Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 351 views

    4 Pepsi Cola V Martinez

    Uploaded by

    Christiane Marie Bajada
    - Abraham Tumala Jr. filed a complaint against Pepsi-Cola Bottling Co., its president, and other officers for unpaid wages and damages related to his termination as a salesman. He claimed he was owed a house and lot prize for winning a sales contest in 1979. - Pepsi-Cola moved to dismiss, arguing the court did not have jurisdiction and Tumala was not actually the top salesman due to fraudulent actions. - The Supreme Court ruled the Labor Arbiter of the National Labor Relations Commission has exclusive jurisdiction over the case because it involves claims arising from an employer-employee relationship. Allowing different aspects of the case to be heard by different courts would result in split jurisdiction and multiple lawsuits

    Copyright:

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

    4 Pepsi Cola V Martinez

    Uploaded by

    Christiane Marie Bajada
    351 views2 pages
    - Abraham Tumala Jr. filed a complaint against Pepsi-Cola Bottling Co., its president, and other officers for unpaid wages and damages related to his termination as a salesman. He claimed he was owed a house and lot prize for winning a sales contest in 1979. - Pepsi-Cola moved to dismiss, arguing the court did not have jurisdiction and Tumala was not actually the top salesman due to fraudulent actions. - The Supreme Court ruled the Labor Arbiter of the National Labor Relations Commission has exclusive jurisdiction over the case because it involves claims arising from an employer-employee relationship. Allowing different aspects of the case to be heard by different courts would result in split jurisdiction and multiple lawsuits

    Original Title

    4 Pepsi Cola v Martinez.docx

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    - Abraham Tumala Jr. filed a complaint against Pepsi-Cola Bottling Co., its president, and other officers for unpaid wages and damages related to his termination as a salesman. He claimed he was owed a house and lot prize for winning a sales contest in 1979. - Pepsi-Cola moved to dismiss, arguing the court did not have jurisdiction and Tumala was not actually the top salesman due to fraudulent actions. - The Supreme Court ruled the Labor Arbiter of the National Labor Relations Commission has exclusive jurisdiction over the case because it involves claims arising from an employer-employee relationship. Allowing different aspects of the case to be heard by different courts would result in split jurisdiction and multiple lawsuits

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    351 views2 pages

    4 Pepsi Cola V Martinez

    Uploaded by

    Christiane Marie Bajada
    - Abraham Tumala Jr. filed a complaint against Pepsi-Cola Bottling Co., its president, and other officers for unpaid wages and damages related to his termination as a salesman. He claimed he was owed a house and lot prize for winning a sales contest in 1979. - Pepsi-Cola moved to dismiss, arguing the court did not have jurisdiction and Tumala was not actually the top salesman due to fraudulent actions. - The Supreme Court ruled the Labor Arbiter of the National Labor Relations Commission has exclusive jurisdiction over the case because it involves claims arising from an employer-employee relationship. Allowing different aspects of the case to be heard by different courts would result in split jurisdiction and multiple lawsuits

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    G.R. No.

    L-58877 March 15, 1982

    PEPSI-COLA BOTTLING COMPANY, COSME DE ABOITIZ, and ALBERTO M.


    DACUYCUY, petitioners,
    vs.
    HON. JUDGE ANTONIO M. MARTINEZ, in his official capacity, and ABRAHAM TUMALA,
    JR., respondents.

    FACTS

     On September 19, 1980, respondent Abraham Tumala, Jr. filed a complaint against
    petitioners Pepsi-Cola Bottling Co., Inc., its president Cosme de Aboitiz and other
    company officers.
    o First cause of action: Tumala was a salesman of the company in Davao City from
    1977 up to August 21, 1980; that in the annual "Sumakwel" contest conducted by
    the company in 1979, Tumala was declared winner of the "Lapu-Lapu Award" for
    his performance as top salesman of the year, earning him a prize of a house and
    lot
    o Second cause of action: alleged that on August 21, 1980, petitioners ", "arbitrarily
    and ilegally" terminated his employment
     Petitioners moved to dismiss the complaint
    o grounds of lack of jurisdiction and cause of action
    o alleged that Tumala was not entitled to the "Sumakwel" prize for having misled
    the company into declaring him top salesman for 1979 through various deceitful
    and fraudulent manipulations and machinations
    ISSUE:

     Which tribunal has exclusive jurisdiction over an action filed by an employee against his
    employer for recovery of unpaid salaries, separation benefits and damages — the court
    of general jurisdiction or the Labor Arbiter of the National Labor Relations Commission
    [NLRC]?
    RULING:

     We rule that the Labor Arbiter has exclusive jurisdiction over the case.
     Since the jurisdiction of courts and judicial tribunals is derived exclusively from the
    statutes of the forum, the issue efore Us should be resolved on the basis of the law or
    statute now in force. We find that law in Presidential Decree 1691 which took effect on
    May 1, 1980.
    o Under paragraphs 3 and 5 of the above Presidential Decree, the case is
    exclusively cognizable by the Labor Arbiters of the National Labor Relations
    Commission
     It is to be noted that P.D. 1691 is an exact reproduction of Article 217 of the Labor Code
    (P.D. 442), which took effect on May 1, 1974
     In Garcia vs. Martinez, We held that under Article 217 of the Labor Code, the law then in
    force, the case was within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Labor Arbiters and the
    National Labor Relations Commission [NLRC].
     Art. 217 of the Labor Code was amended by PD 1367, which was promulgated on May,
    1, 1978.
     However, on May 1, 1980, Article 217, as amended by P.D. 1367, was amended anew
    by P.D. 1691. This last decree, which is a verbatim reproduction of the original test of
    Article 217 of the Labor Code, restored to the Labor Arbiters of the NLRC exclusive
    jurisdiction over claims, money or otherwise, arising from employer-employee relations,
    except those expressly excluded therefrom.
     The claim for said prize unquestionably arose from an employer-employee relation and,
    therefore, falls within the coverage of par. 5 of P.D. 1691, which speaks of "all claims
    arising from employer-employee relations, unless expressly excluded by this Code."
    Indeed, Tumala would not have qualitfied for the content, much less won the prize, if he
    was not an employee of the company at the time of the holding of the contest.
    o the cause advanced by petitioners to justify their refusal to deliver the prize—the
    alleged fraudulent manipulations committed by Tumala in connection with his
    duties as salesman of the company—involves an inquiry into his actuations as an
    employee
     Besides, to hold that Tumala's claim for the prize should be passed upon by the regular
    court of justice, independently and separately from his claim for back salaries, retirement
    benefits and damages, would be to sanction split juridiction and multiplicity of suits which
    are prejudicial to the orderly administration of justice.

    You might also like