Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 99 views

    Salenga v. NLRC GR 174941 February 1, 2012

    Uploaded by

    James William
    1. The NLRC ruled that it did not have jurisdiction to hear an appeal by the Office of Government Corporate Counsel (OGCC) and Clark Development Corporation's former president regarding a case of illegal dismissal, absent a board resolution authorizing the appeal. 2. The case involved a petitioner who filed an illegal dismissal complaint and was awarded a decision by the labor arbiter. While the new president ordered not to appeal the decision, the OGCC and former president appealed anyway without board authorization. 3. The NLRC also ruled that the petitioner was not covered by the Civil Service Law as the respondent corporations were government-owned without original charters, and thus the petitioner's retirement benefits would be based only on his

    Copyright:

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

    Salenga v. NLRC GR 174941 February 1, 2012

    Uploaded by

    James William
    99 views1 page
    1. The NLRC ruled that it did not have jurisdiction to hear an appeal by the Office of Government Corporate Counsel (OGCC) and Clark Development Corporation's former president regarding a case of illegal dismissal, absent a board resolution authorizing the appeal. 2. The case involved a petitioner who filed an illegal dismissal complaint and was awarded a decision by the labor arbiter. While the new president ordered not to appeal the decision, the OGCC and former president appealed anyway without board authorization. 3. The NLRC also ruled that the petitioner was not covered by the Civil Service Law as the respondent corporations were government-owned without original charters, and thus the petitioner's retirement benefits would be based only on his

    Original Description:

    Gjfuvj

    Original Title

    7

    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 NLRC ruled that it did not have jurisdiction to hear an appeal by the Office of Government Corporate Counsel (OGCC) and Clark Development Corporation's former president regarding a case of illegal dismissal, absent a board resolution authorizing the appeal. 2. The case involved a petitioner who filed an illegal dismissal complaint and was awarded a decision by the labor arbiter. While the new president ordered not to appeal the decision, the OGCC and former president appealed anyway without board authorization. 3. The NLRC also ruled that the petitioner was not covered by the Civil Service Law as the respondent corporations were government-owned without original charters, and thus the petitioner's retirement benefits would be based only on his

    Copyright:

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

    Salenga v. NLRC GR 174941 February 1, 2012

    Uploaded by

    James William
    1. The NLRC ruled that it did not have jurisdiction to hear an appeal by the Office of Government Corporate Counsel (OGCC) and Clark Development Corporation's former president regarding a case of illegal dismissal, absent a board resolution authorizing the appeal. 2. The case involved a petitioner who filed an illegal dismissal complaint and was awarded a decision by the labor arbiter. While the new president ordered not to appeal the decision, the OGCC and former president appealed anyway without board authorization. 3. The NLRC also ruled that the petitioner was not covered by the Civil Service Law as the respondent corporations were government-owned without original charters, and thus the petitioner's retirement benefits would be based only on his

    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

    Salenga v.

    NLRC GR 174941 February 1, 2012


    There are two salient circumstances surrounding this case: 1) Petitioner Salenga filed a complaint
    for illegal dismissal against Respondent Corporation (Clark Development Corporation) when the
    latter declared his position as head executive assistant to be redundant. The Labor Arbiter ruled
    in favor of the Petitioner. When the decision was rendered, the new President of the Respondent
    Corporation ordered that the decision must not be appealed anymore. Despite this, the Office of
    the Government Corporate Counsel (OGCC) appealed the decision on behalf of the Corporation
    and its former president. However, there was no board resolution giving authority to the
    appellants to represent the Corporation. 2) Pending the resolution of the first case, Petitioner
    applied for an early retirement which was approved. However, he insists that the computation
    of the retirement benefits should include the 40 years of government service he rendered and
    not just the 17 years he served under the present Corporation.
    Issues:
    1. Whether or not the NLRC had jurisdiction to entertain the appeal by the OGCC and CDCs
    former president absent the board resolution.
    2. Whether or not Petitioner is covered by the Civil Service Law.
    Ruling:
    1. No. The Rules of NLRC clearly provides that appeals must be verified and certified against
    forum shopping by the parties in interests. A corporation can only exercise its powers when there
    is a board resolution authorizing its officers to do so. The power of the corporation to sue and be
    sued is solely exercised by its board of directors. The purpose then for the issuance of board
    resolution and verification is to secure that the allegations in the pleadings are true, correct, and
    filed in good faith. Thus, neither the OGCC thru Timbol Roman nor Atty Mallari, can be
    considered as the appellant representing the employer under Rule VI Sections 4 6 of the
    NLRC. As the Court opined, We cannot agree with the OGCCs attempt to downplay this
    procedural flaw by claiming that, as the statutorily assigned counsel for GOCCs, it does not need
    such authorization. In Constantino-David v. Pangandaman-Gania, 456 Phil. 273, 294-298 (2003),
    we exhaustively explained why it was necessary for government agencies or instrumentalities to
    execute the verification and the certification against forum-shopping through their duly
    authorized representatives. (Antonio P. Salenga and NLRC vs. Court of Appeals and Clark
    Development Corp., G.R. No. 74941, Feb. 1, 2012). The exception to this is when equitable
    circumstances which are manifest from the records prevail.
    2. Petitioner is not covered by Civil Service Law. It is not disputed that Respondent
    Corporation are GOCCs without original charters, hence they are not under Civil Service Law.
    Therefore, Petitioner is entitled only his retirement benefits based on the number of years he
    was employed with the corporation under the conditions provided under its retirement plan, as
    well as granted to him by existing laws.

    You might also like

    pFad - Phonifier reborn

    Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

    Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


    Alternative Proxies:

    Alternative Proxy

    pFad Proxy

    pFad v3 Proxy

    pFad v4 Proxy