You are on page 1of 2

PNOC Energy Development Corporation vs NLRC, 201 SCRA 487 (1991) FACTS: Private respondent Danilo Mercado was

s employed by petitioner Phil. National Oil Company-Energy Development Corp. (PNOC-EDC). Mercado held various positions ranging from clerk, general clerk to shipping clerk during his employment at its Cebu office until his transfer to its establishment at Oriental Negros. Mercado was dismissed due to alleged serious acts of dishonesty and violation of rules and regulations. Mercado purchased 1,400 pieces of nipa shingles from Mrs. Leonardo Nodado for the total purchase price of Pl,680.00. Against company policy, regulations and specific orders, Danilo Mercado withdrew the nipa shingles from the supplier but paid the amount of P1,000.00 only. Mercado appropriated the balance of P680.00 for his personal use; In the same transaction, the supplier agreed to give the company a discount of P70.00 which Mercado did not report to the company; Mercado was instructed to contract the services of Fred R. Melon for the fabrication of rubber stamps, for the total amount of P28.66. Mercado paid the amount of P20.00 to Fred R. Melon and appropriated for his personal use the balance of P8.66. Mercado was absent from work without leave, without proper turn-over of his work, causing disruption and delay of work activities; Mercado went on vacation leave without prior leave, against company policy, rules and regulations. Mercado filed for illegal dismissal, retirement benefits, separation pay, unpaid wages, etc. against PNOCEDC before the NLRC. PNOC-EDC praying for the dismissal of the case on the ground that the Labor Arbiter and/or the NLRC had no jurisdiction. The Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of private respondent Mercado. Petition for certiorari to set aside the Resolution of NLRC which affirmed the decision of Labor Arbiter Vito J. Minoria. ISSUE:
1. Whether or not matters of employment affecting the PNOC-EDC, a government-owned and controlled

corporation, are within the jurisdiction of the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC.
2. Whether or not the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC are justified in ordering the reinstatement of private

respondent RULING: 1. Yes. PNOC-EDC having been incorporated under the General Corporation Law was held to be a GOCC whose employees are subject to the provisions of the Labor Code.

The test in determining whether a government-owned or controlled corporation is subject to the Civil Service Law are the manner of its creation, such that government corporations created by special charter are subject to its provisions while those incorporated under the General Corporation Law are not within its coverage. The fact that the case arose at the time when the 1973 Constitution was still in effect, does not deprive the NLRC of jurisdiction on the premise that it is the 1987 Constitution that governs because it is the Constitution in place at the time of the decision. 2. PNOC-EDC's accusations of dishonesty and violations of company rules are not supported by evidence. While it is true that loss of trust or breach of confidence is a valid ground for dismissing an employee, such loss or breach of trust must have some basis. Petition is denied.

You might also like