Camporedondo V NLRC, Et Al., G.R. No. 129049, Aug. 06, 1999

G.R. No.
129049, August 06, 1999
370 Phil. 901
FIRST DIVISION
G.R. No. 129049, August 06, 1999
BALTAZAR G. CAMPOREDONDO, PETITIONER, VS.

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION (NLRC), FIFTH
DIVISION, CAGAYAN DE ORO CITY, THE PHILIPPINE
NATIONAL RED CROSS (PNRC), REPRESENTED BY
GOVERNOR ROMEO C. ESPINO AND DR. CELSO SAMSON,
RESPONDENTS.
DECISION
PARDO, J.:
At issue in this case is whether the Philippine National Red Cross (PNRC for short) is
a government owned and controlled corporation or it has been "impliedly converted to
a private organization" subject to the jurisdiction of labor tribunals in a complaint filed
by petitioner, a former PNRC chapter administrator in Surigao del Norte, for illegal
dismissal and damages, as he was forced to "retire" after he was required to restitute
shortages and unremitted collections in the total sum of P135,927.78.
Having obviously no merit, we dismiss the petition.
All suitors must come to court with clean hands. This is especially true of paid staff of
the Philippine National Red Cross. Like its unpaid volunteers, they must be men of
unquestioned honesty and integrity serving in selfless manner to aid the sick and
wounded of armed forces in time of war, acting in voluntary relief in time of peace
and war, maintaining a system of national and international relief in meeting
emergency relief needs caused by typhoons, floods, fires, earthquakes, and other
natural disasters, and promoting such service in time of peace and war to improve the
health, safety and welfare of the Filipino people.[1] Paid staff of the PNRC are
government employees who are members of the Government Service Insurance
System and covered by the Civil Service Law. Unlike government service in other
agencies, Red Cross service demands of its paid staff uberrima fides, the utmost good
faith and dedication to work.
Since 1980, petitioner was employed with the PNRC, and until his early "retirement"
on December 15, 1995, he was administrator of the Surigao del Norte Chapter,
Philippine National Red Cross.[2]
In July, 1995, a field auditor of the PNRC conducted an audit of the books of account
of the Surigao del Norte Chapter headed by petitioner and found him short in the total
sum of P109,000.00.[3]
On November 21, 1995, Dr. Celso Samson, Secretary General of the PNRC wrote
petitioner requiring him to restitute within seventy two (72) hours from notice, the
total sum of P135,927.78 representing cash shortage, technical shortage and
unremitted collections.[4]
On December 15, 1995, petitioner applied for early retirement from the service, and
later wrote Dr. Samson requesting for a re-audit by an independent auditor of his
accounts. However, Dr. Samson denied the request.[5]
1
G.R. No. 129049, August 06, 1999
On May 28, 1996, petitioner filed with the National Labor Relations Commission,
Sub-Regional Arbitration Branch X, Butuan City, a complaint for illegal dismissal,
damages and underpayment of wages against the Philippine National Red Cross and
its key officials.[6]
On June 14, 1996, respondent Philippine National Red Cross filed with the Surigao
del Norte provincial office, Department of Labor and Employment, a motion to
dismiss the complaint for lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter of the case
because the PNRC is a government corporation whose employees are members of the
Government Service Insurance System (GSIS), and embraced within the Civil Service
Law and regulations.[7]
On July 25, 1996, petitioner filed an opposition to motion to dismiss arguing that there
was between the PNRC and its duly appointed paid staff, an employer-employee
relationship, governed by the Labor Code of the Philippines.[8]
On October 11, 1996, the Labor Arbiter issued an order dismissing the complaint for
lack of jurisdiction, finding that the Philippine National Red Cross is a government
corporation with an original charter, having been created by Republic Act No. 95.[9]
On November 12, 1996, the Labor Arbiter denied petitioner's motion for
reconsideration filed on October 14, 1996.[10]
On November 20, 1996, petitioner filed a notice of appeal and appeal memorandum
with the National Labor Relations Commission.[11]
On March 21, 1997, the National Labor Relations Commission, Fifth Division, issued
a resolution dismissing the appeal and confirming the decision of the Labor Arbiter
that dismissed petitioner's complaint for lack of jurisdiction.[12]
Hence, this recourse.
On July 7, 1997, we resolved to require respondents to comment on the petition within

