caSES
SMC VS NLRC
Facts: innovation program was proposed by the petitioner among its employees, who will submit to the corporation ideas and suggestions to be beneficial to the corporation. Private respondent, Rustico Vega, submitted an innovation proposal, this was suppose to eliminate certain alleged defects in the quality and taste of the product. However the petitioner rejected the proposal alleging that it is unacceptable. The PR filed a complaint against the petitioner before the regional arbitration branch of the ministry of labor and employment. The PR claimed entitlement to cash prize for the award of his proposal. The petitioner counterclaimed that the labor arbiter does not have jurisdiction that the PR bypassed the grievance machinery procedure under the CBA between them and available remedies provided under the rules of the innovation program.
Issue: W/N labor arbiter and NLRC have jurisdiction
Held: ART. 217. Jurisdiction of Labor Arbiters and the commission. (a) The Labor Arbiters shall have theoriginal and exclusive jurisdiction to hear and decide within thirty (30) working days after submission of the case by the parties for decision, the following cases involving are workers, whether agricultural or non-agricultural:
1. Unfair labor practice cases;
2. Those that workers may file involving wages, hours of work and other terms and conditions of employment;
3. All money claims of workers, including those based on non-payment or underpayment of wages, overtime compensation, separation pay and other benefits provided by law or appropriate agreement, except claims for employees' compensation, social security, medicare and maternity benefits;
4. Cases involving household services; and
5. Cases arising from any violation of Article 265 of this; Code, including questions involving the legality of strikes and lockouts.
(b) The Commission shall have exclusive appellate jurisdiction over all cases decided by Labor Arbiters. (Emphasis supplied)
The
Facts: innovation program was proposed by the petitioner among its employees, who will submit to the corporation ideas and suggestions to be beneficial to the corporation. Private respondent, Rustico Vega, submitted an innovation proposal, this was suppose to eliminate certain alleged defects in the quality and taste of the product. However the petitioner rejected the proposal alleging that it is unacceptable. The PR filed a complaint against the petitioner before the regional arbitration branch of the ministry of labor and employment. The PR claimed entitlement to cash prize for the award of his proposal. The petitioner counterclaimed that the labor arbiter does not have jurisdiction that the PR bypassed the grievance machinery procedure under the CBA between them and available remedies provided under the rules of the innovation program.
Issue: W/N labor arbiter and NLRC have jurisdiction
Held: ART. 217. Jurisdiction of Labor Arbiters and the commission. (a) The Labor Arbiters shall have theoriginal and exclusive jurisdiction to hear and decide within thirty (30) working days after submission of the case by the parties for decision, the following cases involving are workers, whether agricultural or non-agricultural:
1. Unfair labor practice cases;
2. Those that workers may file involving wages, hours of work and other terms and conditions of employment;
3. All money claims of workers, including those based on non-payment or underpayment of wages, overtime compensation, separation pay and other benefits provided by law or appropriate agreement, except claims for employees' compensation, social security, medicare and maternity benefits;
4. Cases involving household services; and
5. Cases arising from any violation of Article 265 of this; Code, including questions involving the legality of strikes and lockouts.
(b) The Commission shall have exclusive appellate jurisdiction over all cases decided by Labor Arbiters. (Emphasis supplied)
The