission hich in fact,co#painant did. @nder the circu#stances, there is #erit on the contention that the

runnin& of the re&e#entary period of four 35 years as suspended ith the fiin& of

the co#paint ith the said "o##ission. Beriy, it as not the faut of the respondent

for faiin& to fie the co#paint as ae&ed by the respondent but due to, in the ords

of the co#painant, a e&a 'not that has to be untan&ed. )7+

Thereafter, the Labor $rbiter rendered a decision, the dispositie portion of 

which reads7

C>re#ises considered, (udent is hereby rendered decarin& the dis#issa of theco#painant as ie&a and orderin& the respondent to i##ediatey reinstate hi# to his

for#er position ithout oss of seniority ri&hts ith fu bac' a&es incusi/e of

aoance and to his other benefits or equi/aent co#puted fro# the ti#e it is

ithhed fro# hi# hen he as dis#issed on :arch 28, 4688, unti actuay

reinstated.)6+

n %ne 1, 199#, respondent N-C filed its appeal before the NLRC and

on March 14, 1991, the NLRC prom%l'ated a decision which reersed the

decision of Labor $rbiter Man%el R& Cada! on the 'ro%nd of lac of  %risdiction&1#5

The primordial iss%e that confronts %s is whether or not p%blic respondent

committed 'rae ab%se of discretion in holdin' that petitioner is not 'oerned

b! the Labor Code&

:nder the laws then in force, emplo!ees of 'oernment;owned and 2or 

controlled corporations were 'oerned b! the Ciil 3erice Law and not b! the

Labor Code& -ence,

 $rticle "// of the Labor Code (*D 44") then proided7

CThe ter#s and conditions of e#poy#ent of a &o/ern#ent e#poyees, incudin&

e#poyees of &o/ern#entoned and controed corporations sha be &o/erned by the

"i/i $er/ice !a, rues and re&uations < <

8/17/2019 21. juco vs nlrc

4/5

The 468* "onstitution, Artice %%, $ection 4345, on the other hand pro/ided9

The "i/i $er/ice e#braces e/ery branch, a&ency, subdi/ision and instru#entaity of

the &o/ern#ent, incudin& &o/ern#entoned or controed corporations.

 $ltho%'h we had earlier r%led in National -o%sin' Corporation v & %co,115 that emplo!ees of 'oernment;owned and2or controlled corporations,

whether created b! special law or formed as s%bsidiaries %nder the 'eneral

Corporation Law, are 'oerned b! the Ciil 3erice Law and not b! the Labor 

Code, this r%lin' has been s%pplanted b! the 196/ Constit%tion& Th%s, the

said Constit%tion now proides7

The ci/i ser/ice e#braces a branches, subdi/ision, instru#entaities, and a&encies

of the Go/ern#ent, incudin& &o/ern#ent oned or controed corporations

ith original charter . 3Artice %1, $ection 2)4+5

n National 3erice Corporation (N$3

8/17/2019 21. juco vs nlrc

5/5

1409, the former corporation law& The 'oernment entities that own its shares

of stoc are the Aoernment 3erice ns%rance 3!stem, the 3ocial 3ec%rit!

3!stem, the Deelopment +an of the *hilippines, the National nestment

and Deelopment Corporation and the *eoples -omesite and -o%sin'

Corporation&1=5 

Considerin' the fact that the N-$ had been incorporated %nder act 1409, the former corporation law, it is b%t correct to sa! that it is a

'oernment;owned or controlled corporation whose emplo!ees are s%bect to

the proisions of the Labor Code& This obseration is reiterated in recent case

of Trade :nion of the *hilippines and $llied 3erices (T:*$3) v & National

-o%sin' Corporation,145 where we held that the N-$ is now within the

 %risdiction of the Department of Labor and