ten (10) days from notice.[13]
On August 7, 1997, respondent Philippine National Red Cross filed its comment.[14]
On November 7, 1997, the Solicitor General filed its comment.[15]
Resolving the issue set out in the opening paragraph of this opinion, we rule that the
Philippine National Red Cross (PNRC) is a government owned and controlled
corporation, with an original charter under Republic Act No. 95, as amended. The test
to determine whether a corporation is government owned or controlled, or private in
nature is simple. Is it created by its own charter for the exercise of a public function,
or by incorporation under the general corporation law? Those with special charters are
government corporations subject to its provisions, and its employees are under the
jurisdiction of the Civil Service Commission, and are compulsory members of the
Government Service Insurance System. The PNRC was not "impliedly converted to a
private corporation" simply because its charter was amended to vest in it the authority
to secure loans, be exempted from payment of all duties, taxes, fees and other charges
of all kinds on all importations and purchases for its exclusive use, on donations for its
disaster relief work and other services and in its benefits and fund raising drives, and
be alloted one lottery draw a year by the Philippine Charity Sweepstakes Office for the
support of its disaster relief operation in addition to its existing lottery draws for blood
program.
Having served in the Philippine National Red Cross for a number of years since his
2
G.R. No. 129049, August 06, 1999
initial employment, he must know that it is a government corporation with its own
charter and that he was covered by compulsory membership in the Government
Service Insurance System, which is why he could apply, as he did, for "early"
retirement from the service under Presidential Decree No. 1146 or Republic Act No.
1616.[16]
WHEREFORE, the Court hereby DISMISSES the petition, and AFFIRMS the
ruling of the National Labor Relations Commission.
Double costs taxed against petitioner.
SO ORDERED.
Davide, Jr., C.J., (Chairman), Puno, Kapunan, and Ynares-Santiago, JJ., concur.
[1]
Section 3, Rep. Act No. 95.
[2]
Par. 2, Complaint, Annex "A" Petition, Rollo, p. 15.
[3]
Par. 3, idem. Rollo, p. 16.
[4]
Par. 10, idem. Rollo, p. 18.
[5]
Pars. 11-12, idem. Rollo, pp. 18- 19.
[6]
Petition, Rollo, p. 4; Annex "A", Rollo, pp. 15-21.
[7]
Petition, Rollo, p. 4, Annex "B", Rollo, pp. 22-35.
[8]
Petition, Rollo, p. 5; Annex "C", Rollo, pp. 36-39.
[9]
Petition, Rollo, p. 5; Annex "F", pp. 64-69.
[10]
Petition, Rollo, p. 5; Annex "I", Rollo, p. 94.
[11]
Petition, Rollo, p. 5, Annexes "J", "J-1", Rollo, pp. 95-103.
[12]
Petition, Rollo, p. 5; Annex "L", pp. 111-114.
[13]
Rollo, p. 116.
[14]
Rollo, pp. 119-134.
[15]
Rollo, pp. 159-176.
[16]
Republic Act No. 8291, enacted on May 30, 1997, expanded the retirement rights
of government workers.

Camporedondo V NLRC, Et Al., G.R. No. 129049, Aug. 06, 1999

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Camporedondo V NLRC, Et Al., G.R. No. 129049, Aug. 06, 1999

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

G.R. No.

129049, August 06, 1999

370 Phil. 901

BALTAZAR G. CAMPOREDONDO, PETITIONER, VS.

Having obviously no merit, we dismiss the petition.

Hence, this recourse.

On July 7, 1997, we resolved to require respondents to comment on the petition within

Double costs taxed against petitioner.

You might also like