This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2011-08-17 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| In Nestle Philippines, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC),[18] the employees therein who were sales/medical representatives were allowed to avail of the company's car loan policy. Under the policy, the company advanced the purchase price of a car to be paid back by the employee through monthly deductions from his salary, but the company retained ownership of the motor vehicle until it shall have been fully paid for. Respondents-employees who availed of the car loan were later dismissed from the service for participating in an illegal strike. They filed a complaint for illegal dismissal with the Labor Arbiter which dismissed their complaint and upheld the legality of the employees' dismissal. While the appeal was then pending with the NLRC, the employees sought a temporary restraining order with the NLRC to stop Nestle company from canceling their loans and collecting their monthly amortizations pending the final resolution of their illegal dismissal case. The employees claimed that there was a labor dispute between them and petitioner Nestle, and that their default in paying their amortizations was brought about by their illegal dismissal from work by Nestle as punishment for their participation in the strike; that if they had not participated in the strike, they would not have been dismissed from work and they would not have defaulted in the payment of their amortizations. The employees admitted their civil obligations to the petitioner. We then held that: Nestlé's demand for payment of the private respondents' amortizations on their car loans, or, in the alternative, the return of the cars to the company, is not a labor, but a civil, dispute. It involves debtor-creditor relations, rather than employee-employer relations. | |||||