Title
Coca-Cola Salesforce Union vs. National Labor Relations Commission
Case
G.R. No. 116637
Decision Date
Apr 21, 1995
Employees dismissed over alleged delivery shortage filed illegal dismissal; Supreme Court ruled NLRC erred in remanding case and halting payroll reinstatement, upholding labor arbiter's decision.
A

Case Digest (G.R. No. 116637)

Facts:

Coca-Cola Salesforce Union, For and in Behalf of Its Members, Namely: Jerry Calibot and Romeo Duval v. National Labor Relations Commission, Coca‑Cola Bottlers Phils. Inc., Armand Capati and Jorge Cajator, G.R. No. 116637, April 21, 1995, the Supreme Court Second Division, Puno, J., writing for the Court.

Petitioner is the union suing for and in behalf of its members Jerry Calibot and Romeo Duval; respondents are the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) and Coca‑Cola Bottlers Phils., Inc. (with named corporate officers). Calibot and Duval were employed by Coca‑Cola (1987 and 1989 respectively). Following an allegation of a short delivery on October 3, 1992, they were asked to explain and were dismissed on April 23, 1993 with an order to restitute P7,652.00.

On May 18, 1993 Calibot and Duval filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, unfair labor practice and damages with the Department of Labor and Employment (docketed NLRC Case No. RAB‑III‑05‑5044‑93), assigned to Labor Arbiter Saludares. The parties agreed to submit the case on the record (position papers, replies and documentary evidence) without further hearing. The labor arbiter issued a Decision dated February 23, 1994 finding for the employees: awarding backwages, unpaid commissions and 13th‑month pay, and ordering immediate reinstatement or, at the employer’s option, reinstatement in the payroll; claims for ULP and moral/exemplary damages were dismissed.

Private respondent appealed to the NLRC. In a Resolution dated May 16, 1994 the NLRC’s Third Division (Presiding Commissioner Lourdes C. Javier, ponente) modified the arbiter’s decision by remanding the illegal dismissal issue to the labor arbiter for further proceedings and clarification, while affirming other findings. Petitioner moved for reconsideration. By Resolution dated July 20, 1994 the NLRC denie...(Subscriber-Only)

Issues:

  • Did the NLRC commit grave abuse of discretion in remanding the issue of illegal dismissal to the labor arbiter after the parties had submitted the case on the record?
  • Was the NLRC justified in ordering the stoppage of Calibot’s and Duval’s payroll reinstatement pending finalit...(Subscriber-Only)

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.